United States        Office of Emergency and    EPA/540/8-89/011
             Environmental Protection   Remedial Response      September 1989
             Agency          Washington DC 20460

             Superfund
x>EPA       An Analysis of State
             Superfund Programs

             50-State Study

-------
                                           EPA/540/8-89/011
                                           Sept.  1989
           AN ANALYSIS OF STATE
   SUPERFUND PROGRAMS:  50-State Study
                  September 1989
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
            Hazardous Site Control Division
               Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
                       NOTICE
This document  was  prepared by  the  Environmental  Law
Institute for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
contract No. 68-W8-0098.
                           11

-------
           ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Cathy O'Connell served as EPA Project  Officer under the
supervision of Murray Newton and William Ross, State and
Local Coordination  Branch.   Environmental  Law Institute
staff contributing  to the report  were Dr. Glen Anderson
(Project  Manager),  James McElfish,  John  Pendergrass,  Lisa
St.  Amand,  Laura  Kosloff, Ann  DeBossu, Fran  Greenleaf,
Andrew  Moyad, Michael Malecek, and Jessica Mark.  EPA
also acknowledges the assistance of State superfund officials
and staff.
                           111

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                 Page No.
List of Figures and Tables  	     v
List of Acronyms	     vi
I.    INTRODUCTION	     1
II.   RESEARCH METHODOLOGY  	     3
in.   STATE "SUPERFUND" PROGRAMS  	     5
     A. Overview of Cleanup Activities and Capabilities  	     5
     B. Statutes	     6
     C. Hazardous Waste Sites  	     7
     D. Program Organization	     12
     E. Funding	     18
     F. Enforcement 	     26
     G. Cleanup Policies and Criteria 	     32
     H. Public Participation	     35
TABLES 	     38
IV.   STATE SUMMARIES  	     99
     Region I	     101
     Region H  	     114
     Region m	     119
     Region IV	     130
     Region V  	     147
     Region VI	     160
     Region VII 	     171
     Region VIII	     180
      Region IX	      193
      Region X  	     202

APPENDIX -- Sample Information Worksheet	     211
                                     IV

-------
                        FIGURES  AND TABLES
                                                                    Page No.
Figures
   FIGURE HI-1  Final and Proposed NPL Sites	      8
   FIGURE m-2  State Hazardous Waste Sites Needing Attention	      9
   FIGURE m-3  State "Superfund" Program Staff	      14
   FIGURE HI-4  SMOAs Signed or in Negotiation/Draft Stage   	      17
   FIGURE m-5  Fund Balances	      21
   FIGURE IV-1  EPA Regions	      100

Tables
   TABLE HI-1   Overview of State Cleanup Activities
                 and Capabilities  	      39
   TABLE ffl-2   Statutory Authorities and Provisions  	      42
   TABLE m-3   Hazardous Waste Sites	      48
   TABLE ffl-4   Program Organization   	      53
   TABLE m-5   Program Administration and Staff: Funding Sources  ....      58
   TABLE IH-6   State/Federal Partnership	      62
   TABLE Ifl-7   Funding of State Cleanup Funds	      66
   TABLE m-8   Use of State Cleanup Funds  	      72
   TABLE IH-9   Liability Standards  	      78
   TABLE in-10  Penalties and Punitive Damages	      82
   TABLE m-11  State Cleanup Policies and Criteria	      86
   TABLE in-12  State Public Participation and Procedures  	      92

-------
                          LIST OF  ACRONYMS

AG       -  Attorney General
ARARs    -  Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
ASTWMO -  Association of State and Territorial Waste Management Officials
CA       -  Cooperative Agreement
CERCLA  -  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS  -  Comprehensive  Environmental  Response,   Compensation,  and  Liability
             Information System
ELI       -  Environmental Law Institute
FTE      -  Full-time Equivalent
GAO      -  General Accounting Office
HRS      -  Hazard Ranking System
LUST     -  Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MA       -  Management Assistance Grant
MCL      -  Maximum  Contaminant Levels
MSCA    -  Multi-Site  Cooperative Agreement
NCP      -  National Contingency Plan
NPL      -  National Priority List
OGC      -  Office of General Counsel
O&M     -  Operation  and Maintenance
PA/SI     -  Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation
PRP      -  Potentially Responsible Party
RA       -  Remedial Action
RCRA    -  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD       -  Remedial Design
RI/FS     -  Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD      -  Record of Decision
RP       -  Responsible Party
SARA    -  Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SMOA    -  Superfund Memorandum of Agreement
TAG      -  Technical  Assistance Grant
UST      -  Underground Storage Tank
                                       VI

-------
                                   CHAPTER I

                               INTRODUCTION
       In  the nearly nine years that have passed since the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, generally referred to as  Superfund)
became law, the  enormity  of the problems associated  with hazardous  waste sites has
become overwhelmingly apparent.   Coordinated cleanup efforts  between Federal and State
authorities  are  currently  treating numerous sites  targeted by the  National Priorities List
(NPL); still, a vast number of known or suspected waste sites are not eligible for inclusion
on the NPL and, if they are to be  addressed, will have to be addressed by the States.   In
certain cases States may feel compelled to respond  in a  manner that is more stringent  or
timely than might be possible in joint Federal-State efforts.   Where  joint  efforts  are
required,  Federal  and State authorities  need  to ensure  that their actions  are mutually
supportive  but  not duplicative.   For these reasons,  the  role of the States in addressing
hazardous waste  sites, independently and in concert with the  Federal  government, will
become increasingly important as the numbers of both NPL and non-NPL sites grow.

       States now are responsible for enforcing  or funding cleanups at non-NPL sites;  at
NPL  sites,  their responsibility  ranges  from  required cost  sharing  at Federal fund-lead
cleanups to  lead action in site activities.   The prospects for increasing State involvement at
both NPL and non-NPL sites depends on the willingness  and  capacity of States to develop
effective programs, supported by adequate resources to fund cleanups,  pursue enforcement
to obtain private cleanups, and conduct oversight activities.

       A key step in  enhancing the Federal-State partnership on  Superfund is  to understand
State  superfund  programs aimed at NPL  and non-NPL  sites.  This is the object  of the
present report,  which summarizes  the results  of a study  completed by the Environmental
Law Institute  (ELI) for the  Environmental Protection Agency's  Office of Emergency  and
Remedial  Response, Hazardous Site Control Division, State and Local Coordination Branch.
The study examines site cleanup capabilities in all fifty States and  provides descriptions  of
statutes,  program  organization,  funding,  and  cleanup procedures.   The report provides
detailed information for each State  in a "State  Summaries" chapter  and  in fifty-State tables
that facilitate comparisons between States.
Purpose of the  Study

       Under  the Superfund Amendments  and Reauthorization  Act  (SARA)  of  1986,
Congress requires the EPA to involve States in the Superfund program in a "substantial and
meaningful" way.  The State and Local Coordination Branch (SLCB) is  responsible for
developing regulations, guidance,  and policy related  to  this Congressional mandate.   In
order to fulfill its responsibilities, the SLCB  needs comprehensive information about  State
capabilities  to  contribute to or  manage  cleanups  at hazardous waste  sites.   Under the
direction  of  the EPA  Project  Manager,  ELI  collected,  organized,  and  summarized
information on State cleanup programs.

-------
Organization of the Report

       The  remainder  of the report is  divided into three substantive chapters.  Chapter n
describes  the research methodology and data collection  effort.   An overview  of  State
Superfund programs is provided in Chapter HI.  This overview examines statutes, program
funding and organization, enforcement, and the remediation process.   Chapter IV contains
two-page summaries of each State program.  For  those  States that do not have superfund
programs, the summaries focus on States' capabilities to address hazardous waste sites  using
other authorities and resources.

       This  report represents a "snapshot" of State cleanup programs even though they are
in constant  flux and  information about  them is continuously  being updated.  For the
purposes of this  report, we have used State information  that was available  on or before
August 29,  1989.  States were provided an opportunity to review and update information in
the drafts of the State  Summaries prepared in May.   Over  half of  the  States  provided
revised program information before the cutoff date.

-------
                                  CHAPTER II

                       RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
       To ensure that the information for this report would be complete, accurate,  and up
to date,  the  project team  spent  several weeks  gathering and analyzing research  reports,
statutes, regulations, and State documents, interviewing State program staff, and confirming
information for each State.   A detailed account of the research methodology is presented in
this chapter.

       The project team first  reviewed  recent  studies  and  surveys  pertaining to  State
superfund programs; these are noted in the bibliography.  Of particular note are the  surveys
conducted by the  Association of State  and Territorial Solid Waste  Management Officials
(ASTSWMO) and the  National Association of Attorneys General on funding mechanisms
and statutory authorities, respectively.  Current statutes related to superfund programs and
other  State cleanup authorities were also collected from State program offices or libraries.

       Using an ASTSWMO contact  list as an initial source of referrals, program offices in
each  State  were  contacted  to  request  relevant statutes  and any  available  background
information.  The  type of material received from State offices varied widely.   The project
team  received  annual  program status  reports, program  descriptions, regulations, and site
inventory information, depending upon availability.

       A  worksheet  was  developed  to organize  information  on each  State.    State
worksheets were  completed to  the extent  possible  using  all  available  information  on
programs  and State  statutes.  An example  worksheet is provided in  Appendix A of  the
report.

       All State offices were then contacted to arrange telephone interviews. In most  cases
a  copy  of  the worksheet  was  sent several days  beforehand  to indicate the  scope of
questions that would be  asked and to give program staff an opportunity  to prepare for  the
interview.  If the staff declined to be interviewed, they were asked to complete and return
the worksheet.

       Telephone interviews were conducted by the project team  to obtain  information that
was unavailable from secondary sources, clarify ambiguities in statutes or other documents,
and confirm information  that had previously been compiled.   Often, both remedial program
and enforcement staff were interviewed.

       The information for each State was prepared in  two formats:

              1) a final version of the worksheet, and
              2) a 2-page summary.

-------
The  EPA sent each  State program office  the  summary for that  State in order  to  obtain
comments and revisions.  State comments in  some cases necessitated a revision of  the
worksheet and summary.

       A set of tables  was prepared for the fifty States.  These  are presented in Chapter
in.  The information from the worksheets has also been put into a "Lotus 1-2-3" computer
database to allow for easier updates.

-------
                                  CHAPTER III

                   STATE "SUPERFUND"  PROGRAMS
       The passage of CERCLA  authorized the EPA to establish a  Superfund program to
address the risks posed  by hazardous  waste  sites.   Since CERCLA became law, many
States  have enacted laws  and developed programs with authorities and capabilities similar
to the  Federal Superfund  program.   In  general, a State "superfund"  program  has  some or
all of the following characteristics:

       1)  procedures  for  emergency  response actions and  longer-term  remediation  of
       environmental and  health  risks  at hazardous  waste sites,  including both NPL  and
       non-NPL sites;

       2)  provisions for  a  fund  or other financing  mechanisms  to pay for  studies  and
       remediation activities;

       3) enforcement authorities  to compel responsible parties (RPs) to conduct or pay for
       studies and/or remediation;

       4) staff to manage  publicly-funded cleanups and oversee RP-lead cleanups.

       In this chapter, information on State  "superfund" programs is  presented for all fifty
States.   The chapter highlights similarities and differences among State statutes and State
programs in  areas such as cleanup and oversight capabilities, cleanup  standards,  funding,
enforcement authorities, program organization, and staffing.

A. Overview of Cleanup  Activities and Capabilities

       One  of  the  goals  of this project was to provide a general assessment of  States'
efforts  and capabilities  to address  hazardous  waste  sites.   This was a formidable task
because of the dynamic nature of funding and the many changes  that have occurred in the
last few years.   Many States have enacted "superfund" legislation within the last two years
and have not reached operational  levels  in terms of funding and staffing. Thus, in addition
to the  many programs that embody  the  "superfund" attributes above,  there are  a number of
emerging programs that have only recently been authorized or received initial funds, or
expect to receive funding in the near future.

       Table III-l summarizes States' capabilities and cleanup activities  at the  present time.
Thirty-nine (39) States have funds  and  enforcement authorities.  Twenty-five  (25)  out of
these 39 States  are actively involved in managing removals and remedial actions at non-
NPL sites.   Some of these  States also  manage  or oversee cleanups  at  NPL sites  as well.
Fourteen (14) out of the 39  States with funds and enforcement authorities  have limited
superfund activities at present   Typically,  the limited activity  is  attributable to zero or
insignificant  fund balances  and/or  inadequate  staffing levels.    In  some instances (e.g.,
Iowa),  the State's fund is  replenished  at specific time intervals and  the lull in cleanup

-------
activities is temporary.  Activities  are limited in several  States because legislation was only
recently enacted and funds have not yet been appropriated to operate the program.

       The remaining eleven  (11)  States have limited cleanup capabilities or enforcement
authorities.   Six  (6) have removal or emergency response programs  but limited  remedial
action  authorities or capabilities (typically because of severely limited funds).   Under  the
Federal Superfund, "removal or emergency response"  refers  to actions  that may be taken to
prevent or mitigate a release  of hazardous  materials  in circumstances posing  an imminent
and  substantial danger  to public  health or the environment.   Removal actions  may be
needed in a variety  of  situations,  including  accidents  during transport  and  at  active
hazardous waste facilities, and releases at inactive sites.  In contrast  to the  stopgap  nature
of removal actions, "remedial  action"  is intended to effect permanent or long-term  solutions
that  address  two   aspects  of  site  remediation—source  control  and   waste  migration
management-and  meet  legally   applicable  or  relevant  and   appropriate  requirements
(ARARs).

       The  other  five  States  do  not  have  State superfund programs  per g£  (although
legislation  to establish  a fund is pending in both Nebraska  and  Delaware),  yet each
addresses  hazardous waste sites  in  some  manner.   Nebraska  can  use its  groundwater
regulations  to order  remediation  of  groundwater  pollution  that occurred   after  1978.
Delaware  relies on appropriations  to fund  its emergency  response  and removal activities.
Oklahoma  and Georgia both  use  RCRA-type laws  to  order cleanups at superfund sites,
although the  statutory authority of each is very different: Oklahoma  may act only in  regard
to permitting requirements, while  Georgia,  unique among the States,  has broad corrective
action  authority that includes certain superfund capabilities.  Colorado  has  a  fund but limits
its use to CERCLA cost-share and  related administrative costs at NPL  sites.

B. Statutes

        Many  States  have  enacted laws in  the  image of CERCLA that  establish State
response funds and typically include provisions  for enforcement  authorities, a State priority
list,  and remedy  selection criteria.  In  some  States,  provisions for a  cleanup  program  and
enforcement  authorities may be  contained  in  one statute,  while a separate act creates  a
State response fund and defines its uses, restrictions, and preconditions for use.

       Table  ni-2  provides a  summary of the principal  cleanup  statutes  and selected
provisions for the fifty  States.  All but two States, Delaware  and Nebraska, have a cleanup
fund or an account that can be tapped for  some or all types of cleanup costs.  (Delaware,
while  it does not technically have  a  fund,  does  receive  appropriations  for  emergency
response and CERCLA cost-share.) Much  greater detail on funding is provided in Section
E of this chapter.

       Eleven  (11) States use enforcement  authorities contained in statutes that  were  not
specifically  intended to address hazardous waste sites.   The largest  superfund program in
this  category is Michigan,  which relies on  enforcement authorities contained in numerous
State  environmental statutes.    Only  Colorado  and Idaho  do  not  have at  least  limited
enforcement  authorities  (see Section F for more details).

-------
       Twenty (20)  States make use  of (or  are  authorized to develop) a priority list for
State  sites.   A priority list typically is one  of three types: (1) a  list  similar to the  NPL
comprised  of sites identified  by a  minimum threshold score;  (2)  a ranking of sites  that
determines the  order in which sites  should be addressed;  and  (3)  a  multi-tiered list
indicating the urgency and extent of remediation required.  A number of  States also  have
an inventory, list, or registry of sites which are of particular interest or concern to the  State
(see Section C below).

       Fifteen (15) States have citizen suit provisions in their statutes.  These  provisions
allow parties who are or will be adversely affected by a release or threat of a release of a
hazardous  substance  to  file  a  civil action requiring that the responsible parties prevent
further damage or take  corrective action.  Courts may also assess penalties in civil actions
filed  by citizens.   In Massachusetts  the court  may award costs,  including attorney  and
expert witness fees.   Citizen  suits and property transfer programs  (discussed below) provide
alternative  methods for accomplishing cleanups outside of the superfund process.

       Eleven (11) States have provisions for compensating  victims of  hazardous  waste
releases.   In  six  (6) States,  this compensation  is  limited to reimbursement for costs of
securing temporary or permanent alternative water supplies.  The remaining  five (5) States
are authorized to  compensate victims  for a broader array of  release-related expenses.  In
practice, most claims are for replacement of water supplies or relocation.

       A recent  development  at the  State level is  the  property  transfer program.    The
objective of a property transfer program is to ensure that real property, in  the process of
being transferred,  does  not  pose health or environmental risks related to  hazardous  waste
releases.   Basically, owners of certain classes of property must file  a negative declaration
concerning past  or present storage, disposal, or release of hazardous  waste at the property,
or obtain  State  approval prior  to property transfer.  In  either  case, remediation  may be
required.   Four (4)  States-New Jersey, Illinois, Connecticut, and Iowa—have  mandatory
property transfer programs;  a fifth State, Minnesota, has  a voluntary program.  The  New
Jersey and Illinois  programs  apply  to  a broad category  of industrial  and commercial
properties  while the programs  in Connecticut and Iowa apply to a more limited group of
properties  (hazardous waste establishments in Connecticut, properties listed on the registry
of sites  in Iowa).  Minnesota  provides information on risks and advice on  remediation to
property owners and potential buyers.

C. Hazardous Waste Sites

       Estimates  of hazardous  waste  sites in the fifty  States vary  greatly.  Despite the
uncertainty surrounding estimates of existing  sites and the risks they pose,  the number of
sites reported in  a State can indicate  the level of current program activity,  as well as the
need  for future cleanup  activity.   Table IJJ-3  reports the number  of sites contained in
various categories of hazardous waste sites in each of the fifty States.  Figure HJ-1 reports
the number of sites on the Federal  NPL list.  Other  categories of State sites  reported in the
table  include  an estimate of the total number of hazardous  waste  sites  existing in  each
State,  the  number of those  sites which may require cleanup attention, any formal  State
priority  list,  and  any  State  inventory  or registry  of  sites.   Figure  IJJ-2  illustrates the
distribution of State sites needing cleanup attention.

-------

-------
                                                   o
                                                   It—
                                                   c
                                                   o
                                                   c
                                                         o
                                                      o  o
                                                      O  O o
                                                      ro  >— O
                                       00
                                       LJ
                                       H;
                                       oo
O O O
o o o
r- T- ro
     *
    z
    o
    K
    z
    LJ
_L  O
=  ~Z.
    CO
    LJ
    K
    CO

    LJ


    £
    CO

-------
       Approximately twenty  (20) State statutes require the development of a priority list
(see Table m-2).  At least twenty-one  (21) States reported compiling such a list, however.
Generally, a priority list requires prioritization of sites through a ranking, scoring, or formal
screening procedure.  Many States report a less formal listing of sites,  called an inventory
or registry, which generally contains all identified, investigated, unconfirmed,  and potential
sites.  At least twenty-eight (28)  States reported a registry or inventory of sites.   Often a
State inventory or  registry  closely matches  State  sites  shown on the  Comprehensive
Environmental  Response,  Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) list
compiled by the EPA.  In addition, the CERCLIS number is generally used by States as an
upper bound estimate of their  hazardous waste sites.

       Priority  Lists

       Of the twenty-one (21) States that  report having a priority list,  11 follow  a formal
ranking process using the Hazard Ranking System (HRS)  or  another  scoring system.   (The
HRS is used to assign hazardous waste sites a numerical  score indicating the probable risks
and potential impacts of  hazards  posed by each site; high-scoring  sites are  placed on the
NPL to be dealt with on  a priority basis.)  Ten  (10) States organize their priority  lists into
priority areas or tiered ranks.   It is  not uncommon for State lists  to contain some or all of
the State's NPL sites.

       For example, South Carolina's State Priorities List includes  all sites that score 28.5
or less according to the HRS (in other words, those sites that  do not qualify for  inclusion
on  the NPL).   Maryland compiles a Disposal Sites Registry, which is a list of ranked sites,
including NPL  sites, requiring remedial action.   The Registry  in  this  case  serves  as a
priority list.  Maryland also keeps a Master List of sites that are not formally ranked but
are  evaluated in terms  of potential  hazards to public health  and  the  environment,  risks of
fire and explosion, toxic  hazard, and other criteria established in CERCLA.   According to
the  categories  of this study,  this Master List of sites serves the function of an informal
registry.

       Site  tracking systems  often reflect  the  organization of the  cleanup  program.
Vermont, which combines all hazardous waste  issues into one program, has a priority list
of  sites that contains  NPL sites  and all types  of hazardous waste  sites, including  active
TSD facilities and  uncontrolled sites.   In addition, Vermont maintains a site discovery file
containing suspected and unconfirmed sites.

       Upon completion of the remedy, sites  may remain on a priority list, be delisted, or
be  moved to  another  category  on the list    California, for  instance,  has a  three-tiered
priority list— immediate,  substantial, and limited threats—for  sites needing cleanup.   When
remediation has been completed, sites are moved to the Certified Sites List.

       At least three (3)  State statutes  require that a site  be  listed on a formal priority list
before the expenditure of funds on remedial actions or studies.  Pennsylvania must  list sites
on a priority list in order to spend remedial action  monies.   Expenditure from Arkansas's
fund is limited to sites on the State Priority List, which is divided into two categories: A)
sites that require investigation or a study  of remedial alternatives and B)  sites that require
remediation.  Utah will also restrict fund expenditures to sites on the priority list  it is now
developing, which will include NPL and non-NPL sites.

                                           10

-------
       Inventory/Registry

       A State inventory or registry  of sites  is usually a list of hazardous waste sites that
is  broader than a priority list, and often includes unconfirmed or unscreened sites.  Twenty-
nine (29)  States report keeping an inventory  or registry of sites.  Connecticut's statute, for
example, creates  a site inventory and  requires a site  to be listed  on the inventory before
any funds are expended.  Maine's list  includes sites that have been cleaned up, as well as
those needing further action, no  action, or inspection.  Massachusetts'  inventory  contains
several subsets: locations to be  investigated, confirmed disposal sites, a remedial list, and  a
list of delisted sites.   Ohio's  informal  list  contains  sites categorized  after a preliminary
assessment as high, medium, or low priority.

       Iowa's State Abandoned and Uncontrolled Sites Registry classifies sites in a five-tier
system: imminent  threat, significant threat, not a significant threat, closed with management
needed, and  closed with no management needed  (no further  action required).  Missouri's
site registry also has  five classifications.  Florida's Sites List contains investigated sites  that
are not yet prioritized.  In Texas, a facility cannot be  listed  on the State  Registry if the
potential endangerment can  be resolved under other authorities.

       State  budgeting also affects the  development of site categorization.   Louisiana is
statutorily  required  to  develop an  inventory list,  but  inadequate funding  has  delayed
program staff from carrying out this requirement.

       In  many cases  it is difficult to draw distinctions between a  priority  list and  a
registry or inventory  because of the different methods used throughout the States.  Many
States  use  the Federal CERCLIS  list  as a State inventory.   Rhode Island,  for example,
quotes the CERCLIS  number for existing sites in the  State.   In addition, States  may  use
other systems for keeping track of sites.  For instance, New Jersey does not have a priority
list but instead tracks major remedial actions using a status report format.

       Ranking Systems

       Not all States have  a formal  site ranking process.   Many do score  sites, however,
using a variety of ranking  methods,  including the Federal Hazard  Ranking  System (HRS),
modified HRS methods,  and non-quantitative ranking  systems.   Tennessee,  for example,
ranks sites according to the HRS.  The Michigan Site Assessment Model (MSAS) differs
from HRS  in various  ways. MSAS  measures potential exposure by direct contact, fire, or
explosion  - factors not included  in  the HRS  numerical score.   The  MSAS also assigns
points  for  drinking water  affected by contamination  if no permanent  supply replaces it.
Because of the effort necessary for MSAS scoring,  Michigan's  practice is to do an initial
screening and fully score only those sites over a certain screening level.

       Sites on Minnesota's Permanent List of Priorities (PLP)  are ranked using the HRS,
with  minor  modifications  that  tailor  it to  Minnesota's   specific  conditions.   Similarly,
Wisconsin  has modified the HRS to take greater  account  of waste types, populated areas,
and the effects of rainfall on leachate.
                                           11

-------
       New York has  recently developed  a scoring system  that combines three ranking
systems:  the HRS, a State-developed Health Ranking Model (emphasizing human exposure),
and  a State-developed  Biothreat Ranking Model (emphasizing natural resource damages).
New Jersey uses a Severity Index, modeled after the HRS, to group  sites into six "action"
categories. Montana uses a non-quantitative ranking system based on the following factors:
1) contamination of a drinking water  supply, 2) air contamination that may pose a health
threat, 3) contamination of surface waters that  provide  recreation and  drinking water, 4)
impacts on wildlife, and 5) danger of fire or explosion.

D. Program  Organization

       Administration of a State's program to clean up hazardous waste sites  is invariably
centered  in the State agency with primary  responsibility for  environmental matters.   The
responsible agency's entire focus may  be on environmental protection, as  with New Jersey's
Department of Environmental  Protection, or its duties  may  be  broader, e.g.,  Colorado's
Department of Health.  Table IJJ-4 lists the responsible agencies for the fifty States.

       Of greater interest than  the identity of the responsible agency are the methods by
which the States structure and  staff  their cleanup programs.    Most  States  place  their
cleanup  personnel within  the  agency  division  responsible for  waste  management.    The
organization of each State cleanup program  is unique,  however,  and  it is difficult to make
generalizations concerning program  administration.    Table ITJ-4 presents  by  name the
specific units  within the State agencies that constitute the States'  cleanup programs, as  well
as  their  staff levels.   The examples highlighted below represent some of the  more
interesting organizational features the States are implementing.

       Divisions Within Programs

       Many cleanup programs  are divided into several units, each with responsibility for a
different program element.  In  Maine, for example,  the Uncontrolled Sites Program consists
of  eleven  (11)  staff,  split  into  three  sections—administrative  support  and  two  site
management  units.   The administrative  support  section handles  grants, policy review, and
development  of the site ranking  system,  and is funded  through  the State's  CORE grant
Site management units  supervise sites from discovery through cost recovery.

       Pennsylvania  has a  significantly  larger staff (over  100  people) and  a   more
complicated program  structure for dealing with site  cleanup.  Thirty (30) people are located
in the Department  of Environmental Resource's (DER) Hazardous Sites Cleanup Program,
which has four sections: site assessment, Federally-funded cleanup, enforcement, and State-
funded cleanup.  These headquarters staff are assisted by  forty-two (42)  technical personnel
in six regional offices.      In  addition, the DER's Bureau of Laboratories has  seven (7)
positions  for State Superfund work, and the Office of Engineering, which is responsible for
remedial action contracting, also provides seven  (7) positions.  The DER's Office of Chief
Counsel  has fifteen (15) lawyers  dedicated to  the cleanup program.  Finally,  emergency
response is handled by a separate program  within the DER~each of the six regions has a
separate  emergency response team of six (6) to twelve  (12) DER  employees.
                                           12

-------
       Case Management Team

       Several  States  report the  use of case  management  teams.   In  New Jersey,  for
example, a site will be assigned to a team consisting  of  a case manager, a  technical
coordinator, and a groundwater  advisor.  There are separate teams for publicly-funded and
privately-funded sites, and  a case  may  shift from team to team  if  its funding  source
changes, as  when  an administrative  consent order requiring private  funding is signed.
Separate negotiation units engage in communication with responsible  parties,  and once  a
site enters  the  remedial  action  phase,  a  separate construction team  will  assume oversight
responsibility.

       Multiple Personnel Functions

       A number of States  report that an individual staff member may have duties under
both the cleanup program and another  related State waste management  program,  such as  a
RCRA-type program.   Vermont  has  taken this approach one step further and has  integrated
its  RCRA, CERCLA,  preremedial, and  State  list  activities into one  unit called  the
Hazardous  Sites Management Section.   The  Section's  seven technical  personnel spend  at
least 40% of thek time on Federal CERCLA activities.

       Intragency Activity

       In  many States,  other divisions within the  responsible agency  provide support  to
cleanup personnel.  For  example,  air quality divisions often participate in cleanup activities
if air  emissions  are  involved  and  water quality  divisions  are often  consulted  regarding
cleanup standards.   Cleanup programs must also coordinate their  activities with  other
elements of the hazardous and solid waste programs.

       Staffing Levels

       Cleanup program  staff levels vary  greatly, from  the 600-plus people in New Jersey's
Hazardous  Waste Management Division (some with RCRA-type responsibilities), to the lack
of staff currently assigned to cleanup activities in South Dakota  and Wyoming.   Program
staff levels are indicated on  Table IIt-4.  Six (6) States have over 100 people working on
cleanup activities: California, Massachusetts, New  Jersey, New  York,  Pennsylvania, and
Washington.   These States  all  have very large  numbers  of  confirmed or suspected sites;
Washington,  with  700 sites  on  its State  database, has  the fewest number of sites.  Only
three  States have  staff levels between  51 and  100 people:  Florida,  Minnesota, and Ohio.
Again, these States each  have a great many sites, at least 500 confirmed or suspected.  The
largest number of States (25) have between  11  and 50  personnel, while 15 States have 10
or fewer people assigned to their programs.   One State  has not  indicated its staff level.
Figure III-3 presents the  staffing distribution for the fifty States.
                                           13

-------
                                   o
                       00
o:
o
o
ce
o_
 o

o



D
                                 *— 1C O
   o

•?§
zz  Q_

UJ
   CL

   ID

   O)



   LU
                           14

-------
                            PROGRAM STAFF LEVELS

                   Number of Personnel          Number of States

                         Over 100                       6

                         51-100                         3

                         11-50                         25

                         0-10                          15
                         unknown
1
       In many States, staff members assume multiple duties both within and outside of the
cleanup program, and State officials are often  unable to  indicate the precise percentage of
time these  personnel devote to cleanup activities.   In Table  ffl-4, the number of personnel
with split  duties is  indicated by a footnote, with the explanation that some portion of their
time is dedicated to Federal and State superfund work.  Several States have more program
positions authorized than are currently filled.  In Massachusetts,  for example, 223 positions
are authorized within the Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup, but only 140 are filled; the State's
Department of Environmental Protection  has  a  total of 519  superfund-related positions
authorized  department-wide, but only 267 are currently funded.

       At  least nine (9) States plan to expand their programs, generally by several positions
over the next  fiscal  year.   Connecticut's proposed expansion  is  notable—there is a  bill
before  the  Legislature to add 17 positions to a staff of 16.

       Interagency Activities

       Most States  report that the agency with primary responsibility for  site cleanup relies
upon other units of State government  for assistance.  Often,  the Attorney General's (AG's)
Office  handles  court actions,  as discussed under  Legal Support, below.   At least sixteen
(16) States turn to  their Departments of Health or equivalent  agencies for assistance  in risk
assessment or standard-setting.   Where the Department  of Natural Resources  is not  the
agency with primary responsibility for cleanup  program administration,  it is often consulted
regarding natural resources damages.   Emergency response activities often involve the State
Department of  Transportation.   Montana has  a separate  abandoned mine cleanup program
proceeding under the administration of its Department of State Lands.  Similarly, regional
Groundwater Management  Districts in Kansas, under the administration of the Department
of Agriculture,  have asserted jurisdiction over some remediation activities,  as have Regional
Water  Quality Control Boards in California.
                                          15

-------
       Legal Support

       State  Superfund programs obtain legal support from within their  agency,  from the
AG's Office, or from  some combination  of personnel from these two sources.   Twenty-
three (23)  States report that the  State AG's Office is the  sole source of legal support for
the cleanup program,  while  agency legal  personnel provide the only  support  for ten (10)
State programs.  Sixteen  (16)  States rely upon  a combination of attorneys  from both the
AG's Office and the responsible agency.   Information concerning legal support is missing
for one (1) State.  Table ni-4 presents sources of legal support for the fifty States.

       Where legal support duties are  split  between the AG's Office and  the  agency
responsible for cleanup, the  agency legal staff generally provides support on administrative
enforcement  issues, such  as review  of  administrative  consent  orders  or  assessment of
administrative penalties. When a case requires  the initiation of a lawsuit, as  in an  action
for cost recovery, it is generally referred to the AG's Office.

       Staffing  levels  for  legal personnel do not vary greatly among the States.  Of the
twenty-seven (27) States reporting staff levels at  the AG's Office  (11  States did not provide
information on the  number of staff), twenty-five  (25) have six or  fewer full-time employees
working on cleanup cases.   Colorado and New Jersey are the exceptions,  with, respectively,
18 and 20 AG's Office staff devoted  to  cleanup cases.  Twenty-two  (22)  States reported
agency legal staff levels;  of these States,  nineteen  (19) devote  eight or  fewer full-time
employees to  cleanup cases.   Massachusetts has  15 people providing  legal  support on
cleanup  cases;  New   York's  Department  of  Environmental Conservation,  Division  of
Environmental  Enforcement,  has  14-16   staff;  and the  Chief   Counsel's  Office  in
Pennsylvania's  Department  of  Environmental  Regulation has  20  cleanup-related  legal
support staff.
       Funding Sources

       There  are  three  basic sources of  funding for  State program  administrative  and
personnel costs—State cleanup funds, State  general funds, and Federal grants.  The funding
sources used  by  the fifty States are presented in Table III-5.  Forty-six  (46)  States fund
their program staffs through a  combination of  Federal  grants and State monies.   State
funding is obtained only through general fund appropriations in twenty-two (22)  of these
States, while  fifteen (15) States rely only upon  their separate  site cleanup  funds  for  the
State share of administrative and personnel costs.  Eight  (8) States use a combination of
general fund  appropriations and cleanup fund  monies to pay staff and administrative costs,
and one (1) State, Iowa, obtains funding through its Oil Overcharge Fund.   A few States
have incidental funding  sources,  indicated under the "Other" heading  on Table ffl-5; of
note are Mississippi's Cooperative Agreements with responsible parties.

       Four  (4)  States-Arkansas,  Delaware,  Nebraska and Oklahoma-rely solely  upon
Federal  funding  to support  their  cleanup  programs.    These  four  Federally-supported
programs are  all  relatively small, however,  the largest being Delaware's staff of 16.
                                           16

-------
                                                   O
    LU
    O
    t

    Q

    Z
    g


^  o
O
    o:
    O

    Q
    Ld
    O
    2
    00
                                     00
                                     00

                                     I

                                     00
   o

   Ld
   2


   O





CO Q
                                         17

-------
       Table  ni-6 presents the various Federal  CERCLA  grants available to the States-
Cooperative Agreements (CAs), Multi-Site Cooperative Agreements (MSCAs), Management
Assistance  grants  (MAs),  and CORE  grants—and indicates which  States  receive  funds
through these grant mechanisms.  A CA enables the use of Federal  funds for site-specific
activities at a State-lead NPL site.   An MSCA  is a  similar funding mechanism which
covers site-specific activities at a number of sites,  generally sites in close proximity to one
another.  An MA grant provides funding to States  with limited cleanup staffs to enable
them  to provide oversight assistance on EPA-lead sites.  CORE  grants are available to fund
non-site-specific program administration activities, such as database maintenance.

       Forty-four  (44) States report having CAs,  41 have CORE grants, 34 have MAs, and
19  have MSCAs.   Only two (2) States, Georgia and Nevada, report receiving  no funds
through these  grant  mechanisms.   These two States, however, receive Federal funds for
cleanup program administration through other programs, such as RCRA  grants.
FEDERAL CERCLA ASSISTANCE
CAs MSCAs
44 19
MAs CORE Grants
34 41
       Only a few States have  provided  specific  information on  the precise staffing and
administrative  costs covered by  these Federal  funds.  Where available,  these are indicated
on Table III-5.

       States with Superfund  Memoranda  of  Agreement  (SMOAs)  are  also indicated on
Table in-6  and  Figure  in-4.  A SMOA  documents the agreed-upon relationship  between
the EPA and  a  State as regards Superfund activities.  It  can cover  issues such as review
times,  sharing of documents, and site-lead responsibilities.   SMOA terms range from very
broad to very specific.   Ten (10) States currently  have signed SMOAs,  six (6) have draft
SMOAs, and fifteen  (15) States  are negotiating with EPA over SMOA terms.  Two (2) of
the States with SMOAs, South Carolina and Wisconsin, are in the process of renegotiating
their agreements.
E. Funding

       A fund or funding mechanism is an essential  element of a  State's  hazardous waste
cleanup program.  It allows  a State to investigate, plan,  and  conduct emergency response
and  remedial actions at sites where there are no viable RPs, RPs are unwilling  to conduct
or  pay for  remedial  actions, or immediate  action  is required.   Typically,  a  fund  is
characterized by both depleting and revolving expenditures.  If there  are no RPs, the fund
is depleted as  a result of cleanup activities and must be  replenished.   There  may also be
certain types of expenditures that the State is  not  authorized to recover from RPs, such  as
administrative  (see Section D above) and  certain pre-remedial costs.   If RPs refuse  to

                                          18

-------
cooperate  on  cleanups or  a State elects  to  use  the  fund  for  emergency  response or
investigations, the State typically will attempt to recover these fund expenditures from RPs.

       A fund also allows a State to control the pace of cleanups:  if RPs fail to cooperate,
the State can  proceed with the  cleanup and may be authorized to seek punitive damages
from RPs  in addition to recovering costs expended from the fund.   Thus, depending on its
size  and latitude of use,  a fund  can enhance a  State's  enforcement effort and ability  to
compel RPs to conduct or pay for cleanups.

       State funds  are  authorized and/or  used in forty-eight (48)  States for one or more
uses relating to  mitigation of hazardous waste  risks (see Table ni-7).  Not  all State funds
or accounts are  included in  Table ffl-7.  Those funding instruments that are used solely as
repositories  for  Federal monies  or only  provide debt servicing on  bonds are  excluded.
However, these accounts and funds are highlighted in the State summaries in Chapter IV.

       Fifteen States have more than one fund  or account for handling hazardous waste site
cleanups.  In most  cases a  State's  funds will differ from each other with regard to sources
or uses.   For example, one fund may derive  primarily from hazardous  waste fees, while
another in the same State receives legislative appropriations.  In New Jersey, the Hazardous
Discharge Site Cleanup Fund, derived from appropriations  and bonds, may be  used for the
same purposes as  the  Spill Compensation  Fund, which is funded  primarily  from penalties
and taxes; however, the latter fund is the first to be  tapped for cleanups.

       The  only States without  funds are Nebraska  and Delaware.   Delaware currently
relies  on  annual appropriations  and  has  pending  legislation  that would  create a  State
superfund.   Nebraska also has pending  legislation  that would create a  State fund. There  is
considerable variation  among the States in  terms  of funding sources,  authorized uses of
funds,  and restrictions or preconditions on the  use of funds.  State fund characteristics are
described  in Tables ni-7  and ffl-8.   A synthesis  of  State  trends in funding  is presented
below.

       Fund Balances and Additions

       In  looking  at fund  balances and additions, one would hope to get  a  sense of the
States' capacities to fund cleanups.  The fund balance measures the current availability  of
funds  while  estimated  additions to the fund  provides  a sense  of a State's  potential  to
sustain and  increase the fund over time. Both  measures of capacity are flawed, particularly
when comparisons are  made across States.  Some of the problems:

       1. The available information from States does  not  show  up-to-date balances for all
       funds-dates  range between January  1988 and August  1989.

       2.  Fund  balances  may  be  low because of infrequent collection of fees or  taxes
       (causing  the fund to pulse), timing of appropriations,  or a program's need to exhaust
       its fund at the end of the fiscal year because carryover is not allowed.
                                           19

-------
       3.  A  distinction  should  be  drawn  between  authorizations  and  appropriations.
       Authorization may provide a better sense of capacity, with  appropriations  made  on
       an "as  needed" basis.   For example,   Oregon has  established an  Orphan Site
       Account.   If the  need to expend monies  in  this  account  can  be  justified, three
       funding mechanisms  are triggered  and  can potentially generate up to $3 million per
       year.  However, the balance of the account is $0 until needed.

       4. Fund balances may also be misleading because some portion of a fund may  be
       encumbered (e.g., CERCLA cost share) and thus there  is actually a smaller amount
       of funds available.

With these caveats in mind, we may note that the total State "superfund" balance for all  50
States is approximately $415 million, with an additional $1,981 million authorized in bonds
in four (4)  States.   The distribution of funds is heavily weighted towards lower  levels of
funding: including  bonds, 18  States have less than $1 million, 18  States have between  $1
million  and $5 million, 3 States have  between  $5 million  and $10 million,  and  11  States
have more than $10 million (see Figure ni-5).  The total amount of funds available to the
9  States with fund balances over  $10  million (excluding bonds)  is  $323.3 million,  an
amount that comprises more  than  78% of the  total  State  "superfund" balance.   The total
amount of  funds  available  for  the eleven   States  with fund  balances  over  $10  million
(including bonds) is $2,312  million or 96%.

       Sources of  Funds

       Table III-7  indicates  the sources for State funds or funding mechanisms  and whether
each is a major or minor source.   There are nine (9) general  types of  sources:  legislative
appropriations, State bonds, fees  attached to  hazardous waste  handling  or other  activities,
taxes, penalties or fines, transfers from other  funds or accounts, cost recoveries, interest on
fund monies or other  State  investments,  and  general public or  private funds.   It should be
noted that  information on the relative contribution of  each  source was not available  for all
funds,   and  in such cases  the  table does not  indicate any  one  source  as  being major
(contributing more than twenty percent of the  fund's total revenues).   The table shows  a
source  as major only  when there is positive evidence  to  support that  description;  lacking
such evidence, a  source  is  shown  as  minor.   This qualification should be  heeded  in  the
discussion that follows.

       A total of  66 funds  or funding mechanisms for handling cleanup of hazardous waste
sites were  identified among the States (15 States have more than one  fund or account).  As
noted previously,  this  number does not include funds that receive  only Federal  monies or
provide only debt servicing  on  bonds;  funds  earmarked for leaking underground storage
tanks  are  also excluded.   The chart  below   shows  the number  of  funds  or  funding
mechanisms that rely  on each of the nine  types  of  sources  described  above, either as  a
major  or minor source.   The chart also  shows  the number of  States  that use each type of
source.
                                           20

-------
                            e
IT)
 I
  CO
  a
  Q =

  £y
  a: OQ

  i^
  5?
  
-------
SOURCES OF FUNDS
Maior Source For: Minor Source For:

Appropriations
Fees
Bonds
Penalties/fines
Taxes
Cost recovery
Transfers
Interest
General funding
No. of No. of
Funds States
20 19
20 19
13 12
12 11
10 9
6 6
4 4
1 1
—
No. of No. of
Funds States
17 17
3 3
—
29 27
1 1
45 41
6 6
16 15
11 10
       Appropriations are a primary source of State cleanup funds or funding mechanisms.
Twenty in 19 States derive a major portion of revenue from appropriations (Washington
supports a major  portion of  both  its State and its Local Toxics  Control  Accounts with
appropriations), and  an additional 17 States provide some level of appropriations  for their
cleanup funds.  The manner in which funds are appropriated by State legislatures  indicates
the flexibility with  which  a State  can handle hazardous  waste cleanups.    Many States
allocate funds to their superfund programs on a regular, typically annual, basis.   In some
States, however, appropriations for  state-fund cleanups must be requested on a site-specific
basis.  Such  is the -case in Kansas, which  has a fund, and in Delaware,  which does not yet
have  a fund and  depends  upon legislative  appropriations  to support emergency  response
actions.

       Fees  on the generation,  transport,  treatment,  or  disposal of hazardous  waste,
hazardous substances, or solid waste are a critical  source of revenue for many State funds.
They represent a major portion  of  20 funds hi 19  States, and a minor portion of  three (3)
funds in another three States. Besides providing revenue for State funds, fees on hazardous
waste  are  often intended to  reduce the  hazardous waste stream  and encourage  recycling
efforts.  For example, fees  on the transport  and disposal of hazardous waste make up 90%
of Illinois' Hazardous Waste Fund; these fees will be  raised each year between  FY  1989

                                           22

-------
and  1991  to increase  the Fund and discourage hazardous waste  generation.   In Iowa,
transport fees alone comprised 97% of the State Fund  in FY 1988.  In Kentucky, fees  are
based  on the level of  treatment required  for  hazardous wastes;  a sliding  scale  is also
applied on solid waste disposal in Ohio,  where such fees are expected to provide 80% of
total funds.   Wisconsin, which collects a  fee from solid and hazardous waste generators of
$0.30 per ton (except for high-volume wastes), is considering a proposal by the  Governor
to impose a fee of $5.00 per ton on non-recycled hazardous  waste.   South Carolina charges
a land disposal  fee of $5.00 per ton for hazardous wastes originating within the State, and
a minimum of $7.50 for wastes generated outside the  State, as  well as  a hazardous waste
storage fee; these fees provide 80-90% of fund revenues.

       Considering that  such  fees represent  a substantial portion of many State funds, it is
worthwhile noting the limits that are often attached  to  them. Fund administrators in South
Carolina must report to the legislature on the need for continuing fee collection once  the
fund balance reaches $7.5 million.  Iowa and  Kentucky both suspend fee collection if  the
fund  balance exceeds  $6  million  and resume  collection  if the  balance falls  below  $3
million; West Virginia suspends fees whenever the year-end balance exceeds  $1.5  million
and reinstates fees  when the  balance reaches $1 million; similarly,  Illinois uses a range of
$10 million and $3 million on unobligated funds in suspending and resuming fee collection.
In Tennessee,  a public  board sets a  hazardous waste  fee structure  for  generators  and
transporters within  a statutory minimum and maximum in order to encourage recycling and
discourage land disposal.  This fee structure is adjusted annually to maintain a balance of
$3-5  million in  unobligated  funds,  but  the level of estimated  fees must  not exceed  $1
million per  fiscal  year,  moreover,  the  fees  are  abrogated  if  the legislature  fails  to
appropriate matching funds.  Beyond the matters of equitable  or adequate fee levels,  fee
revenues  may  fluctuate due to  changes  in  hazardous  waste  handling.    Increasingly
restrictive land disposal practices have steadily  diminished  the land disposal fees collected
in Missouri;  treatment and disposal  fees have declined  over  the last three years in Iowa as
well.

       Taxes are a major revenue  source for ten (10) cleanup funds in nine (9) States.
Several States charge  a tax on hazardous wastes  or substances that is similar in  nature to
the fees described  above,  with some  of the  same types  of  restrictions.    For instance,
Florida's main source of revenue for its  Water Quality Assurance  Trust  Fund is a tax on
pollutants of $0.02/bbl;  the tax is  suspended  if  the Fund's balance exceeds  $12  million.
Missouri's fund is  derived from taxes on  hazardous waste generators based on tonnage and
method of waste handling; the tax is not to exceed  $50,000 per  company per  year.  In
Washington a tax on the wholesale  value  of hazardous substances funds both the  State and
Local  Toxics Control  Accounts.   The  main  source  of  revenue  for  New  Jersey's Spill
Compensation Fund  is  a  transfer  tax on  hazardous substances,  which  is  expected to
contribute $21.9  million to the Fund in FY  1989.  Pennsylvania's  $30 million capital stock
and franchise tax dedicated to the Fund is  suspended in any year after 1992 in which  the
Fund balance exceeds  the previous year's  obligations and expenditures.

       While  a  number  of funds  have restrictions placed  on  fee or tax  collection,  the
primary cleanup funds in 32 States do not  have a cap or  other restriction placed on  the
fund balance.
                                           23

-------
       Bonds  are  the  major source of funding for  13  funds in 12  States.   Four  (4) of
these States-New  York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Michigan-have been authorized to
issue a total of $1,981 million in bonds.   In New  York,  some of the  $1,200 million in
authorized  bonds will  start  to  be  issued when the State's fund  is depleted.  New Jersey's
Hazardous  Discharge Site Cleanup  Fund  has $300  million  in  approved bond issues, an
amount almost four  times its current balance (and twice  as large as the  combined balance
of New Jersey's two funds).  Massachusetts has spent $28.6  million out of $85 million in
authorized  bonds.  Michigan's  recent approval of  a $425  million bond issue is  significantly
expanding the State's cleanup program.

       Penalties and fines provide a major source of revenue for twelve (12) States, and
cost recoveries provide a major source for six (6).  Each  category  appears  as  a minor
source for many funds and States  (see chart above).  These numbers  do not accurately
reflect the  actual use of penalties/fines or cost recovery since many States do not  use their
statutory authority to pursue these  sources,  often because of limited resources.
       Uses of Funds

       Table IU-8 indicates the uses of State cleanup funds.  There are ten (10)  types of
activities for which fund monies may be used: remedial actions, CERCLA match, disposal
at  or  development   of   hazardous  waste  facilities,  emergency  response,  grants  to
municipalities  and local  governments,  site investigation,  operations  and  maintenance,
removals, studies  and design,  and victim compensation.  The following chart  shows the
number of funds whose monies are  or  may be applied to each activity, and the  number of
States having at least one fund whose monies are or may be applied to each activity.
USES

Emergency response
Removals
Studies and design
Remedial actions
CERCLA match
Operation and maintenance
Victim compensation
Site investigation
Disposal at or development of
hazardous waste facilities
Grants to municipalities and
local governments
OF FUNDS
No. of States
47
46
42
41
41
36
11
8

4

3

No. of funds
55
51
47
41
47
40
11
8

4

3
                                          24

-------
Emergency response  actions are the most common activity for which  funds  monies  are
authorized~55 funds in 47 States may be used for this purpose.  Removals, as part of both
emergency and  remedial actions,  are  also widely  authorized.    Studies and design  for
remedial action  are more frequently authorized than remedial  actions,  most likely  because
of the limited resources of many States to  undertake remedial actions independently.

      Victim compensation is  authorized  in  11  States.  The nature  of compensation is
limited  to providing  alternative drinking  water  supplies,  except in five (5)  States: New
Jersey,  Minnesota, California,  Rhode  Island,  and  Vermont (see  Table III-2).   In New
Jersey,  anyone  can  file a claim  for  personal  or property damages  resulting  from a
hazardous discharge,  within a one-year statute of limitation  from the date of discovery of
damage.  The State  must  attempt to arrange a settlement  between the claimant  and  the
responsible party,  but if the source of the discharge cannot be determined,  the State must
settle the  claim  against the  Spill Compensation Fund.  Minnesota may compensate innocent
landowners  for  part  of cleanup costs.   California  has a  Hazardous Substance Victim's
Compensation Fund intended to provide compensation for medical  and economic damages
caused  by  the  release  of hazardous  substances   when  a responsible  party cannot   be
determined.  With funds yet to be  appropriated to this Fund, the three claims made to date
have been paid out of the Hazardous Substance Account

      Several funds  are not designated strictly or  even primarily  for  use  on  hazardous
waste sites.  For example, Kansas' Hazardous Waste Perpetual Care  Trust Fund is intended
primarily  for RCRA  activities,  but up to  20%  of the  Fund  can be used  for emergency
response  actions at hazardous  waste  disposal facilities  closed  prior to the  State's 1981
hazardous waste act.   Virginia's  fund is  intended for  solid  as well as hazardous  waste
incidents.

      Although many funds are statutorily authorized for use  in a range of activities, low
funding levels may restrict  actual  usage of monies.   Kentucky's fund was intended for  use
on  virtually  every aspect of hazardous site cleanup and management, but,  because of low
funding levels, has been used mainly  for  CERCLA matching  funds.  Utah allows  a  range
of  site  activities,  including site investigation and  studies  and design,  but  does  not  allow
remediation.

      Despite its name, Pennsylvania's Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund is used for a broad
range of  activities beyond  that  of site cleanup.  Fund  monies may be used to  encourage
recycling  activities through a recycling grant program for which $2 million has been  set
aside.   Demonstration  grants for  alternatives  to hazardous waste  land  disposal  can also
receive  funding.   Private party  cleanups are facilitated through a $100,000 loan  fund,  and
the  State also  can  supply  loans  or  grants  as  inducements   and  compensation   to
municipalities where hazardous waste facilities will be located.

      Washington's State Toxics  Control  Account also funds a number of activities besides
hazardous waste site cleanup, including hazardous and  solid waste  planning,  management,
regulation, enforcement, technical assistance, and  public education.
                                          25

-------
       In Oregon, recent  legislation created a  financial assistance program that  enables the
program to provide loans to RPs to undertake cleanup activities.   The interest rate and
other terms of the loan are negotiated by the RPs  and the Department of Environmental
Quality.

       Special Conditions on Fund Use

       Restrictions and preconditions on fund use are  primarily of  two types: those that
statutorily require the State to exhaust every funding alternative, whether Federal or private
party,  before drawing  upon State cleanup monies, and those that require the State cleanup
agency to  obtain  specific  authorization before undertaking  any response action.  Eight  (8)
States  restrict fund expenditures  in  some respect to  Federal  Superfund activities.   New
Hampshire  allows  funds  to be  expended  only if projects  do not  qualify  for CERCLA
assistance; in  Alabama, sites receiving funds  must not be  on the  NPL at the time  activity
starts;  and in  general,  State funds may only be used where Federal funds are not available
or sufficient.   Sixteen  (16)  States require that an attempt be made to obtain responsible
party cooperation on  site cleanup before  State  funds  are used;  many  States waive this
restriction  in  the  presence of  imminent threat to  public  health  or  the environment
Although it appears  that  only  a relatively  small number of  States  seek  alternative fund
sources before using State monies, it is  safe to assume  that this is a far more widespread
policy among  States.

       Eleven  States require that the State   agency  responsible for cleanup obtain prior
authorization  before  undertaking one  or more types of  response or  remedial  action  at
hazardous  waste  sites.    All expenditures must  be approved by  the governor  in New
Hampshire, the  Pollution Control Board in  Minnesota, the Environmental  Quality Council
in Wyoming,  the Board of Public Works in  Maryland,  and the agency's Commissioner in
Indiana.  A cap  on non-emergency expenditures is the rule in Vermont, where expenditures
over $50,000  must be legislatively approved;  similarly, Arkansas requires a commission to
approve expenditures  over $30,000.    In Wisconsin, expenditures  on  remedial action  are
subject to prior  administrative hearing and judicial review.  Washington requires  that any
expenditure from its State or Local Toxics Control Account first be appropriated by  statute.

       Several States  set  a limit  on the amount that may be  spent  on  individual sites.
Connecticut limits CERCLA matching funds  to  $5 million per site.   Illinois has a $1
million  cap on  per-site  expenditures  without specific appropriations,  but according  to
program officials this cap  has not affected the program's effectiveness.

       California is the  only  State  that  restricts  fund use  based  on  the origin  of
contaminants-monies  from the  State's primary cleanup vehicle,  the Hazardous  Substance
Account,  cannot be  used for  removals or  remedial  action  if  a  significant  portion  of
hazardous substances originated outside the State.
 F. Enforcement

       Enforcement authorities and capacities under State laws vary significantly.  Many of
 the States  with cleanup fund  laws  have incorporated enforcement  provisions into those
 laws.  Thirty-seven (37) States have  enforcement  authorities related to enforcement of their

                                           26

-------
superfund programs.    Many of  these  States  also  use other enforcement authorities in
dealing with these sites, such as water quality and hazardous and solid waste authorities.

       The remaining thirteen (13) States have no enforcement provisions directly linked to
State  superfund  programs, either  because  they  have  no  such program  independent of
CERCLA (e.g.,  Idaho  and Oklahoma),  or because the Fund statute was enacted without
supporting enforcement provisions (e.g.,  Michigan).  These States must rely on RCRA-type
authorities, or on enforcement authorities found in water quality  or  solid waste statutes and
regulations, as indicated in Table HI-2.

       Liability Standards

       A  key issue for State superfund programs is whether  State enforcement  authorities
can reach responsible parties to the same extent that CERCLA can.   Owners and operators
can be  reached under virtually any of the existing State programs.   A more problematical
question is  whether  cleanup orders can be  issued  to generators  and transporters  who
engaged in disposal that may have been  lawful at the time it occurred.

       The thirteen States that rely on non-"superfund" authorities cannot always reach such
potential RPs.   For  the  most  part, State cleanup orders issued under RCRA-type  laws
require  proof of  a RCRA  violation or, at the  least, RCRA jurisdiction over the  facility or
entity at the time the disposal occurred.   This  means that, in contrast to CERCLA liability,
under these authorities  the mere release  of hazardous  substances at a site does not support
enforcement against former lawful  disposers at  that site. However, some State solid waste
laws or "imminent danger" provisions have  a potentially longer reach.   In  some  instances,
the State  water quality law may provide a basis for enforcement action against  generators
and transporters:  most  State water quality laws have  a strict  liability provision prohibiting
discharges of any pollutant  into "the waters of the State"  without a permit   Unlike the
Federal Clean Water Act,  however, most States define "waters of  the  State"  to include
groundwater.  (See Novick, Stever, & Mellon, Environmental Law  Institute, The Law of
Environmental Protection,  section  6.03[l][a] (Clark Boardman, 1989)).  Thus, some of the
thirteen States  without specific superfund enforcement  laws have  limited ability to reach
RPs other than owners  and operators.  Indeed, one such State, New Mexico, maintains that
its enforcement authorities  allow the program to reach all such parties.

       Of the thirty-seven  States whose superfund programs  include enforcement provisions,
most have the ability to reach generators and  transporters.   There is  generally no need for
these States to show the existence of a violation of law.

       Rather, for these States  the issue is the scope of liability.  There are two aspects to
the question of liability. First, is  the standard strict-that is, based solely on the  occurrence
of a release or potential release-or is  it based on  fault?  Second,  is  liability  "joint and
several," with each RP responsible for  the  entire  cleanup  regardless of its  contribution to
the problem, or is it proportional, with each liable only to the extent of its contribution?
Under CERCLA  the  Federal standard is strict, joint and several liability.   This  is not the
case with many of the  States.
                                           27

-------
       With strict liability,  a responsible party who has contributed to hazardous conditions
at a site is liable for the actual or potential damages posed  by the hazards regardless  of
fault.  Liability standards other than strict require a greater burden of proof to be satisfied
by  the State,  such as  proof of  negligence  or intent   Standards  dependent upon  fault
effectively limit  the  universe of parties to whom liability may attach.   This, in  turn, is
likely  to reduce  the effectiveness  of the  enforcement program in comparison  with a strict
liability program.

       Twenty-eight (28) States have a strict liability  standard  prescribed by statute (see
Table  ffl-9).   Several other States in which the statute  is  silent interpret their  liability
standard as strict (e.g., Oregon  and Ohio), although there  are few court decisions  in such
States.  In a  significant  number of States, however,  the standard  of liability  is  not clear:
proof of fault or causation may be required in order  to sustain enforcement orders or cost
recovery.   At common law, strict liability is not favored, so courts may interpret  legislative
silence or statutory ambiguity  as  requiring the agency to  show causation and fault.   For
example, statutes that attach  liability  to "any  person responsible for a release or  threatened
release" may require proof of causation and fault not required by a strict  liability standard.
       Another   important  question  is  how  responsibility  should  be  divided  among
responsible parties who have contributed  to hazardous  conditions at a site.  Under a "joint
and several" liability standard, each RP is liable for all cleanup costs at  a site regardless of
its  actual  contribution to hazardous  conditions there.   Twenty-three (23)  States use  this
standard (see Table  ni-9).  A significant number of  these States assert  joint and  several
liability  as a matter of  legislative intent, although this  standard is  not articulated in the
statute (e.g., Oregon, Iowa, and Ohio).   The CERCLA joint  and several liability standard
was likewise asserted  and upheld in  litigation,  and was  not  a product of  legislative
articulation.

       What is  perhaps more  interesting is  the  number of  States (14) that have some  form
of  "proportional" liability.   In these States,  the  liability for  cleaning up the site  (or for
contributing to   the  government's  cleanup  costs)  is   limited  to  some  share  of the  total
liability  based  on waste volumes,  toxicity,  or culpability.   In  general, the  proportional
liability  statutes do  not  prescribe the basis for the apportionment, only  that  it be made.
(An exception is Arkansas, which bases proportionality on the volume of  waste contributed
to the site.)

       Proportional liability schemes  among the  States fall  into two  general  categories.
First, there are  approximately five (5) States that  expressly establish  a proportional system
(see Table  ni-9).  Their laws  reject the  approach of joint and several  liability as essentially
unfair to RPs,  and thus  limit liability from the outset.  This group includes California, as
well as smaller  States  like Alabama, Tennessee, Utah,  and Arkansas.  The second group of
States has laws that begin with a presumption  of  joint and several liability, but allow RPs
to  overcome that presumption  by proving their  "divisible"  or  proportional  contributions,
typically applying a "preponderance of the  evidence" standard.  This second group includes
Texas,  Massachusetts, Vermont,  Minnesota,  Louisiana,  and  Montana.    Both  versions of
proportional liability increase  the  probability that  there will be "orphan"  shares  of cleanup
costs  which  must ultimately  be  borne by  the  State.    In  addition,  to  the  extent that
                                            28

-------
proportional liability is applied to enforcement orders to conduct studies or remedial action,
it may make such enforcement more difficult.

       Several other  standards of liability exist, including those that leave the matter to
common law or other  defenses, as in New York.

       Order Authorities

       All of the  thirty-seven (37) States that have  enforcement authorities  associated with
their cleanup  programs for hazardous  waste sites have the power to issue administrative
orders  compelling responsible parties to  conduct  cleanup activities.   The  majority of these
States  also have order authority to require responsible parties  to provide information and to
conduct  studies.   Even those States that  do not have explicit order authority to obtain
information usually assert that their authority for cleanup  orders or  their procedural  laws
give them power  to require  this (e.g.,  Virginia and  Maryland).  A few States believe  that
they lack such authority (e.g., Florida  and Indiana prior to a 1989  amendment).  Virtually
all of  these thirty-seven States also have express authority for site access, both  to evaluate
sites and to conduct cleanups.

       The  other  thirteen  (13)  States  rely  on RCRA-type, solid  waste,  or water  quality
orders.   These, as noted  above, do not apply in  all circumstances or  to  all potentially
responsible  parties.  Of these States, only Idaho lacks such order authority  altogether  and
must resort to injunction actions in court.

       The  fact that a cleanup order may be  issued by a State, however, is only partially
informative.   State cleanup orders are by no means always  identical to  CERCLA  section
106 orders, which provide for no pre-enforcement review.  Nor  are they  always subject to
the same deferential standard of review (in the event of enforcement of the order, or in the
case of cost recovery and punitive damage suits).   For example, in many of the States a
responsible  party  receiving an order has the  right  to  seek review of that  order before a
board,  commission, or court  In Illinois, the State agency must file a complaint seeking an
order from the Pollution Control  Board in an  adversary  action  at  which  the  responsible
party  may litigate any issues.  In other States, such as Virginia  and Kentucky, an order
may be issued only after a hearing or  opportunity for hearing. In Arizona, the recipient of
an order may  seek administrative review.   In Pennsylvania,  one type of cleanup order is
reviewable before the State's environmental hearing board, while  another type of cleanup
order is not subject  to pre-enforcement  review;  the State  has the option to select either
order.   In  Texas,  the  recipient of an order may  appeal it to court;  however, a deferential
standard of review is applied.  Other States, like Tennessee and  Oregon, do not allow pre-
enforcement review.   In a significant  number of States the availability  of pre-enforcement
review has never been determined because all sites have been  handled by consent order.

       The  standard of review is  also important  Several  of the States expressly  apply a
deferential  standard of review.    For  example,  in  Pennsylvania  (under  one of the  two
Pennsylvania  order types) the agency action must  be  upheld unless it  is  "arbitrary  and
capricious."   In  Texas, the State must  prove on   appeal  that there is  an  imminent  and
substantial endangerment and  that the recipient  of  the order is liable.   However, if the
"appropriateness" of the remedy  is contested on appeal, the remedy must be upheld unless
                                           29

-------
the court finds it to be "arbitrary and capricious."  In most States, however, no standard of
review is spelled out by statute.

       Injunction Authorities

       All  of the States with order authorities also have authority to bring judicial enforce-
ment actions to obtain an injunction, to enforce  an administrative order, or both.

       Enforcement Sanctions

       The  primary "enforcement" tool under  any of the State cleanup programs is the
ability to expend the  State  Fund and conduct cost recovery.   This is reported by  most
States  with programs  as the driving force behind most "voluntary" cleanups and consent
agreements.  The real force of this incentive, however, depends upon the credibility of the
State's ability to spend Fund monies.  The enforcement leverage of the Fund is minimal to
non-existent in those States where the  Fund may only be expended for the State share of
NPL site expenditures or for emergency response, where it may be expended on  State sites
only after  a  lengthy  and laborious  listing  process, or where  it may only be expended
pursuant to  site-specific  authorization  by the  legislature.   By contrast, in States where
expenditures  can  be  authorized  and  made  relatively  quickly~as  in New  Jersey  and
Minnesota, for example—the State Fund cost-recovery option produces  substantial enforce-
ment success.

       The  effect of the Fund cost-recovery threat is enhanced in those States that  have a
punitive damages provision.  These provisions have become increasingly common and now
exist in twenty-two (22) States.   Seventeen (17)  of these States provide for the award of
treble  damages, as under CERCLA.   Other States provide  for damages  of one-and-a-half
times or twice the response costs.   Maine  simply provides  for punitive damages without
specifying  an amount (Table in-10).

       The  standards  for  assessment of punitive damages vary  somewhat but generally
require more  than  simple refusal  to  do the work directed in an order.   For  example, the
Pennsylvania  provision requires "willful" failure to comply.  The New Jersey courts  have
created a  "good faith"  defense to such damages.   Other State laws  have other,  similar
provisions.

       Civil penalties  exist in virtually all of the State enforcement laws as  well.  These
appear to be  less important in influencing behavior and are not often assessed.   Given the
cleanup function of superfund programs, the penalties typically apply to  failure  to comply
with an order.  Penalties range from $1,000 per day (Iowa) to $50,000 per day  (Louisiana
and New Jersey).

       Criminal penalties are not really a factor  in  most State programs.   Virtually all of
the  programs contain  provisions making the submission of false  information or failure to
pay fees (in  States where Funds are derived from  fees)  criminal offenses. In  general the
failure to comply with a State cleanup order is not a criminal offense.  A wide range of
criminal offenses  does exist for unlawful disposal and other types of conduct.   Some of
these crimes may have relevance to State superfund  sites.   (See McElfish, "State Hazardous
                                           30

-------
Waste Crimes,"  17  Envtl. Law Rep. 10465  (1987) for a comprehensive list of these crimes
and sanctions.)

       Victim Compensation Provisions

       Victim compensation  provisions are  relatively  rare  in State superfund  statutes.
While California, New Jersey, and Minnesota have provisions for compensating victims of
hazardous substance contamination,  most States  do not  (see Table  III-2).   A number of
States do,  however, have express provisions for furnishing  alternative  water supplies or
providing reimbursement for the cost of such supplies  in the event of contamination from a
site.

       Other Enforcement Provisions

       A number of States  have  made  explicit provisions in their laws for the recovery of
natural  resource damages.  These provisions  apply  in addition  to  the  CERCLA natural
resource damage provisions.  Few States have litigated such actions under State provisions.
Colorado  has the  most  experience in  litigating  natural  resource   damage  cases  under
CERCLA,  and has achieved  substantial settlements at three  sites.   One difficult issue in
recovery  of  natural resource  damages is  the  proper  method  of calculation.    The
Pennsylvania statute contains a provision that makes the State's  calculation of such damages
presumptively valid as a matter of law,  subject to  the  responsible parties' having the
opportunity to offer a rebuttal.

       New  Jersey, Connecticut, and  Illinois  have   enacted  property  transfer laws  that
require  industrial facilities to certify cleanup in  order to transfer or close the facility.  The
most  comprehensive of these  is New  Jersey's Environmental  Cleanup  Responsibility Act
(ECRA), which  requires  industrial facilities  to obtain  a "negative declaration,"  to complete
a cleanup, or to have signed a consent  order assuring cleanup before  the  transfer or closure
occurs.  Connecticut and Illinois  have somewhat less stringent laws of the same sort.  Iowa
requires  State approval of  transactions involving property  listed on  the State registry of
sites.    Minnesota  has established  an  informational  program  through  which industrial,
commercial, or residential interests contemplating a real estate  transaction may contact the
State  to determine  whether or not a cleanup is needed at a facility or  if the property  is
situated near  an identified  site.   The object of the  program is  to promote "voluntary"
cleanups at the behest of lenders  and other parties to commercial transactions.

       A few States have enacted favorable presumptions  and rules  of  decision  to  aid in
hazardous site cleanups and enforcement. One of the  better examples of such measures  is
Pennsylvania's statute, which  contains a provision that if contamination  is  found within
2500  feet of a site, it is  presumed as a matter of law that the responsible parties for that
site  are liable  for  the  contamination.   This  limits  the  State's  burden  of proof where
contamination pathways  may be  obscure  or  complex,  and  shifts  the burden  to the
responsible parties to disprove the link.

       Evaluating Enforceability of Programs

       It is difficult to evaluate  the enforcement component of any program.   Both strong
and  weak  programs should produce a significant number of  "voluntary" settlements and

                                          31

-------
consent orders.   The only  difference will  be in the quality of the remedial action agreed
to-a difficult thing to assess except  on a detailed site-by-site basis.  The best surrogate for
that sort of review is to ascertain whether  each State has available to it sufficient tools for
enforcement  that allow  it to exert significant and credible cleanup leverage.  State programs
can  be  weakened if  they  have  numerous  procedural  "hoops"  to  pass  through before
effective enforcement—for  example, mandatory negotiating periods during which there  is a
moratorium on enforcement actions or State expenditures.   Likewise,  rules of decision that
encourage  RP litigation or delay are counterproductive, such as  provisions that allow the
RP to  conduct a trial on the  selection of remedy, or that afford no deference to the action
selected by the State  agency based on the administrative record.

       The stronger programs  also appear  to  make significant use of the credible threat of
Fund-lead  actions if negotiating deadlines  are not met  by RPs.  If this  is backed up by a
punitive damages provision, the program may achieve greater success.

       Nothing  definitive  can be  said  in  this  study  about the efficacy of "proportional"
liability  schemes.   Joint  and  several  liability  makes  the  State's burden  of proof  much
simpler,  however.  In  addition, it may provide a greater  likelihood that full recovery of
costs  can  be made.   Under  a proportional liability scheme,  the  State  may  be unable to
recover a  significant portion of cleanup costs, as might  occur if the  largest proportional
contributors  were the least solvent financially.   State  programs without strict liability are
even more problematic—the task of proving fault or culpability for a release (particularly in
the case of a generator or transporter) may be quite difficult.

       State  programs  with sufficient enforcement options, favorable  presumptions, a strict
liability  standard, and  the  ability  to resort credibly  to the  State  fund  appear to have the
greatest potential for enforcement success.
G.  Cleanup Policies and Criteria

       Cleanup policies and criteria are key elements  of State superfund programs.  Most
importantly  to  the public, they  are  used  to establish  the cleanup  goals at  sites and
determine  the level  of environmental  and health risk reductions  to be  achieved by  the
remedial  action.   However, as  the  stringency  of cleanup  goals  increases, the  costs  of
mitigating site  risks  also  increase;  State superfund  programs  face greater challenges  in
effecting private cleanups  and,  when enforcement efforts fail  or there are no RPs,  a greater
proportion of the State's fund will be needed for remediation.

       Determining the appropriate and feasible level  of cleanup  for a hazardous waste  site
involves  technical,  administrative,   and  economic  considerations  that  are   necessarily
evaluated on a  site-by-site  basis.  States commonly look to Federal guidelines and  standards
as they  decide  upon  cleanup  levels.   Beyond  such guidelines,  several  States  have
established procedures to  determine the particular cleanup standards that are necessary for
individual sites, and  many have requirements that exceed Federal  standards.   Overall the
States vary widely in the  extensiveness and formality of procedures used to set site-specific
cleanup standards.
                                            32

-------
       Table III-11 indicates  a number of criteria  that are used  by States  to  determine
cleanup standards  at hazardous  waste  sites.  Approximately one-quarter of States did not
report  specific policy guidelines for determining cleanup levels, although five  (5) of these
States  are currently developing  guidelines.   Several States cited general statutory instruc-
tions  that parallel CERCLA's  original  guidance  on  cleanup  standards, calling  for  cost-
effective measures that  protect public  health and welfare and the environment.  Only two
(2) States, Louisiana and Massachusetts, noted a more stringent goal established for  NPL
sites  by SARA-the  selection  of  long-term or  permanent  remedies.   In  Louisiana the
Department  of Environmental Quality regards  permanent  solutions as  a policy  goal.   In
Massachusetts a goal of permanent solutions wherever feasible is incorporated into law as
part of general  statutory guidance on cleanup  and design  standards;  temporary remedial
measures are defined by a specific time frame, a minimum effectiveness of fifteen years.

       Federal Standards

       Twenty-two (22) States use EPA guidelines or  Federal standards either  as their sole
source of cleanup standards or in conjunction with other standards.   Standards  found in
RCRA  and  CERCLA  were specifically cited as relevant, and several States  follow  NCP
procedures.   Six (6) of the twenty-two  States  use  Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
set by  the  Safe Drinking Water Act  as minimum  standards for surface and  groundwater
remediation.   (The total may in fact  be seven—although Pennsylvania's program staff did
not mention MCLs  in  their description of cleanup standards,  State law  incorporates the
provisions of SARA  §121, which includes the attainment of MCL goals.)

       State ARARs

       Eighteen  (18) States  have established their own ARARs or  standards of cleanup for
water, soil,  or air.  Michigan  prohibits the presence of  any detectable  level of volatile
organic chemicals.  Groundwater is a particular area of concern in a number of States.  In
California,  the potential effect of remedial action  on  groundwater must be specifically
evaluated.   Minnesota  is developing  guidelines  for determining site-specific  groundwater
cleanup goals that will  be  consistent  with the  State  groundwater protection strategy.  In
addition to  setting a minimum  cleanup level, groundwater standards in Vermont  may also
trigger remedial  action at a  site.  Although Connecticut does not  have specific  requirements
for groundwater remediation, information drawn from their statewide groundwater classifica-
tion system  is the most important  factor in determining site cleanup.   New Jersey has
established ARARs for  soil, and Vermont has soil standards under development  Wisconsin
does  not  have  formal ARARs for  soil  contamination,  but  follows  department-wide
guidelines.
                                   STATE ARARs
                    Category

                    Water
                    Groundwater
                    Air
                    Unspecified
No. of States

       2
       7
       1
       9
                                          33

-------
       Risk Standards and Assessments

       Risk standards in the range of 10"5  to  10"7 for carcinogens are  used by  seven (7)
States  and have been proposed by an eighth.  A  risk standard is  applied in either of two
circumstances: as an alternative standard to be used when MCLs or ARARs do  not exist,
or as a standard to be achieved at each cleanup.

       Arizona,  Indiana, and  Minnesota  invoke  risk  standards  only in  the  absence  of
applicable  standards.  In  Minnesota,  where health-based limits have been established on
many chemicals, a risk  standard of  10~s is  binding only for situations  with no  applicable
State or Federal ARAR; moreover, a non-degradation policy prohibits sites that are cleaner
than the risk standard from being degraded to that level.

       California, Virginia, Maine, and  Ohio have risk standards that apply generally.   In
addition to a risk standard for carcinogens, Ohio limits the risk for non-carcinogens  to less
than one excess occurrence, and Maine restricts toxicity levels.  Michigan is developing a
cleanup standards  policy that  sets  the  risk  of  cancer  at  10"6 for multiple  carcinogens and
10~7  for single carcinogens.

       Site-by-site  risk assessments are performed by seven (7) States  to  help  determine
cleanup levels.  Like risk standards, risk assessments may be used either  routinely or in the
absence of other standards.  Alabama, Florida,  Kentucky,  and New Jersey weigh the results
of site-specific risk assessments along with  other applicable  standards to determine  cleanup
levels  at each site.   By contrast,  Mississippi, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts undertake risk
assessments only when  an  appropriate  standard does not exist for a particular situation.
Massachusetts  has  well-defined  procedures  for  determining   cleanup  levels   when   no
applicable  standards  apply:  in  such  a  case,  site-specific   health-based standards  for
contaminants are generated  based on  the  scientific literature and on risk assessments, and
are used as guidelines by the State.  If RPs are doing the cleanup  work, they must provide
risk  assessments for approval by the State.
                      RISK STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS

       Circumstances of Use                                  No. of States

       Risk standards applied at all sites                      4 (1 proposed)
       Risk standard used absent other standards                    3
       Risk assessment performed at all sites                       4
       Risk assessment used absent other standards                  3
                                           34

-------
       Ambient Quality

       Five (5)  States  use ambient  quality as  the  cleanup standard:  Florida, Kentucky,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina  (which also specifies drinking water standards as
an  alternative baseline).   Although Kentucky,  Pennsylvania,  and Oregon regard ambient
quality as the baseline,  they recognize that it may not be feasible for all  cleanups to meet
this  standard; in  practice they may use ambient quality as a  starting point for assessing
cleanup levels and negotiating with RPs.   Florida may require cleanup to meet state  water
quality standards or ambient quality, whichever is higher.
H. Public Participation

       The degree of public  participation solicited in decisions about hazardous waste  sites
varies  widely among  States.  Public  participation  activity may  be  required  under  state
statute or regulation, pursued as agency policy, or taken up in response to expressed public
concern.   Table  HI-12 describes public participation  requirements, policies, and  ad hoc
procedures in each State.

       Twenty-two  (22) States  have specific public  participation requirements mandated by
statute or regulation.  Several also have additional procedures established as agency policy.
Another  fourteen (14)  States seek community involvement strictly  as a matter of policy or
in an  ad hoc manner.  The remaining  fourteen (14) States  did not describe  the public
participation component of their programs.

       Before describing  the most common  approaches towards  public  participation, we
note unusual features in two State programs.  In New York a State Superfund Management
Board provides  citizen oversight of remedial  plans.   Massachusetts permits public site
inspections by one or more local  residents appointed to represent the community.

       Public Notice Requirements

       Eleven (11)  States require public notice  at one or more points in  the site handling
process.   The  types of actions  for which notice is required and the number  of States
requiring notice are as  follows:
                         PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

             Tvoe of action                             Number of States
           Site investigation or listing
           Proposed remedial plan
           Administrative/enforcement orders
           Program to identify releases
           Proposed settlement  agreement
           Notice of violation
4
8
2
1
1
1
                                          35

-------
Most of the eleven States require notification regarding either site listing or remedial action
plans.   At least  four  (4) States-Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Washington-require
notification at several stages during site handling.  In  addition to investigative and remedial
plans,  Washington   publishes  notices  of compliance  and  enforcement  orders and  of
violations.   Similarly,  Montana has a public notice requirement for administrative  orders
and consent decrees.

       Public Comments

       Twelve (12) States solicit public comments  on  site listing or remedial plans.   Seven
(7) of these  have a  designated comment period ranging from 30  to 60 days;  the  others
have no specified time period.

       California  reinforces its  public comment requirement with the statutory requirement
that  anyone affected  by a removal or remedial action  at a site must have an opportunity to
participate in decision making.
                               PUBLIC COMMENTS
             Comment Period

             60 days
             45 days
             30 days
             Unspecified
   Number of States

          1
          1
          5
          5
       Public Meetings/Hearings

       Public meetings or hearings are  required by eight (8)  States.   In  two (2)  of these
States, Michigan and Missouri, only an annual meeting is required, either to update a site
list or to review the State program.  In addition, four (4) of these eight States require that
a  public meeting  be held upon petition or request.   While not required  by statute or
regulation,  in another twelve  (12) States meetings may be held as a matter of policy or in
an ad hoc  manner, at the discretion of program officials.
                            MEETINGS AND HEARINGS

             Public Meeting/Hearing           Number of States
             Required for one or more
                stages of site handling
             Required for annual review
             Required upon petition or
                request
             Discretionary
 2
 4

12
                                          36

-------
       New  Jersey  conducts  an  extensive  series  of  public meetings  related to  site
disposition:  in addition  to a  meeting required prior  to adopting  a  Record  of Decision
(ROD), the State holds meetings  prior  to  and upon completion  of an  Rl/FS,  after the
remedial plan  has  been selected,  and at the  beginning and  the  conclusion  of remedial
action.

       Louisiana  law  does not require public meetings; in  practice,  however,  the  State
conducts regular  meetings  at complex  sites.  A public meeting is  also held before an RP
settlement agreement is concluded.

       Community Relations

       A community relations program similar to that outlined in the Federal NCP may be
adopted by States to lend a formal structure to public participation activities.  Under such a
program, one  or  more spokespersons might be designated to  inform, solicit views of, and
respond to  inquiries  from  local residents and/or local government officials and agencies
regarding conditions and activities at hazardous waste sites.

       Community relations programs  are a developing feature of state public participation
activities.   Only three (3) States—Illinois, Louisiana,  and Minnesota—currently  engage in
extensive community relations  efforts  with regard to hazardous waste sites.   In  Minnesota
each  site  is assigned a public  relations officer and  in Louisiana the DEQ conducts  a
community relations program at complex  sites.

       Illinois  maintains  an  active community relations  program designed  to  fine-tune
remedy selection using information on the  site provided by local residents;  the program
operates on the  belief that it is  a mistake  to  wait for  a  proposed plan to  "go public".
Because remedy  selection  is  dependent on  citizen  participation to  so  great a degree, the
State  has not faced public  opposition on any of its actions in remediating sites.

       In  addition to  these three States, Idaho  currently employs  one full-time  person to
handle community  relations at  one of its NPL sites.   In Virginia a community relations
program is  now being drafted.  Other States,  including Colorado and Pennsylvania,  also
have community  relations programs.
                                           37

-------
                          TABLE III-l

OVERVIEW OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES AND CAPABILITIES

                           SUMMARY
     25 States have full fund and  enforcement  capabilities with active
     cleanup and oversight programs.

     14 States have full fund and enforcement capabilities with limited
     fund and program activity to date.

     6 States have removal or emergency response programs but limited
     remedial action authorities or  capabilities.

     5 States do not have superfund programs but deal with waste  sites
     in some manner.
                                38

-------
                     TABLE HI-1



OVERVIEW OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES AND CAPABILITIES

REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Fund
Fund
Fund
Fund
Fund
Fund
and
and
and
and
and
and
enforcement
enforcement
enforcement
enforcement
enforcement
enforcement
capabilities
capabilities
capabilities
capabilities
capabilities
capabilities
- Active cleanup and oversight program.
- Active cleanup and oversight program.
- Active cleanup and oversight program.
- Active cleanup and oversight program.
- Active cleanup and oversight program.
contained in two statutes - Fund for cleanup and oversight limited.
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
Fund
Fund
and
and
enforcement
enforcement
capabilities
capabilities
- Active cleanup and oversight program.
- Active cleanup and oversight program.
REGION III
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
No fund and limited enforcement
Fund
Fund
Fund
and
and
and
enforcement
enforcement
enforcement
capabilities
capabilities
capabilities
capabilities - State "Superfund-type" bill before legislature.
- First request recently made to allocate funds to state projects.
- New statute authorizes large program.
- Fund for cleanup and oversight limited.
Limited fund capabilities - Enforcement only under RCRA-type hazardous waste law.
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Fund
Fund
and
and
No State
Act.
Fund
Fund
Fund
Fund
Fund
and
and
and
and
and
enforcement
enforcement
capabilities
capabilities
- Extremely limited fund and no program staff, however.
- Active cleanup and oversight program.
Superfund program - Limited fund and enforcement capabilities under Hazardous Waste Management
enforcement
enforcement
enforcement
enforcement
enforcement
capabilities
capabilities
capabilities
capabilities
capabilities
- Fund for cleanup limited.
- Must use enforcement provisions in other statutes or regulations, however.
- Two limited funds available to program, which is becoming more active.
- Active cleanup and oversight program.
- Active cleanup and oversight program.
                         39

-------
                                                    TABLE  III-l  (Con't)

                   OVERVIEW OF STATE  CLEANUP ACTIVITIES AND  CAPABILITIES
REGION V
Illinois

Indiana

Michigan

Minnesota

Ohio

Wisconsin
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.

Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.

Fund capabilities and active cleanup program - All enforcement authority from other statutes.

Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.

Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.

Fund and enforcement capabilities under several statutes - Active cleanup  and oversight program.
REGION VI
Arkansas

Louisiana

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Texas
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Limited program activities.

Fund and enforcement capabilities - Fund currently dormant with no balance.  Oversight activities continuing.

Some fund and enforcement capabilities - Fund and program activities limited.

Some fund and enforcement capabilities - Fund and program activities limited.

Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
REGION VII
Iowa

Kansas

Missouri

Nebraska
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Fund for cleanup limited.

Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.

Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.

No fund and limited program activity with  Limited enforcement authority.  State "Superfund-type" bill before
legislature.
REGION VIII
Colorado

Montana

North Dakota

South Dakota

Utah

Wyoming
No fund for State cleanup - program activity limited.  Enforcement under other statutes or Federal authority.

Fund capability and new law provides enforcement authority - Fund and program activities limited to date.

Fund capability provided by new law - Some enforcement authority in other statute.  Program activity is limited.

Fund and enforcement capability from new law - Program activity is limited.

Fund and enforcement capability from new law - Program activity and fund use limited.

Limited enforcement authority and fund - Limited program activity.
                                                                 40

-------
                                                TABLE III-l (Con't)

                  OVERVIEW OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES AND CAPABILITIES
REGION IX
Arizona

California

Hawaii

Nevada
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.

Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.

New law provides fund and enforcement authority - Program activity limited to date.

Limited fund and enforcement authority - Program activity limited.
REGION X
Alaska

Idaho


Oregon

Washington
Fund and enforcement authorities - Program activity limited.

Limited fund - No enforcement authority specifically for cleanup of hazardous waste sites.  Program activity
limited.

Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.

Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
                                                            41

-------
                            TABLE III-2

           STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND PROVISIONS

                             SUMMARY
•     37 States have full fund and enforcement capabilities in a hazardous
      waste cleanup statute.

•     7 States have limited fund capabilities  (e.g., limited to emergency
      response and CERCLA match).

•     9 States contain enforcement authorities in separate statutes.

•     1 State has no enforcement capabilities.

•     20 States report statutory provision for a Priority List.

•     15 States report type of citizen suit provision.

•     11 States provide type  of victim compensation.

•     4 States have type of mandatory property transfer program.

•     1 State reported voluntary  property transfer program.
                                  42

-------











I>A
Vj
z
o
^
o
c*
ft.
Q
5
CM
W
H
S
0
<
>
S
E$
00











frS S
1 » S
|g |
«S5^
•
CJ B
u.2
& «
'•S i
JT* 9J
> 0.
C/5 fi
O
c •••
ii
.- 2
u£
fcfc^
i"
0 —
«p" 
E •—
ft, J

1.2
A) *M
ll
d<
o,
s
C M
2 c
Ub







V
s
«rf
i






































N*
Z
2
Cz
5


T-(




£2 f> •»,
£ XX



N
X X



X



X X X X XXX

XXX XX X

s .8 1
< 1 §
85 | 0
s * .1
I i 1 i i 1
to 3 e J 0.
O A K 4>
e ,2 — Ecu
§ 1 & s a
o, w C (£* e S

3 1 1 i, i ! 1 I
S tJr x o *• S3 3 „ >,
•*. v  > a o
? I 1 I1 1 I * *
1 "iSlls'S
•§ E g^ai B S2^»
o- W g — •o 15 53 ^" u *
• • 3 i5 S I K • • ^

ti
| § | 1 1 .
1 1 1 I 1 1


































P^
z
c
Cs
s


"k





X







X



X X

x "x


t;
3
1 S
s ;
? 5 ts |
« < < i
.11? 1
a «> a
|l| 1
c3 c —
•t 3 3 |aa§
* • • e-'S&fr
e<;3 3 o t
Id M " 1 s
(* \J t^ u ^ C
Hiil!
n n n " ii «
S8o^2>
2 1
* £ jj
II 1
43

-------










CA
Z
o
MM
e
o
as
ft.
p 9
e Z
e •<
3 1
1— 1 M
W O
.J ta4
^y^ ^4^
2 P
S
2
1
H
CA





III
I
g
3.1
g|
.M S
> &
'3
co e
= •1
:•! g
U ft-
£,
o «•
*C .2
ft, J

•g
4^ ?>
§ > 1 ° g «
1 f 1 1 1
1 i! 1 1 1
It til



































REGION IV





ta
*




X



X





X 'x XOXOXXX




xx °x x x x x x x
l
is 3 g
** S$
1 1 h 5 * ? !
II 1 I 1 J 1 I I
§ 1 rliilll
II Jldlfll
1 !i ! 1 i i ! I i
1 1
44

-------









z
o
22
^>
o
tf
eu
"2 55
0 •<
U, y»
P^
*? M
1—1 H
== S
3 |
B
|
i/l









PI
£££
si
« «»
t3 B
> s,
 B
O
B *S
•Si
** 2
UBU

t
O -w
•C.2
CU J

1 s
S *3
V *r*
o ^
b« O



X




X




XX X X







X X O X X X

X X X X X °X
1 *
™ rt

1 §•
s - « 5 a
i . i i H
2 fe 2 3 1 3
c o c rn c
U M O V U
I | I I | I
mm

c 2 e
.a § .§> 8 §
.1 ••! !§ .1 -J .1
= ! 2 S 6 ?
































>
O
3










X




X X







X X X O O X

of rf S
x x x Bi a x
,


I = «
1 £ 1 Is
P 8 .s- s _ ^
o g. « < .g |
1 1 o s i .1
!i & 1 1 3 «
•2 S S § -o S
(2 [i •? 1=3
• • iS s 6 $

3 all
1 •- ^ 5
i 1 1 1 1
45

-------
    1
    5S

    I
    fiu
c-  Q
    en
    W
u   o
§
    S
              I
              II
                §
cja.



•C
•p« t«
£3
              6) *«

              W


              II

              S 9

              Ed 
-------
     O
     55


     I
     a.
C-   Q
S   g
y   O
                I


                s'is
                a 5
               S 2
O
•C
a,
                O -w
                •

                1=
                  o
                a


                  l

               I
               *rf
               CQ
          O

          O
                                                 X
                                          oi
                                          a   x  x
                               i  I
                               00
                               I  i  !
                               1  a  3
                               3  8  I-
                               X

                               •o

                                              11
                                      • to
                               JS
                                          2   O
                                              I
                                                           .§
                                                           •8

                                                           &

                                                           '3
                                                           *«
                                                                                      •3

                                                                                      §
                                                                                      !°
                                                                                      '§.

                                                                                      i
                                                                                      ^
                                                                                      ^
                                                                                      g  .1
                                                                                      s  l
.a
;|
CJ
CQ

O,
3
C
3
u

2
1
—
,§
1
p

O
•o
2

C
O
c
S
•5
S
t3
V
«
                                          47

-------
                             TABLE III-3

                     HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES

                             SUMMARY
•     20 States report compiling a State priority list.

•     28 States have an inventory or registry of hazardous waste sites.

•     Total identified hazardous waste  sites  in a  State range from 1 to
      25,000 (California).

•     Sites needing attention in States range  from 1 to 6654 (California).

•     11 States have 100 or less sites needing attention (or no info).

•     16 States have 100 to 300 sites needing attention.

•     16 States have 300 to 1000 sites needing attention.

•     7 States have over 1000 sites needing attention.
                                  48

-------

















i
*
a 59
i *
I =
5 i
s






























a
a
^

,2
C/!












(/
-*-
c7

^M
P.
^







|
C .ft
S> 5b
£ «*_/

•c
o *^
£ 13
3


w>
_g
'•3 »
« c
Z-B
c
<8 £
•*-* •»-»










































^^
"~"
REGION
1
cs
1^
Q CNJ
NO Q, V^
d K «O


I









i 1


*O f^
(N NO


r~








r- m






§ P




S •-
1 1
1 i









































UHJ
**
REGION

i <-,
O Q^ O^



9 "a









STJ- O O O\
lA i— < lO ON


8 0 0^
i
So
ts
«
o o *^ *-< ?

JC^_« C^.« u
• -3 > p
* -- V) G C
ill I i ;
49

-------









C/i
B
[1-3 (Con't)
WASTE SI
»« t/3
a &
j O
1


















«
"
a
•*-
a











ty
a
c?

^
a
2



§ih
«cs
o *-«
£3
cf
•3 »
8 c
?1
c!o <1

V
1 Identified
irdous Wasi
*
5 K g
O ™ .*•'

13
o
H

•o
2o
o
ex
o

13
c
E































>
Z
O
o
g
OJ CO g
R R 1 R «

•O C4 00
S 3= S




1 S 1 § 1 g 9 !3


§ a _ s ^ §





a^s^.ss-






M»>0^-«-^«


O fl P«) »^1 ^ O
o> a
. J^ 1 1 1
1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1




























>
z
o
1

"-1

a




a 1


* 1





O CO






SO


S S


.2 S
g .2
1 2
                                                     g   "p
                                           s   2
3

                                                          S
                                           o   r*-
                                           05   1-1
                                           a   ?   a   a
                                                .5   s   .a
                                                S   O   •*
50

-------









p 55
C M
si C0
2 1
B Cfl
a §












4
V
4
G






4
fr



S
e .23
4) 5b
•9(2
•c
O *-
£a


I
Ig
W3 C
>-* >^
C^ <3
1^
1 3
2 -o
H ffi K
1
•a
1
fe
1
h




















^
REGION

1
I
*-




g t- >n
^ (N ^ CO OO

^ ff1 ®

2 S S S S


O M ^ fO ^

i-t 9\ <& QG fV

| | | I |


















>
REGION


"
*P
ST 3!




SSI.

en f) i^ ^

•^r t-i 1-1
fS 1-1 (S in


^H «N t^ i t^ i^ n


fi r*< o o r** c«i

•-• oo r4 T-I in t-«

2 2
jj j5
Q W W ^u
1 1 1 1 1 1
51

-------
a
f>
a> "sb
IS
•c
o
£
               a»
               1c
               £-1
o3
*-»
f2
               ex
               o
         X

         Z
         O
         NH
         O
                               1
                            a
                               a
                               §8
                            >O  1O  O O
                              I

                                                2    1
                                                O  " —i
                                                     a
                                                         8
                                                         'So
                                                         .a
                                                                       «
                                                                       s
                                                                            li
                                    52

-------
                            TABLE III-4

                    PROGRAM ORGANIZATION

                             SUMMARY
•     Program staff levels range from zero staff to a program with 742
      authorized positions (Massachusetts).

•     16 States  have 10 or less  staff.

•     25 States  have 11 to 50 staff.

•     3 States have 50  to  100 staff.

•     6 States have over  100 staff.

•     38 States  rely primarily on the State AGs office for legal support.
                                 53

-------
                                                       TABLE IH-4

                                            PROGRAM  ORGANIZATION
                                 Agency
                                  Program
                                  (Number  of Staff)
                                  Legal  Support
                                  (Number of  Staff)
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
Department of Environmental
Protection
Department of Environmental
Protection
Department of Environmental
Site Mediation Program (16)
Uncontrolled Sites Program
(11)
Bureau of Waste Site
AG's Office (1)
AG's Office (1-1/2)
• DEQE (15)
New Hampshire




Rhode Island


Vermont
                                  Protection
Department of Environmental
Services
Department of Environmental
Management

Agency of Natural Resources
Cleanup (223 authorized, 140
filled) (DEQE Total - 519
authorized, 267 funded)

• Waste Management Engi-
neering Bureau (5)
• Water Resources Division
(several)

Environmental Response
Section (9)

Hazardous Sites Management
Section (7-includes RCRA
work)
                                                                   • AG's Office (2-3)
AG's Office
• DEM (.6)
• AG's Office (1)

AG's Office (3, half-time)
REGION  II
New Jersey
New York
Department of Environmental
Protection
Department of Environmental
Conservation
• Division of Hazardous Site
Mitigation (350 )
• Division of Hazardous
Waste Management (6001)

Division of Hazardous Waste
Remediation (majority of 300
staff Department-wide)
• DEP Office of Regulatory
  Services
• AG's Office (20)
• NYDEC (14-16)
• AG's Office
REGION III
Delaware



Maryland




Pennsylvania



Virginia


West Virginia
Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental
Control

Department of the
Environment
Department of Environmental
Resources
Department of Waste
Management

Department of Natural
Resources
Division of Air and Waste
Management, CERCLA
Branch (16)

CERCLA/UST/LUST
Program: Preremedial (20)
           Response (15)
Community Relations (1)

• Resources Management (7)
• Hazardous Sites Cleanup
Program (125)

Division of Administration
and Special Programs (34)

Site Investigation and
Response Unit (6)
AG's Office (2, half-time)
AG's Office (2, 75% of their
time)
DER Chief Counsel's Office
(20)
                                                                   AG's Office
AG's Office (1)
1.       Certain percentage of staff dedicated to federal and State Superfund work.

                                                              54

-------
                                                 TABLE III-4 (Con't)

                                           PROGRAM  ORGANIZATION
                                 Agency
                                 Program
                                 (Number of Staff)
                                 Legal  Support
                                 (Number of Staff)
REGION IV
Alabama


Florida



Georgia


Kentucky



Mississippi
Department of Environmental
Management

Department of Environmental
Regulation
Department of Natural
Resources

Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection
Cabinet

Department of Natural
Resources
Special Projects Office (1)
• Bureau of Waste Cleanup
(59)
• Emergency Response (14)

Environmental Protection
Division

Uncontrolled Sites Section
(13)
Hazardous Waste Division,
CERCLA Branch (10 with
three new positions)
Wisconsin
                                 Protection Agency
                                 Department of Natural
                                 Resources
                                 Actions (52)
                                 • Office of Emergency
                                 Response (18)

                                 Environmental Response and
                                 Repair (40)
DEM (21)
DER's Office of General
Counsel (61)
Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection
Cabinet

AG's Office (I1)
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Department of Environment,
Health & Natural Resources
Department of Health and
Environmental Control
Department of Health and
Environment
Superfund Section (20)
Site Engineering and
Screening Division (14)
Division of Superfund (63
authorized, 37 filled)
AG's Office (21) (one part-
time)
DHEC (81)
• DHEC (2)
• AG's Office
REGION V
Illinois

Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Environmental Protection
Agency
Department of Environmental
Management
Department of Natural
Resources
Pollution Control Agency
Ohio Environmental
Division of Land Pollution
Control (32)
Project Management Branch
(40)
Environmental Response
Division (78 authorized, at
least 24 filled)
Site Response Section (70-
80)
• Office of Corrective
AG's Office

• DEM (6)
• AG's Office (3-4)
AG's Office (2)
• PCA
• AG's Office (2-6)
• OEPA (4)
                                   AG's Office (2-3)
                                 • DNR (2)
                                 • AG's Office (3-41)
        Certain percentage of staff dedicated to federal and State Superfund work.

                                                             55

-------
                                                  TABLE HI-4 (Con't)

                                            PROGRAM  ORGANIZATION
                                 Agency
                                 Program
                                 (Number of Staff)
                                 Legal Support
                                 (Number  of Staff)
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology
Department of Environmental
Hazardous Waste Section:
Superfund Branch (IS)
Inactive and Abandoned Sites
DPCE (81)
DEQ(l)
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
                                 Quality
Department of Health and
the Environment
Oklahoma State Department
of Health

Texas Water Commission
Division (25 authorized,  19
Funded)

• Hazardous Waste Bureau,
Superfund Section (15);
• Other DHEC staff (10+)

Solid Waste Division (7)
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Division (33)
DHEC General Counsel (IS)
OSDH (1)
AG's Office (3) and
Commission Legal Staff
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
                                  Department of Natural
                                  Resources
                                  Department of Health and
                                  Environment
                                  • Superfund (9.75)
                                  • State Abandoned and
                                  Uncontrolled Sites Registry
                                  (3.25)

                                  Bureau of Environmental
                                  Remediation (23)
                                  • DNR Legal Services (1,
                                  less than half-time)
                                  • AG's Office
                                  DHE (2)
Missouri
Nebraska
Department of Natural
Resources
Department of Environmental
Control
Waste Management Program,
Superfund Section (16)
Hazardous Waste Section (8)
• DNR (31)
• AG's Office
• DEC (61)
• AG's Office (I1)
REGION VIII
Colorado
Department of Health
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Department of Health and
Consolidated Laboratories

Department of Health and
Consolidated Laboratories

Department of Water and
Natural Resources

Department of Health
Department of Environmental
Quality
• Remedial Programs Section
(14)
• Hazardous Waste Control
(2)
• Solid Waste and Incident
Management (2)

Superfund Program (14.5)
Division of Waste
Management (2)

No lead division.
No dedicated staff.

Bureau of Solid and
Hazardous Waste, Superfund
Branch (16)

Water Quality Division (No
full-time staff)
AG's Office (181)
Special Assistant Attorney
General (1)

AG's Office (1)
                                                                                                     AG's Office
•  Bureau of Solid and
Hazardous Waste (1)
•  AG's  Office

AG's Office (1, half-time)
         Certain percentage of staff dedicated to federal and State Superfund work.
                                                              56

-------
                                                 TABLE III-4  (Con't)

                                           PROGRAM ORGANIZATION

Agency
Program
(Number of Staff)
Legal Support
(Number of Staff)
REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Department of Environmental
Quality
Department of Health
Services
Department of Health
Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources
Office of Waste Programs
(141)
Site Mitigation Unit (170)
Remedial Response Program
(10)
Waste Management Section
(71)
AG's Office (1)
• DHS (4-5)
• AG's Office (1)
AG's Office
AG's Office (I1)
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Department of Health and
Oil and Hazardous Substances
Spill Response Section
Bureau of Hazardous
AG's Office
AG's Office (21)
Oregon



Washington
                                 Welfare
Department of Environmental
Quality
Department of Ecology
Materials:  Policy and
Standards and Remedial
Action Sections (10)

Environmental Cleanup
Division (30 permanent, 9
temporary)

Hazardous Waste Investiga-
tion and  Cleanup Program
(140 authorized, 110
employed)
AG's Office (1-2)



AG's Office (3-4)
        Certain percentage of staff dedicated to federal and State Superfund work.
                                                            57

-------
                           TABLE III-5

 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF:  FUNDING SOURCES

                           SUMMARY
•     30 States receive funding for program administration and staff from
      the State's  General Fund.

•     23 States receive administration funds from their hazardous waste
      cleanup fund.

•     All 50 States receive federal funding for program administration and
      staff.
                                58

-------
            TABLE III-5

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF:
         FUNDING SOURCES

State General
Fund
Cleanup Fund Federal Other
Grants
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
X (50%)
X



X
X (50%)
X
XXX (unspecified)
X X
X X
X
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
X
X
X X
X X (35 positions)
REGION III
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia

X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
X
X (1/3)
X (25%)
X
X
X
X

X
X (1/3) X (1\3)
X (75%)
X
X CA with RPs
X
X
X X
                59

-------
         TABLE III-5 (Con't)

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF:
         FUNDING SOURCES
State General Cleanup Fund Federal Other
Fund Grants
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
X X
XXX
X X
X X
X X
XXX Various funds
authorized by state
statutes
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
X
X X Environmental
Program Trust Fund
X X
X
X X
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
X (9.75 positions) Oil Overcharge Fund
(3.2S positions)
X X
XXX
X
                 60

-------
         TABLE III-5 (Con't)

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF:
         FUNDING SOURCES
State General
Fund
Cleanup Fund Federal Other
Grants
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota X
South Dakota
Utah X (currently
unfunded)
Wyoming X (2/3)
X X
X X
X
X X
X X (unspecified)
X (1/3)
REGION IX
Arizona
California X
Hawaii X
Nevada
X X
X X
X
X X
REGION X
Alaska X
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
X
X X
X X
X X
                61

-------
                          TABLE III-6



                 STATE/FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP



                           SUMMARY
•     44 States have cooperative agreements with EPA.



•     19 States have multi-site cooperative agreements with EPA.



•     34 States have management assistance grants from EPA.



•     41 States have CORE Grants from EPA.



•     10 States have signed SMOAs.



•     23 States have a draft or are in negotiations for a SMOA.
                               62

-------
                                  TABLE III-6

                          STATE/FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP

CAs
MSCAs MAs
CORE
Grants
SMOAs
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
N
N
N
N
N
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
X
X
X X
X
X
X
N
N
REGION III
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
X
X
X
X
X
X

X X


X
X

X
X
X


X
D
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North
Carolina
South
Carolina
Tennessee
X
X

X
X
X
X
X






X
X
X


X
X
X
X
X
X


N
N
D
X, N
D
D = Draft
N = In negotiation
                                       63

-------
                               TABLE III-6 (Con't)

                          STATE/FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP

CAs
MSCAs MAs
CORE SMOAs
Grants
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
X N
D
X X, N
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X N
X X
X X
X X
X X
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
X
X
X

X

X X
X
X
X
X X

D
X
X

X X

D = Draft
N = In negotiation
                                       64

-------
                                TABLE III-6 (Con't)

                          STATE/FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP
CAs MSCAs MAs
CORE
Grants
SMOAs
REGION IX
Arizona X
California X N X
Hawaii
Nevada
X
X
X


D


REGION X
Alaska
Idaho XX X
Oregon XX X
Washington XX X
X
X
X
X


N
N
D = Draft
N = In negotiation
                                       65

-------
                      TABLE III-7

      FUNDING OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES

                      SUMMARY
48 States have cleanup Funds.

15 States have more than one Fund or Account.

Total State "superfund" balance  for all 50 States is $415M with an
additional $1,981M authorized in bonds in 4 States.

On average, States have fund balances of $8.3M available for cleanup
activities (excluding bond authorizations above).

The  9  States with Fund  balances over $10M  (excluding  bond
authorizations)  contain  S323.3M, over  78%  of  the  total  State
"superfund" balance.

Including bond authorizations, States have fund balances  of $47.5M:

    18 States have no fund or less than $1M
    18 States have between $1M and $5M
    3 States have between $5M and $10M
    11 States have more than $10M

For  those States providing information, total  annual additions to
State Funds are approximately $295M/yr.

Sources of Funds comprising more than 20% of Fund additions are:

    Appropriations (20 Funds in 18 States)
    Fees (20 Funds in 20 States)
    Bonds (13 Funds in 12 States)
    Penalties and fines (12 Funds in 12 States)
    Taxes (10 Funds in 9 States)
                           66

-------
•§
fa1
 §
I
 £
 o
73
3

9
s
  8

                                              W  UJ
                  s

                  1
0. u



._eo



0<
                                            S°
                                            II

ischarge Site
                                            -
                                            =s 8
ial Fund
Waste Re
                                            I

                                            I
                         67

-------
I
r-   *J
-1,   U


5   I
     Q

     B
                 C/J

                 d

                 o
                C/3
s

 1
_<2
"«
CQ
                I
ON
RE
                                       H


                                       a.
                                       I

a,
•o
     ^y
     s a
I I
& ^

i  §
v>  U
I   li
I   alt
                                       i
                                                
-------













Gfl
Ed
H
^
|
~ o.

I ?
t^- J
i |
§ ™
o
o
z
S
z








•o
c
(2
<*«
o
t
g
O
C/5

i
°*3
•3
 flk
a. ._«._•*«> b
U. 0 0 CO u bCb u
u CO <  N
3'Ja i s |
*» > w» *» •» g
• • • • s <


;—-
- 1
§ 1
8 |i |! 1
• • • •£< R • • &



0
» ii i ^,, ^
•ic co 0 3 c w DC *? •« *"C *n ™ '?
909 DM [£N 9 9 IJJ (3 99 W


n c
a s i i i
1 1 1 1 1 1































M
Z
o
o

^
0.
.-
K. U 60 u b ._ O.
o — u CO u B. CJ
a u eg a a u <

• • • •





-0
1 §
> *





g, |
i 1 s s
2 o- ^ a
• • s S i • •



1
.1 1 1 n «
1 - = 1 £ 5
« § § ^ s I
os (2 i & g 8,
2 § g, i^ U !g Sib
!i| 1 1 1 !l
• • ac a o • •


•g «
1 .221
i 1 1 1 1
69

-------
                       •a
                       £
                       •S
                       ^u
                       _o
                       •a
                        §
I
S     I
pq     r*
H     fa
       O
       O
       g
       3
I
                        8
                       ca
                                   2
                                   o
                                a.
                               fc
                                          /•••s   j^~s     /^s
                                               5
                                               «o
                                               s
                                                           i
                                               2
                                                   s
                                                   m
                                                   in
                                                                                    U
                                                                                i
                                                                           a
                                                                           V»    W»    3
     o
     i*
                                                                                1   1
                                                                                8    o

                                                                           •
                                                                                «    «
                                                                                     i
I
             M    a.
            a,    eo
            U    u
             a   <   a.
                                                                          sr
                                                                     S   «S.
r»   c>   IH
*»   v>   v»
                                                                                                 'S   >>
                                                                     5
                                                                     &
                                                                     u
                                                                     a
                                                                               tf
                                                                           *
                                                                          s
                                                               70

-------
O
>i   U
3
H   fa

    O
            8
            3
            T3
            •q
            13
Fund Balance
            •o
            c

                     S"
                          CO 1
                         3  5
                         •• •

                                  o,

                                  u.
S   sa i  I   s
I?   • • •  £   8
                         s
                         75
                         0
                                                     a.

                                                     u.
                                            0.  _ B.



                                            o  < U
                                   H


                                   a.


                                   «H


                                   «
                                                     s
                                                         2!
                                                         a i



                                               • •
                                                         a
                                                         It
                                                         • •
                                          1 1  #f
                                             &  H
                                             |  *s

                                                         11
                                                         »

                                                                 I
                                                                 e
                                                                 &
                                           5

                                           1

                                           f
                                           e
                                                                 I
ntal
                                                                        I
                                                                        £
                                                                        .2
                                                                 I.!? i
operat

uction
                                                                    ;&l
                                           inijii


                                           'c * 6 *g ^ u ft:

                                           tl^?-l
                                           2 a  . 2,, =
                                           a -a 8 «r » c a.
                                           3 5*1 N 3
                                           •| JS 2 « ' 8 e
                                           S!=-3&8§ «
                                           •a >> i. 2 S &• a
                                                                 ^H ci t*i -^ wS ^ t*-
                                71

-------
                      TABLE III-8

          USES OF STATE CLEANUP FUNDS

                       SUMMARY
States authorized to use Fund for:

    Emergency Response (46 States)
    Removals  (42 States)
    Remedial Action (41 States)
    Studies (40 States)
    CERCLA  Match (36 States)
    O&M (34  States)
    Victim Compensation (11 States)

Special Conditions on Fund Use:

    Exhaust voluntary and/or Federal funds first (20 States)
    Seek approval or authorization to obligate funds (7 States)
    Ceiling on amount available for cleanup activities
     (6  States)
    Site on State list or non-NPL Site (4 States)
    Funds available only for specific types of  wastes or
     facilities (4 States)
                           72

-------


















c/2
Q
C-^
£
p~5
c
°? 3
S td
"-1 J
td u
H
cfl
b
O
C/3
U
C/3
*3
h^























4-i
b

c/3
V
CA
f)
N"^






•a
£
HN












































*N
z
o
NN
O
S
£ e
«7 V
« 0
g g a,
• - « "3
a .2 _
3 I |
S ^ &
•e u «°
2 at V
o g 1
^ t- Si
§ -2 a
5 £ .£
^ 1 8
1 §• s. §•
s- ° r §
§ S o S 8> «
11 "ill
fl&f -p !>§
^ e 8 o.^" c .S o
^"^, U —S fc*"*^ fc- C •*
sJ: --s -2!^
vi ~ -a 5 ^ P '5
4) S O O 5S ° 5
23 1 e. g-sl
ill 1: *!|
•i4l »f ^-Sa
— 5 e •" a ,°oy
111 fl Sal
l^i °g ggi
S- = n 3 3 «
a — E .s .s >? 3
2 M w T3 T3 3 C
C ft- VI G C c C
^2 "O V V c <
s £* § & &i^
u'vio £w w«2

• • • • • •


> M (A M >
(A IH W 1- (« >
tri O O O M 1-1 W)
O fc- 4) W 4> 1- O I-
4>WU UW 0 «O *> i>

eonn an ,ca no ra n




•O "O
Is 1 1
U *O Q, r-r
3 *r. -•03 "*
S -P- =§§ •" B-
fi-^ri § t2 8 S c
a<« B. :: a s &
^11 2 § fi s |
•1.8.- -^ g a § §
*^-e §^ o * §•»
fr°S. §1 S 3l a 1
Is* <1 § i* * 1
u1?0 18 1 ll 5 i
E ^fSS o c n « o &P P
U&& A^) ^ Xffi w -|

E
2 2 13
1 I & 1 .
5 ^ n •"• *S
8 „ | Z » o
6 S 2 ^ S ^









































Z
o
N4
O
S

•o


I
2
C
S
«
fr
n
c
3
1
£
i
o
§ g
U (j

^ J!
— -O
45 1
I i
1 |l
i Ei
« i "
3 = "3
jc E -2
u u u
n a c
y> y>v.

• •


>
MM M
W U bM
O 0 O
u u o


« « a

• • *,
•s
'o
<2
§• 1 «
c 5 c
a 1 I
., (£ •§ 5
•3 - — ^ i.
i* i if
if | "5 1 8
*; -g fib ** . S
i| s S S S
S.« S l. «J=tl--c'| .I'-
ll 1 1 ^He-^II ll
A A *T* "•H^***-&'SP«>
•• B 'Syl£?--sa6.ae
islliHIll
>i « O "O 0> 60-- O t-* M >
2 1
•X # u
* * •£
11 3
                                                                    •o


                                                                    ,0
                                                                    J3

                                                                    •5
                                                                    1
                                                                    o
                                                                    •o
                                                                    I

                                                                    i
73

-------




















c«
Q
g
fa
C- fe
a 5
o Z
U 5
s~' td
00 iJ
A u
s g
S 5
S B
H fa
O
C/3
U
s






















M >" W9
fc« M U
Ob O
— 0 .- u
U U U O
^
& a a O B u
1
» 1
i° i
cL
, 1 J
? £ s £
| | | 1 |
§* 8 3 3 »
1 = » 1 1
S * » 1 *
3 e a „ a
i o o 1 5
5 8 -g a T>
S S | TJ-O i
5 •§ J 1=5
Z !/5 X (A b X
« '1
e -o I .8"
s e £ (^ ^
•S n S S> S
Q 2 £ > *









































REGION IV
g
O
1 i i
I i ^
I ! l
i - §
? =1 §
3 "1 *J
S Is
jg 2
C «
S3 2 £ „
Ul ka JO ^
S & 4 B
•a« e * -2
I2- * « 1 *
"JJ s 1 X 8 -8
^•§ | * «-B 1
•r .2 ,£ T) e 3
la 11.1
o — !T. s? S S «
IJa 1 1 |s 1

^^ i ~ ?-§ -^
$ S.S 1 8 s « *
1 S J S 3 3
0^2 =o|| 1
jsri s ; a.s j,
-Eg «a^e -°
8|| | | °| 1
Ss^ «»&>*« *
6 SS 1 = f ° I
Sl8 « 1 81 1
C^b'M KUc^iM UJ

^ • • • • •




>
 M M M
M fc* W h M
O O Ob O O
0> OhriOUM OV
CO eo ej ro eo co^u cs co
• •
1
£
•o c 1 •§ §• -o
C 3 § 5 ? B
[g "• (S (2 § £ 1
§• l^sl0?^^
3 ^|S8.Si2||
O VSO^r/i«iC^
§ iH^t?ii<"^
1 ^ii&S^^i
1 tlljsrl.2
I 111* -^ 111
•3 u'E'B-Sgg'B'g
i Ixxil.ii
3 S
8 ?
| . -s f t 3 3 1
| | & H -^ * €e
1 £ 1 I 1 1 1 |
74

-------
o  ft
e
2   u
a   a
M   r*
J   £
S3   ^


3   i
    en
    u
            •o



            1



            §
tio
iecia
•o
c

fi
            •a
                  I
                      :i
                      H
                      i?
                      *^
            t
                  1
                      s
                           -
               1
               S
        i
        Z
                                   S  1
                          s
                          «
^   !

i*  *
18-  S
2fl  U3
00..



V U O



o o u



ana
                 'o


                  a v
                      • ••  x  ••
                           1  I
                         I
                                            §
                                            1
                                            1
                                            i
1

                            M  kl



                            v.  O




                            U  V




                            u  u
                                   75

-------
I
2    d
S    B
afl    P*
3    C/3

§    fa
      O
      V)
      W
                    1
                    0
•§
a
!3
 
-------
         •g
         o
         I
    C/3
    Q
    Z

    fa
<••*   Cu
-
2

a   1
a   £
    o
    C/5
    W
    C/i
(2
                I

                O




                                                    •21

                                           C —  "« «
                                           ? -o  is s
                                                      -
                                                            >
                                                            3
                                                            o
                                               g.
                                            s
                                            00

                                            V

  "8
  c
  s.
  £
                                                                  c


                                                                 .2 c

                                                     •8
                                                     i
                                           &s.f sis
                                           1§I III
                                           w *» 3
                                           — "Tl M
                                           §

                .a
                                            §

                                            I
                                            O
                                                              EQ"
                                                    1?


                                                    I1
                                                    Sb*
                                                           il
                                                           ii
                                                              2§ -a
In 1 S C

lMs3
"1 5 g •" CO
 §8 '3 "c 7;
 6fi CO CO X
S«l§|
.o u j^ 3 a.
is — i
                                                                i e
                                                                x> o
                                                                co •;:
                                                                § S
                                                                      VJ   u
                                                                      a>   l-i

                                                                      I   £
        = S
        it
                                                                OS
                                                                r 3
                                                                S o
        •
       *O *-
       C «
       9 « %•
       0 S c

       «-iS
       i "§ °
                                                               lis
                                                               III
                                                         jj3||
ei
ll.s
                                                           &l*
                                                    r
                                                    8 =
                                                    IT
«»ltij
Hi!!
!JP^
.iiiff
1=11-
 I H
 o «J '
x" s a
« Si g
 ,.2 txg
 ,1*5
                                                              u C
                                                                    s
                                    77

-------
                             TABLE III-9

                       LIABILITY STANDARDS

                              SUMMARY
•      14  States have strict, joint and several liability standards.

•      9  States have  strict,  joint  and  several  liability  standards  with
       provisions for apportionment.

•      5 States have proportional liability standards.

•      5 States specify strict or joint and several liability, but not both.

•      17  States have other standards, or the standard is  not specified.
                                   78

-------
     TABLE III-9



LIABILITY STANDARDS
Strict
Joint and Several Proportional Other Not Specified
REGION I
Connecticut X
Maine X
Massachusetts X
New Hampshire X
Rhode Island X2
Vermont X
X
X
X X1
X
X
X X1
REGION II
New Jersey X
New York
X
X3
REGION III
Delaware
Maryland X
Pennsylvania X
Virginia
West Virginia
X
X5
X X7
X
X
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida X
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina X
Tennessee X
X
X
X
X*
X9
X
X
X
         79

-------
  TABLE III-9 (Con't)



LIABILITY STANDARDS
Strict
Joint and Several Proportional Other Not Specified
REGION V
Illinois X
Indiana X
Michigan
Minnesota X
Ohio X11
Wisconsin X
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana X
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas X
X11
X
X
X X10
X
X12

X
X X1-5
X13
X
X X1
REGION VII
Iowa X14
Kansas
Missouri X
Nebraska X
X11
X


REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana X
North Dakota
South Dakota X
Utah X
Wyoming
X
X X10
X

X
X
          80

-------
                                                     TABLE  III-9 (Con't)

                                                  LIABILITY STANDARDS
                           Strict               Joint and Several         Proportional      Other     Not  Specified
REGION IX	


Arizona                    XX                              X

California                   X                                                    X1'10

Hawaii                     X

Nevada


REGION X


Alaska                     X                    X

Idaho

Oregon                     X                    X15

Washington                 X                    X
1.        Where liable party establishes by a preponderance of evidence that he or she liable for a portion then liability "divisible."
2.        "Absolutely" liable - interpreted as strict, joint, and several by agency.
3.        Determined by Commission, any statutory or common law defense available.
5.        Where there is reasonable basis for determining contribution.
6.        Legislative history indicates joint and several liability.
7.        At multi-party sites, State is required to prepare NBARs and parties may "cashout" with proportional  share plus premium.
8.        "Any person responsible for a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance."
9.        "Any person creating, or responsible for creating, an immediate necessity for remedial or clean-up action."
10.       Court apportionment
11.       No liability standard specified in Statute - State has argued for strict, joint and several liability.
12.       Primary cleanup statute leaves liability up to common law standards.
13.       "Persons responsible for hazardous waste cleanup"  - interpreted as joint and several.
14.       Limited strict liability - $5M for transporters,  $50M for facilities.
15.       Under common law principles, if  harm is indivisible and not capable of apportionment, joint and several liability applies.
                                                                  81

-------
                     TABLE HMO

        PENALTIES AND DAMAGES AVAILABLE
          IN STATE "SUPERFUND" STATUTE

                      SUMMARY
22 States have punitive damage provisions.

    17 States have punitive damage provisions for treble the
      State's cost.

    2 States have punitive damage provisions for double the State's
      cost.

    2 States have punitive damage provisions for one and one-half
      times the State's cost.

    1 State does not limit the amount for punitive damages.

45 States have civil penalty provisions.

    Most States have civil penalties of up to $10K/day (19 States)
      or $25K/day (15 States).

    2 States have civil penalties of up to $50K/day.

    4 States have caps civil penalties  ranging from
      $5-$250K/violation.

    2 States have minimum civil penalties of $5K/day.
                           82

-------
                                                    TABLE 111-10

                                  PENALTIES AND DAMAGES  AVAILABLE
                                      IN STATE  "SUPERFUND" STATUTE
                            Punitive Damages
                                                     Civil Penalties
REGION I
Connecticut

Maine

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Vermont
1 1/2 times cost and expense (negligence)

AG (no limit)

Treble



Treble

Treble
Up to $25,000/day



Up to $25,000/violation



Up to $10,000/day or administrative penalties

Up to $10,000/day
REGION II
New Jersey


New York
Treble
Up to $50,000/day - $25,000 for discharge/day
and $25,000 for violation/day

Up to $25,000/violation plus $25,000/day
(Doubles for second violation)
REGION III
Delaware

Maryland


Pennsylvania

Virginia

West Virginia
Treble
$25,000/day

Up to $10,000/day Administrative-up to
$l,000/day ($50,000 cap).

Up to $25,000/day (min - $5,000/day).

Up to $10,000/day

Penalty for not paying fee
REGION IV
Alabama

Florida

Georgia

Kentucky

Mississippi

North  Carolina


South  Carolina

Tennessee
Treble

1 1/2 times
$100-25,000 ($250,000 max.)

Up to $25,000/day

Up to $25,000/day

$l,000/day

Up to $25,000/day

$10,000/day for violation involving hazardous
waste (Public Health Land)

Up to $25,000/day

Up to $10,000/day
                                                           83

-------
            TABLE IIMO (Con't)

    PENALTIES AND DAMAGES AVAILABLE
      IN STATE "SUPERFUND" STATUTE
Punitive Damages
Civil Penalties
REGION V
Illinois Treble
Indiana Treble*
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
$10,000 for violation and $l,000/day
$25,000/day and $500/hour of violation of
emergency order
$25,000/day
$20,000/day or $100,000 for disturbing closed
RCRA facility
Up to $10,000/day
$10 to $5,000/day
REGION VI
Arkansas Treble
Louisiana Treble cost of RFs share of costs
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas Double under Spill Act
Up to $25,000/day
Up to $50,000/day
$5,000/day or $10,000/day
Up to $10,000/day
Up to $10,000/day
REGION VII
Iowa Treble
Kansas
Missouri Treble
Nebraska
Up to $l,000/day

Up to $10,000/day
Judicial only
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana Double
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming

Up to $1,000 administrative penalties or $10,000
per day for violation of order
Up to $5,000, $10,000 or $25,000 per day for
violation of order, violation of permit, regulation,
or standards, or violation of statute, permit or
orders.
Up to $10,000/day
Up to $10,000/day

                    84

-------
                                        TABLE 111-10 (Con't)
                             PENALTIES AND DAMAGES  AVAILABLE
                                IN STATE  "SUPERFUND" STATUTE
                        Punitive Damages                          Civil Penalties
REGION IX
Arizona                   Treble                                        Up to $5,000/day or up to $10,000/day (judicial)
California                  Treble                                        Up to $2S,000/day
Hawaii                   Treble                                        Up to $10,000/day
Nevada                                                               Up to $10,000/day

REGION X
Alaska                                                               $500-100,000 + $10,000/day
Idaho                                                                Up to $10,000/day
Oregon                   Treble                                        $10,000/day
Washington                Treble                                        Up to $25,000/day
                                                  85

-------
                    TABLE III-ll

      STATE CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA

                      SUMMARY



States reported that their cleanup policies and criteria includes one
or more of the following:

      18 States rely on State ARARs.

      20 States rely on EPA Guidelines.

      7 States rely on MCLs.

      6 States have "cleanup to background" policy.

      14 States use  a risk standard assessment method.
                          86

-------
     B
B   U
s   i
5   ?
     U
     £
                i
a
                 R HJ
                   c
                £5 §
                   (A
0.8

§t
UtQ

                   on
                   
-------












2
"c
o
O
I-H
M
i
a














^
3
B
S
u
Q


-------
      u
      Q
 §
a    g
~    3

i2
                  
                              as
                              o
                                               X     X
                                        x
                                                                                            '.Sc
                                                                      0|
                                                             Z
                                                             O
                                                                                                            B'i
                                                                                                      •*
                                                                                                      O
                                                     89

-------
    at
    u
a
3   0
3   2

5   2


            DM
               C/]
            CL, 3

            WO
            U
IO
                         X
                               D.S
                               X
                                   o
                                              *

                                              Is
                                              II
                                              II
                                              II
                                                        1
                                                        §
                                                        j
                                                         g
                                                        B=
                                                        £^
                                                   XXX
                                                      5  J5
                                  90

-------







^
Jrj
B

2
u
Q
/**^ »-y
i ^
CJ CO
^ Cd
5 u
3 s
H 2
s £
3 1
i
u
1
tS
CO















Comments
1
•Ss
§ §
co c
•*-* B
iyi S?
(/i
k> 4)
•a S
"1 ^3
oi <


s"§
3
§"§,
S-?
«> y
CM
Ul
rt 1
I
4>
<3
OH 3
WO

CA

-------
                     TABLE IH-12

    STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES

                       SUMMARY
22  States   have  statutory  or  regulatory  public  participation
requirements.

    12 States solicit comments from the public,  1 State must
      respond to significant comments, and 1 State must include comments
      in Administrative Record.

    8 States conduct public meetings or hearings and 3 States
      do so only if requested.

    11 States have "notice" requirements.

24 States have policies or procedures for public participation.

    12 States hold or may hold public  meetings.

    3 States have community relations  staff assigned to
      selected or all  sites.
                           92

-------














a
J3
M
U
i





















!/5
s
p
Q
8
O
tt
Cu
Z
0
H
«*
a.
U
1

u
i
ft .
MM
1
P
Cfl












••M
•^
1
g
X!
3
^.
^
£
"o
Cu








v>
•*rf
I
2

1
^
o
js
1
1
s
«rf
es
•*rf
03



a
es
^





























1—4
z
o
MM
O
K
0.
3
•3
| I
« .a
I 1
8 S
s 1
i °
S. s
•0 "
"S ">
5 "E
s- §
S iS



1 Ui
§ 1-8
1 «|g
1 I'll
1 ]8«
£ c u &..S
M .2 " 8
10 'I i §
S 8. -c°5
i! ill
'5-8 -g a 8
B 60 ,- t= £
II H-«
f 1 tli
•i| |-sl
U M 3 £•*
's '-! =1 •§
o 1 s 1 •
^^ gis
3-3 e 8 £
8f Is-
«1 ^g-S
^i ^^lc
o« w j= *- &• g
§C O Q
a 8«S
si a!.*?.
a
3 i
•g £

J i s

















i
1
a"
£•
°B
3

I *
0
e- 5
-S2 s*
S •-
« o
1 I
1 1
o *•*
1 fi
S V
0. &
II





           a

           |  1
           a  o
                         1   i
                         o   o«
                         1   I

                         I   j
                         g   I
                         I   I
                         •3   g
                         a*
                         r°  i
93

-------
Q
a
u

i
O.
O


I
2
o.
        t
         i
         O

         eg

                   I

                   I
                   3
                            II
   i!
   8§



   f!
   .aS

   It

   89
   5S
   «

   1'
                         I8
                         jjt
^  I
                                  I
                                                 £


                                                 i
                                          t
                                                      .a  .a
                                                            •o

                                                            S
                                                            4


                                                            2

                                                            •5





                                                            II
                                                       f ]
                                                         "ft
                                                                I
fS
                               94

-------











•M
"(5
O
U
<2
^•l
i
NN
TABLE 1














c/i
S
D
§
U
O
£
ON
fc
O
NN
g
NN
0
STATE PUBLIC PARTI









tn
S
'•3
0,

|
»i^
5
^
§




utory/Regulatory Requirements
•a
A
55

S
08
35



















>
z
o
M
O
s
1
B _
E S
B 1 4
t'l -S
c y
~ s
8 BO o
I J 1
« v *
I - i
T2 « „

•2 « *o
1 = S
* | 1
2-g *
§ 8 a
£ y o
11 1
(Jo. eu

B
i
«
tH
u
f
comment period for final remediation decisions/orders.
i information
1 public hearing when site list is updated
>ed rules call for public hearings during remedy selectior
notice and comments for proposed site listing and for 01
indling.
« a 3 g .a 5
•? 1 1 §• 3 „
A - 5 E 3 J2
« U < a. a. -s
B f
•§ s * i
.1 1 « 1
S S S 2



1
0
§
i 5
g |
8&
^
c meeting a
y under dev
— U"
1 I




B
(9
U
2
"S
a
S
1
4>
1
•o
e
01
.1°
.a
3
3
B.


.2
S














§
Jl,
£?
= s
l!
S- 8-
« w o
i? i
il s i
S a- ~3 -o
E E =3 o
o w en
}«H
5 1 1
if i. i
«1 & ?
•3 8> § s
•s e -s "
0 «. ° be
•8-S .8 1
11 8 1
.a .a .a .a
33 3 3
££ <2 <2
B
O
^
95

-------
















Cfl
a
8
O
~ £
fi S5
s i
~ £
a £
TABLE III-
UBLIC PARTICI
ft.
I
tt

















W5
JU
.a
^^
u
S
ON

«
O
3
!
£




rements
•P^
1
i
2
t
^
2
a
^
«
•^
W3



«
c»




























^
Z
O
p«4
O
§
sts
il
si
•h
t;
ti
a K.H
•§ iff
J 1^
§ *#
«> J-i 2
» f£

1 8 a-
g, sg
K Eg
fa
a
o a...
t S gJi
« .1 jj!
f 111
§ ^Ma
1 11 g
•Ji ilS
3 E u u
,? rS 0 »
o. U Q a


§
1
.H
_e
1 g
o n
5 a,
•8 §
c 8
a. »
E g
p c
O i)
Je bb
£ c e
f .2 ! 1
i 1 ! 1
S -2 «
a £ s §
£. g 8
8 | I 2
0 ° CO bA
g 4 8 -S
1, i 'f §
P "p o o
C -j .j
si 1 11

" s §

S 1 ^ 1 i
1 j 1 i 1




























*H
W
0

o



1

V
1
e
.|

C
o

e
JO
"a.
gp
c
"e
8
I
S
Q


2 * | fi
* '5 | f
a u 0
s e - =
ill
i • i 1
i 2 * !•
1 log
i ? " i
61 a. « §
2 - * 1
1 1 '* »
•o S § '3.
I I 1 §
u a -s
$ 1 1 II
s^ -1 i[
II i 8 • •« *
il I 11 !f

1| § 1 8* 3 J
25 £ ,58 <2 a



11 1
J d 1 1
96

-------
    z
    o

«   I
*H   Cu
a
s   °?
s   *
H   U
    BQ

    g
             8

             '•§


REGION
                                     1
                                     S
                           .§
                           e
                           .2


                           I

                           s

                           .§
                                   A
                                   g.
                                   o

                                   i
                                   i
                                   3
                                   g

                                   |

                                   S
                                   •8
                           e  t*
                           1  I
                                   5
                                              1   !
                                              l^J  2
                                              SI  -3

                                                  ill
                                                  irr
11
                                    97

-------












^
~c
i
MM
M
a



















s
g
o
a
u
O
CtJ
0,
jj
PARTICIPATE
STATE PUBLIC














en
2
a,

*
•<
^
,w
o
£




latory Requirements
&
S^
afi
•B
o
|
08



O)
es

W3






















X
Z
0
r?
td

Os
u
I
i
2
a
'5 «
t *
e '=
1 i
i
£ 6



ni
>u
tit
S£2
^
Ms
rogram for identifying releases.
ues of proposed remedial acti
if requested by at least 10 pea
iblic notice regarding proposed
O. Jj* ȣ
*S *-
<* = " $
1 sal
1 lif
1 I'll
Z CM OH O



c
! * &
« ffl E
520














liance and enforcement
t public interest groups.
ens' advisory committees.
gative or remedial plans, compi
violation.
nts to individuals and non-profii
| 1 ° 5

« •- § .2
I |1 1
| = S, t
111!


§
e
"S

>
98

-------
                                  CHAPTER IV

                             STATE SUMMARIES
       This  chapter contains a concise, two-page summary of each State's hazardous waste
cleanup capabilities.  The States  are listed according to EPA Regions.

       Nine program elements are described in each of the summaries:

   •   Sites - includes NPL  sites, State  list sites, State inventory or registry sites,
       unconfirmed or potential State sites, or total identified hazardous waste sites.

   •   Statutes  -   lists  legislation  providing  Fund,  cleanup,   and  enforcement
       capabilities,  and   major  provisions  of  statute(s),  including   significant
       amendments.

   •   State  Agency - describes State  agency(s) responsible for hazardous  waste
       cleanup, including  number of  program staff and number of staff providing
       legal support.

   •   Funding - includes description  of  funding mechanism, sources of funds, fund
       balances, annual additions, and authorized expenditures.

   •   Enforcement -  discusses legal authorities such  as liability  standard, cost
       recovery, penalty  and damage provisions,  order  authority,  in addition  to
       enforcement methods.

   •   Cleanup Activities  - presents information on cleanup activities  at  both NPL
       and non-NPL State sites.

   •   Cleanup Policies and Criteria - summarizes cleanup standards and/or criteria
       and policies used for remedy selection.

   •   Public  Participation -  summarizes statutory  requirements  and State policies
       and  procedure  for public  participation   in  the  hazardous  waste  cleanup
       program.

   •   Federal/State Partnership - lists any agreements or grants existing between the
       State and EPA.

       The information for each of the State programs is current as of the date indicated
on the first page of the summary.
                                          99

-------
           g
           o
           LU
           o:
-  z
>  2

p
    LU
                                         100

-------
  REGION I
  Connecticut
    Maine
 Massachusetts
New Hampshire
 Rhode Island
   Vermont
      101

-------
                 SITES
NPL sites

Proposed NPL

State list



unconfirmed sites
                                       8

                                       6

                    Inventory of Haz. Waste
                    Disposal Site (1/87): 567
                    sites including NPL sites

                      75 under investigation
CONNECTICUT
               [5/22/89]
1.


2.

3,
     Public Act 87-561, codified at  Conn.  Gen,  Stat  ||22a-l33a through -I33h i (1987) c^a^es
     Superfufld program, authorizes Fund expenditures and cpst leeovery*    : § : , ..:. v ;'      . • f i : : !   ; ;f

     Emergency Spill Reyxmse Fund, Conn, Gen. Stafc §22a-45l
-------
                             CONNECTICUT (continued)
          ENFORCEMENT

  Legal authorities available include strict, joint
and several liability, orders for information and
site access,  subpoena authority, administrative
and consent order authority, injunctive action
and cost recovery authority. Civil  penalties of
$25K/day  available  under  hazardous  waste
program, 1  1/2 x punitive  damages  available.
Lien provision  also available. Preferred enforce-
ment method  is consent  order,  followed  by
administrative  order, or court  action.  $450K
collected in  1988 civil penalties  and criminal
fines. State is required to attempt cost  recovery.
       CLEANUP POLICIES
          AND  CRITERIA

  Determined  on site-by-site basis,  including
consideration of ground-water classification.
      CLEANUP ACTIVITIES

   Inventory of 561 sites includes SO sites that
have been cleaned up. Up to 40 sites added to
inventory in FY89.
                                                    PUBLIC  PARTICIPATION

                                                  No  public participation requirements. DEP
                                                contacts local officials with cleanup  workplan
                                                and may hold public meetings at various stages
                                                of cleanup.
                                                         FEDERAL/STATE
                                                           PARTNERSHIP

                                                 A SMOA is in negotiation. State has received
                                                CAs, MAs, and a CORE Grant in FY88.
                                          103

-------
                  SITES
NPL sites

Proposed NPL

known and
potential  sites
                        6

                        2
  317 (including NPL sites).
 Of these sites, 120 need no
further action, 108 need Sis,
    83 need cleanup, six (6)
      have been cleaned up.
MAINE
                                                                    [5/3/89]
                                         STATUTE
Uncontrolled Hazardous Substance Sites Act,
and 198;?) provides for cleanup of sites and enforcement authorities.
                                       $|13^ Sbrdugfe
           STATE AGENCY

   Department  of  Environmental   Protection,
 Bureau  of Oil and Hazardous Material Control,
 Division of Licensing and Enforcement, Uncon-
 trolled  Sites  Program  has  11 staff  split  into
 three (3) sections:  administrative support  and
 two (2) site  management  units.  Funding  from
 Federal  and  State sources. Planned  expansion
 will increase staff in Uncontrolled Sites Program
 by 21 positions by end of 1989.

   One  (1) to one and one-half  (1.S) positions
 in  the  AG's office  are devoted to Superfund-
 type enforcement activity. Dept. also works with
 Bureau  of Health  in  conducting  risk assess-
 ments, lab work.
                                                  FUNDING

                                     Two accounts:

                                     (1) The Uncontrolled Sites Fund is currently
                                   unfunded.  In  the  future,  cost  recovery  for
                                   oversight and penalties/fines would be deposited
                                   in Fund.

                                     (2)  The  "Bond  Account",  authorized  by
                                   cleanup fund referenda  in  1984 ($3.23M) and
                                   1987   ($5M)   contains  $4-5M  unobligated
                                   balance. No cap on Fund.

                                     Fund used for emergency response,  studies
                                   and  design,  remedial  actions,  O&M,  State
                                   CERCLA match.
                                               104

-------
                                MAINE (continued)
          ENFORCEMENT

  Legal authorities  include strict, joint and
several  liability, orders  for information, site
access and  remediation,  order authority, cost
recovery,   liens   and   punitive   damages.
Commissioner must designate a site for consent
decree. Penalty  authority  from hazardous waste
statute.  Dept.  also  has  property  forfeiture
provision (used once).

  State prefers negotiated agreements. About 20
cleanup orders  issued  to  date.  Cost recovery
settlement received in  two  cases. Dept.  writes
and negotiates  agreements, AG handles other
enforcement
       CLEANUP POLICIES
          AND CRITERIA

  Case-by-case.  Risk  to  human  health
toxicity levels considered. Risk range of 10* to
107 for carcinogens.
      CLEANUP ACTIVITIES

  No State-lead NPL sites. Six (6) sites cleaned
up, 191  more State sites need inspection and
cleanup.  Discovery program in 1987 identified
180 sites in a two-week period.
     PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

  No formal requirements. Participation  on  an
ad hoc basis.
                                                          FEDERAL/STATE
                                                           PARTNERSHIP

                                                   SMOA in negotiations.

                                                   CORE Grant  in  FY88.  State has received
                                                MSCA funding, CA funding, and MA funding.
                                          105

-------
                 SITES
NPL sites

State list


unconfirmed sites
                                  21 final

                             1152 (includes
                                NPL sites)

                          1634 according to
                         State classification
                                   system
MASSACHUSETTS
                   [8/29/89]
                                       STATUTE
Tfa Massachusetts Oil o^ tffzor<&^
21E (1983), provides for strict, joint and several liability; sdte access,
auUjprity; sulqx>ena and consent order aufljprity; injanctive relief; civil and criminal
priority liens; and punitive damages, Citizen suits are authorized by a separate
                                                                              Gen*
                                                                      and administrative order
                                                                      penalties; cost recovery;
                                                                  statute;  :   .: '•:
          STATE AGENCY

   Three  (3)  bureaus  in  the  Department  of
Environmental Protection (DEP)  comprise the
cleanup  program. Of 519  authorized positions,
there are 267 funded positions. The Bureau of
Waste Site Cleanup  has  140 funded  positions
and is responsible for site cleanups.

   Fifteen DEP  attorneys for 2-3 attorneys in
the AG's office provide enforcement support
                                                                FUNDING

                                                     Bonds,  hazardous  waste  transporter  fees,
                                                  penalties and  fines, and  cost recoveries fund
                                                  program activities. Balance of S56.4M in bonds
                                                  (out of $85M authorized)  remains available for
                                                  remedial activities, O&M,  and CERCLA match.
                                                  The hazardous waste transporter fees, amounting
                                                  to $5.8M/yr are  used to service bond  debt.
                                                  Obligated  bonds   and  transporter  fees  are
                                                  deposited in Massachusetts General Fund until
                                                  needed.

                                                     Program  administration  and personnel  costs
                                                  are financed by penalties and fines and cost
                                                  recoveries   deposited  in  the  Environmental
                                                  Challenge  Fund (ECF).  New oversight cost
                                                  recovery program began 7/1/89 and is expected
                                                  to generate  $5M/yr. Balance of ECF is  $5.8M
                                                  as of 7/89. An additional $7.5M remains  of
                                                  $21M one-time appropriation  in  1987  and is
                                                  available for program operations.
                                            106

-------
                           MASSACHUSETTS (continued)
          ENFORCEMENT

  DEP will  provide PRPs  an opportunity to
clean up a site; if the party is recalcitrant, DEP
will  clean  up  the  site  and  recover costs.
Administrative orders are  cumbersome, due to
the appeals process. Voluntary cleanup is high
(80%);  program  staff  attribute  this  to  the
statute's   provisions  for  priority  liens  and
punitive damages.
        CLEANUP POLICIES
           AND CRITERIA

  Permanent   solutions  required  whenever
feasible. Standards include existing health or
environmental  standards (e.g.  MCLs and State
ARARs) where applicable or suitably analogous.
Feasible includes both  technical and economical
practicability. If no applicable standards exist,
use  site-specific health-based standard, including
risk assessment.
      CLEANUP ACTIVITIES

  270 RAs completed over and above  1151 on
State list.

  90% PRP cleanups.

  One (1) State lead at one (1) NPL site.
     PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

  The statute and regulations provide for notice
to the public  of results of site investigations
within 30 days of completion, public meetings
upon  petition   for  community  involvement
regarding  response  actions.  State  technical
assistance grants, and public site inspections.
                                                           FEDERAL/STATE
                                                            PARTNERSHIP

                                                   No SMOA, trying to negotiate one.

                                                   MSCA-one (1) multisite CA  covering  22
                                                 sites. Three (3) site-specific CAs.  MAs and one
                                                 TAG, CORE Grant for FY88.
                                           107

-------
                 SITES
NPL sites

Proposed NPL

unconfirmed sites
              15

               0

 Between 150-175
nonNPL hazardous
       waste sites
          NEW
HAMPSHIRE
                                                                  [8/11/89]
                                         STATUTE

New Hampshire Hazardous Waste Laws, Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund (HWO3), (1981, amended 1981,
1983, 1985,  1986, and  1987), establishes State Fund and  provides for strict, joint and several liability,
criminal penalties, cost recovery, and first priority  liens  on  real J>r0r>erty where hazardous waste or
hazardous material is located, the business revenues generated: from fte ifacility on tne real property where
the hazardous waste or hazardous material Is located, and aB personal property located at this facility. A.
lien without priority, effective as of the da» and time  of recording: and filing, can te established against all
other property.
           STATE AGENCY

   The Waste Management  Division of State's
 Department  of Environmental Services  (DES)
 administers HWCF. The Division is broken into
 three (3)  bureaus.  The Waste  Management
 Engineering  Bureau is primarily responsible for
 federal and  state Superfund  work and has five
 (5) staff funded by the HWCF. The HWCF also
 funds several  other  positions within the DES,
 including a  team of hydrogeologists within the
 Water Resources Division of DES. AG's office
 provides legal support The AG's office charges
 the HWCF for its certain services it performs at
 HWCF sites.
                                        FUNDING

                            The HWCF, with a balance of $1.2M (as of
                          6/30/88) is derived primarily from quarterly fees
                          paid by generators of hazardous waste fees paid
                          by facilities  that  treat,  store and  dispose  of
                          hazardous waste from out of state and criminal
                          penalties and fines. Recovered costs, interest on
                          the HWCF, and appropriations also are placed
                          in  the  HWCF.  An  average  of  $800K  is
                          collected per FY. [The  HWCF has a cap of
                          $3MJ

                            The  HWCF can  be  used for  emergency
                          response,  removals, remedial action, and other
                          actions that constitute aequate, safe containment
                          and cleanup  of nonqualifying Superfund sites.
                          Fund monies can  be expended only  for those
                          projects  that  do  not  qualify  for  assistance
                          pursuant to Superfund.  All  fund expenditures
                          must be approved by the governor.
                                             108

-------
                            NEW HAMPSHIRE (continued)
           ENFORCEMENT

   The New Hampshire Hazardous Waste Laws
provide  for strict, joint  and several  liability.
State is authorized to issue administrative orders
including orders for information, site access, and
site  cleanup.   State  also has  subpoena and
consent  order  authorities.  State  may  take
injunctive action to induce generator to clean up
site. State has first priority lien on real property
where hazardous waste and hazardous materials
are located,  on  business  revenues generated
from the facility on the real property where the
hazardous  wastes and hazardous materials are
located,  and on all personal property located at
the facility. State may impose criminal penalties
and bring action to recover costs.
       CLEANUP ACTIVITIES

   The HWCF  is used to  fund  several  staff
positions  within DES,  and has been used for
emergency removal at the N.H. Plating facility
in Merrimack,  and for various hydrogeological
studies at sites in the preliminary stages  of
investigation. It also will be used  to engage in
clean-up order  actions at the Hunt Tire facility.
Portions of the HWCF are used for a household
hazardous  waste clean-up program, and to pay
the AG's  office for legal services.
        CLEANUP POLICIES
           AND  CRITERIA

  Cleanup  must   meet   or  exceed  Federal
standards. The State ARARs are  as stringent as,
or more stringent, than Federal ARARs.
     PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

   No  formal  requirements.  The  State  is
currently   studying  and  establishing   public
participation procedures, and intends to hire a
public  relations  coordinator.  Presently  RPMs
informally contact local citizens and government
officials.
          FEDERAL/STATE
            PARTNERSHIP

   MSCAs for seven (7) sites. CAs for 13 sites.
Eight (8) MAs  granted.   FY88  CORE Grant
No technical assistance grants.
                                             109

-------
                SITES
NPL sites

Proposed NPL

suspected and
unconfirmed sites
                                    258
                                              RHODE  ISLAND
                                                              [8/11/89]
                                      STATUTE;
Hazardous Waste Management Act, RX Gen. Laws, ||23-l9J4 ihrOugn 2349,1-33
1984,  1987)  provides  authorities for  cleanup of abafldfc^^
Response Fund estal^ed: by araej«taei*t» |23>4^^                       :
                                                                                   1979,
          STATE AGENCY

   Department of Environmental  Management,
Division  of Air  and  Hazardous   Materials,
Environmental Response  Section  has nine (9)
full-time professional  staff.  Staff  funding  from
CORE  grant, CAs for NPL oversight and pre-
remedial work, and Bond  Fund.

   In-house  legal support provided by one (1)
attorney (60% of time),  with assistance  from
AG's office on criminal cases.
                                                              FUNDING

                                                   Environmental Response Fund has a balance
                                                of $2.2M  (1/88). Primary source  of Fund is
                                                bonds,  with  smaller contributions  from cost
                                                recoveries and penalties/fines.

                                                   Fund may be used for emergency  response,
                                                removals, site evaluation, remedial action, and
                                                temporary water supplies and resident relocation.
                                           110

-------
                         RHODE ISLAND (continued)
         ENFORCEMENT

  Legal authorities include "Absolute" liability
(strict), subpoena, administrative orders, injunc-
tive action, civil and criminal penalties,  cost
recovery and treble damages.
       CLEANUP POLICIES
          AND CRITERIA

  Case-by-case; no standards.
      CLEANUP ACTIVITIES

  No information.
    PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

  No  formal  requirements or informal  pro-
cedures on State cleanups. On Federal enforce-
ment sites, process may include hearings where
public can become involved.
                                                    FEDERAL/STATE
                                                      PARTNERSHIP

                                              State has CAs for pre-remedial work and CA
                                            for Management Assistance at 7 NFL  sites.
                                            CORE Grant for FY88.
                                      Ill

-------
                 SITES
NPL sites

Proposed NPL

State list


Non-NPL sites

unconfirmed sites
                 4

                 4

     130 (all types of
hazardous waste sites)

                122

                50
VERMONT
          [5/2/89]
       ;              ;     '   |     :  J. STATUTES

1.    Contingency Fund, Vermont Water Pollution Control Law* Vt StaL AtttL tit  16 §$1282-1283,
     provides fund for emergency response, studies and design and remedial actions.

2.    Vermont Solid  Waste  Management law,  Vt  Sfct  Ann. tit  10 §§6601-6618 (1977,, significant
     amendments in 1981> 1985, and 1987) provides enforcement authorities.
          STATE AGENCY

   Agency of Natural Resources, Department of
Environmental   Conservation,    Hazardous
Materials Management Division, Hazardous Sites
Management  section has  seven  (7)  technical
staff.  Section handles all hazardous waste work
including CERCLA, RCRA, pre-remedial and
State  list work.  40% of staff time spent on
Federal  CERCLA.  One (1) staff member at
Department of Health handles site management
Three (3) attorneys at AG's office spend at least
50% of time  on hazardous waste cases. Admin-
istrative costs from appropriations.
                                          FUNDING

                              Environmental Contingency Fund balance of
                            $675K with $400K collected last year.  No cap
                            on Fund.  Funding  sources are  a hazardous
                            waste generator tax, discharge permit application
                            fees, cost recovery and damages.

                              Fund  can be  used for emergency  response,
                            studies and design, and remedial actions.  State
                            CERCLA  match   not   financed   out  of
                            Contingency Fund   Disbursements  for non-
                            emergency  situations  cannot  exceed   $50K
                            without approval.
                                            112

-------
                                VERMONT (continued)
          ENFORCEMENT

  Under Fund, Agency must give "discharging
party" opportunity to clean up.  Agency sends
out letters, to be  followed  by administrative
order in the event of noncompliance.  95% of
sites  are cleaned up by RPs voluntarily.  The
State has  strict, joint and several liability and
treble damages  provisions. Liability apportion-
ment is available. The Agency has strong order
authority including authority to request informa-
tion,  subpoena documents, issue administrative
orders, issue consent orers, and issue orders for
entry.

   Penalties  and fines go  to General  Fund;
recovered costs go into Contingency Fund.
       CLEANUP POLICIES
          AND CRITERIA

  Standards based on ground-water statute used
as triggers for remedial action. Actual cleanup
determination  made  on a  case-by-case  basis.
State is developing soil standards.
      CLEANUP ACTIVITIES

  44 sites have been closed as of 5/89.
     PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

  No  formal requirements.   Agency  holds
public meetings.
                                                         FEDERAL/STATE
                                                           PARTNERSHIP

                                                  SMOA is planned to be in place in 1989.
                                                Two  MSCA's  in 1989 for  pre-remedial,  and
                                                remedial management assistance. FY88 CORE
                                                Grant
                                          113

-------
REGION II
New Jersey
 New York
    114

-------
NPL sites

Proposed NPL

State list




unconfirmed sites
             SITES

                                  100

                                    7

                   Status Report Update
                (major sites over $100K)
              -336 (includes ECRA sites
                          over $100K)

                                  1200
NEW   JERSEY
              [8/11/89]
I.
/:•••	••;••	    -  	;	l--' -;	••>; • STATUTES

Ntw Jersey  Spill  Cetttpertsatioif 
-------
                              NEW JERSEY (continued)
           ENFORCEMENT

  Legal  authorities  include  strict,  joint and
several liability (not to exceed $50M per facility
for damages), with a treble damages provision.
Injunctive  action, cost recovery  authorized  in
Act Civil penalties of $50K/violation,  criminal
penalties of misdemeanor for  false information,
in addition to provisions in criminal Code. The
Spill Act is interpreted  to provide consent order
authority. Lien provision in statute has priority
over  all  other  liens.  Department  policy,  to
preserve treble damages provision, is  to provide
RP notification and chance to cleanup.
       CLEANUP ACTIVITIES

   Of sites in State, approx.  one-third  State-
funded,  one-third  Federally-funded,  one-third
privately-funded. Approx. half of NPL sites in
State are State-lead. Nine (9) of the top 10 NPL
sites will be in cleanup phase by end of FY89.

   Between July  and  December  1988,  176
ECRA  consent  orders  entered  into,   with
financial assurances over $90M.
        CLEANUP POLICIES
           AND  CRITERIA

   Use  appropriate  and  applicable  existing
criteria, or action levels. Standards assessed on
a  site-by-site  basis and  should  be consistent
with NCP.
     PUBLIC  PARTICIPATION

   Act specifies  that actions  should  "to  the
greatest extent  possible,  be in  accordance  with
the NCP."  Department  policy  is  to  generally
follow NCP  procedures.  State  holds  public
meeting prior to adopting RODs, public meeting
prior to RI/FS,  upon completion of RI/FS, upon
completion  of  RD, at  beginning  of  RA,  at
conclusion of RA.
          FEDERAL/STATE
            PARTNERSHIP

   No  SMOA.  State  has  received  CAs
MAs. CORE Grant in FY88.
                                                                                         and
                                                     State  source  estimates  that  New  Jersey
                                                   received $274M in Federal Superfund monies in
                                                   FY88-20% of the national site-specific dollars,
                                                   and 48% of Federal funds available for remedial
                                                   actions. In  FY89,  the  State  is  expected to
                                                   receive over $12S.8M in Federal funds, 23% of
                                                   available CERCLA dollars.
                                             116

-------
                  SITES
NPL sites

Proposed NPL

State list



unconfirmed sites
                   73

                    3

1373; 1,091 on registry
   (incl. NPL) plus 282
               delis ted

 615-546 under investi-
 gation and 69 awaiting
          investigation
NEW  YORK
            [8/11/89]
         .'  	•.      L  .- -...-   :   .STATUTES'

1.   Abandoned Sites Act of 1979 (1979» Chapter 282, Environmental Conservation Law article 27, title 13}
   ;  mandates statewide inventory of sites, registry of sites, and provides order and cleanup authority.

2.   New York State Superfund Act (1982, Chapter 857), establishes fund for cleanup of sites and  State
   :  CERGLA match,      !:-.
     1985 Amendments to State Superfund Act (1985, Chapter 38} increased assessments and fees,

3.   Environmental Quality Bond Act tf 1986, authorizes $1,28 in bonds to address inactive hazardous
     waste sites.          ;
           STATE AGENCY

   Appropriations  for  staff  from  State General
Fund  transferred to Hazardous  Waste Remedial
Fund. Department of  Environmental Conserva-
tion  (DEC)  has approx. 300 staff  working on
State  and  Federal  Superfund  activities-265
funded by State, approx. 35 funded by Federal
monies.   Most  of personnel   in  Division  of
Hazardous Waste Remediation. Approx.  14-16
staff  work on  Superfund  in   the  Division of
Environmental Enforcement
                                              FUNDING

                                  Current  funding  mechanism  is  Hazardous
                               Waste Remedial Fund, State Finance Law §97-
                               6.  Prior to 4/1/87 hazardous waste assessments,
                               regulatory fees  and an  oil  transfer  surcharge
                               funded  this  "Investigation  and  Construction
                               Account" which DEC is drawing down. Balance
                               as  of 2/28/89, $23M. DEC will not issue any of
                               the  $1.2B   authorized  bonds  until  account
                               depleted. $1.2B cap on bonds.
                                  Since 4/1/87, assessments, fees, and oil trans-
                               fer surcharge have been placed in "Industry Fee
                               Transfer  Account,"  which  will be used to pay
                               for one-half of  debt  service on  bonds when
                               issued.
                                  Waste end fee expected to collect $7.7M in
                               FY88/89,  regulatory   fees also  expected  to
                               collect $6M in FY88/89. Petroleum transfer fee
                               expected to collect $14M in FY88/89.
                                  $10.6M  from  State  Emergency  Remedial
                               Action Fund Account. Fund used for emergency
                               response, removals, studies and design, remedial
                               actions, O&M, State CERCLA match.
                                              117

-------
                                NEW YORK (continued)
          ENFORCEMENT

  Division of Environmental Enforcement and
AG's office involved in enforcement activities.
Legal authorities include orders for information
and site access, subpoena authority, administra-
tive order authority, consent order and injunctive
action authority. Civil  penalties  of $25K per
violation in addition to  $2SK per day for con-
tinuing  violation.  Penalty doubles for  second
violation. Criminal penalty up to $25K/day and/
or one  year imprisonment Penalty doubles for
second  violation. Cost recovery also authorized.
Preferred enforcement  method  is  negotiated
settlement.
      CLEANUP ACTIVITIES

   Of the  1,091  sites on  Registry, 860 have
action  underway,  52  awaiting  cleanup,  69
awaiting investigation, 61 others with  deferred
action, 49 sites cleaned up  of which 39 require
O&M,  ten  (10) require no  O&M. 282 sites
delisted, 36  cleaned up, 246 required no action.
Goal is to remediating all sites by year 2000.
        CLEANUP POLICIES
           AND CRITERIA

  Decisions on site-by-site basis in cooperation
with the Department of  Health.  DEC draft
policy  is  to  encourage  use  of  permanent
remedies. Standards under development by inter-
agency task force.
     PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

  Rules specify DEC must publish  notice and
brief analysis  of remedial program,  allow 30
days for comments,  provide  opportunity  for
comments at public meeting. DEC must solicit
view of Federal, State and local  government
officials, local civic  organizations,  and local
residents. State Superfund Management Board
provides citizen oversight of remedial program.
                                                           FEDERAL/STATE
                                                            PARTNERSHIP

                                                    No  SMOA  planned. CORE  Grants, CAs,
                                                 MAs, and four (4) TAGs awarded in State.
                                            118

-------
REGION III
  Delaware
  Maryland
Pennsylvania
   Virginia
West Virginia
     119

-------
                SITES
NPL sites

Proposed NPL

State list

Non-NPL sites
                                    12

                                     8

                                    48

                     investigated 200 sites
DELAWARE
                                                            [8/11/89]
                                     STATUTE
Hazardous Waste Mawgtment Act, Det Code Ann. tit 7, §6301 through 6318
providing  authority  to engage  in emergency response, removals-potential
abandoned/inaetive/uncontrolled sites.

A "state superfund-type'1 bill is currently before it» legislature,
                                                                     §6308 added 1985)
                                                                      for responding lo
          STATE AGENCY

   Department  of  Natural  Resources  and
Environmental Control (DNREC), Division of
Air and Waste Management, CERCLA  Branch
has 16 staff funded through EPA giants.

   Legal support is provided by the AG's office
with at least 50% of two (2) attorneys assigned
to CERCLA work.
                                                            FUNDING

                                                 No funding vehicle for long-term cleanups.
                                               Legislative  appropriations  fund  emergency
                                               response and removal activities. Appropriations
                                               currently $12SK annually. State CERCLA match
                                               also through legislative appropriations.
                                         120

-------
                            DELAWARE (continued)
         ENFORCEMENT

  State relies on "imminent hazard" provisions
in  its Hazardous Waste  Act, a  RCRA-type
statute, for authorities including orders for infor-
mation, site access, subpoena authority, adminis-
trative order  authority,  injunctive action,  civil
penalties, cost recovery, criminal penalties.
    CLEANUP POLICIES AND
            CRITERIA

  DNREC follows EPA guidances.
      CLEANUP ACTIVITIES

  Five (5) NPL State-lead cleanups ongoing.
    PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

  DNREC has an active program that follows
requirements of Federal statute at NPL sites.
                                                     FEDERAL/STATE
                                                      PARTNERSHIP

                                              SMOA  signed  10/88. FY88  CORE
                                            State also receives  CA and MA grants.
                                Grant
                                       121

-------
                 SITES
NPL sites

Proposed NPL

State list


unconfirmed sites
                 7

                 3

       Sites registry
    identical to NPL

      Approx. 300--
     State master list
identical to CERCLIS
MARYLAND
           [8/11/89]
                                       STATUTE
Awatat&t Cede of Mtaytend, Environment Anfrk, Tifte ?-Haz$nto»$ MaSafiat and Hazardous Substances,
Subtitle 2-Coottolled Hazardous Substances, |§7-201 through 7*268 (1982*  amended 1982, 1984, 1985,
1986, 1987 and 1989) provides for Hazardous Substance Control Fund and enforcement authorities.
          STATE  AGENCY

   Department  of  the  Environment  (MDE),
Hazardous  and  Solid  Waste  Management
Administration,  CERCLA/UST/LUST  Program
has  two  divisions:  (1) CERCLA  Preremedial
Division,  with approx.  20 full-time staff; and (2)
CERCLA Response  Division, with  15  full-time
staff.  25 of these are professionals.   There is
one  (1)  full-time  community relations  staff
person.  AG's office has staff located  at MDE,
two  (2) attorneys devote approx. 75% of time to
CERCLA.   Administrative  costs  from CORE
grant, appropriations.
                                          FUNDING

                               Subaccount of  State Hazardous Substance
                            Control  Fund is  funded by  three (3) bond
                            issuances of S2.5M  each.   Fund balance  of
                            S7.25M.   No  cap on  Fund.   To  date  the
                            subaccount has not been used.  Department has
                            made first request to  Board of Public Works to
                            allocate  $2.5M to 15 projects.  Fund  monies
                            can  be  used for  emergency response,  studies
                            and  design,  remedial actions,  operations  and
                            maintenance   and  State   CERCLA   match.
                            Authorization required prior to expenditure.
                                            122

-------
                              MARYLAND (continued)
          ENFORCEMENT

  No   prerequisite   to  enforcement  action,
however, the State prefers use of administrative
settlement   The  Department  sends a demand
letter with  a time-frame  for compliance.  AC
may bring cost recovery action on an apportion-
ment basis when  there is reasonable basis for
determining  contribution.  Recovery  otherwise
not  apportioned.  Statute  authorizes orders for
entry and search but not for information.

  State has injunctive  action, corrective action,
consent order, and civil penalty authority.
       CLEANUP POLICIES
          AND CRITERIA

  State hazardous waste regulations  and State
hazardous   substances  response  plan  being
updated to include cleanup standards.
      CLEANUP ACTIVITIES

  Two (2) state-lead NPL sites.
                                                   PUBLIC PARTICD7ATION

                                                 No   formal  requirements   or   informal
                                              procedures.
                                                        FEDERAL/STATE
                                                         PARTNERSHIP

                                                 SMOA in negotiations phase.  State received
                                              CORE Grant in FY89.  CAs obligated at four
                                              (4) sites.
                                         123

-------
                 SITES
NPL sites


Proposed NPL

State list

Non-NPL sites

unconfirmed sites
    71 [+5 sites cleaned
       up and delisted]

                  24

      no sites listed yet

2182 with completed PA

       113 awaiting PA
PENNSYLVANIA
                [8/11/89]
       i      •        :    :   .:  .   j;  i   STATUTE

The Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (HSCA) 
-------
                            PENNSYLVANIA (continued)
          ENFORCEMENT

   The HSCA has comprehensive order and in-
junctive authorities,  civil  penalties, criminal
penalties, treble damages, and orders for infor-
mation and  access. The  HSCA  provides  for
NBARs, de minimis settlements, natural resource
damages, legal presumptions of culpability  for
contamination,  and  whistleblower  protection.
There is a 120-day notice period  before  a site
may be placed on the  State list,  to encourage
RP cleanup prior to listing. There is also a 120-
day moratorium  on  enforcement  at multi-party
sites  if RPs seek  to negotiate shares. For
remedial  actions  extending  beyond   interim
actions,  section 1301 requires DER  to exhaust
its  cleanup  authorities  under other  state laws
(e.g. Clean Streams Law, Solid Waste Manage-
ment Act) against owners or operators before it
may do HSCA  enforcement  or  cost recovery
against RPs.
      CLEANUP ACTIVITIES

   State  has completed 2182 PAs at CERCLIS
sites.  Approximately half  require no  further
action. Only 113 sites still need PAs. State has
lead  at  14 NPL  sites  for RI/FS. State  has
cleaned up four (4) State sites since HSCA with
the HSC Fund.
        CLEANUP POLICIES
           AND CRITERIA

  Until  the   State  promulgates  its   own
standards,  HSCA provides  that SARA  §121
applies. On a case-by-case basis DER may add
more stringent  standards, or  it may waive  or
modify otherwise applicable requirements  under
HSCA §504.
     PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

   DER  must take  public  comment and  hold
public  hearing on  administrative  record  for
remediation. DER must respond  to all  signifi-
cant  comments in making  its decision  on the
record. However, interim response action can be
taken  for  30 days  without  an  administrative
record being initiated.

   HSCA has citizen suit provision.
          FEDERAL/STATE
           PARTNERSHIP

  No  SMOA;  no   CORE  grants.  Multisite
cooperative  agreement  for  six  (6)  RI/FS.
Another cooperative  agreement for PA/SI. State
also receives MA Grants. TAG awarded at one
(1) site.
                                            125

-------
                  SITES
 NPL sites


 Proposed NPL

 unconfirmed sites
 11 [+1 cleaned up
     and delisted]
 140 in CERCLIS
      through site
investigation phase
                                VIRGINIA
                                                                    [8/11/89]
	•'•    	"-                    STATUTE

 Virginia Waste Management Act, Va. Code §§10.1-1400 through 10,1-1457 (1986, amended 1987 and 1988),
 provides for the Solid and Hazardous Waste Contingency Fond for emargency response, stofies and design,
 remedial actions, and State CERCLA match.
           STATE AGENCY

    The  Department  of  Waste Management,
 Division   of   Administration   and  Special
 Programs,  has three (3) branches dealing with
 site cleanup: (1) the State cleanup program with
 five (5) staff; (2) the pre-remedial program with
 nine (9) staff; and (3)  the Superfund remedial
 program with  10 staff.   The first program is
 State-funded, while  the remaining two (2) are
 Federally-funded.    State  branch  funded by
 appropriations.  The Department works with the
 AG's office for enforcement and relies on the
 Dept. of Emergency Services (under the  Secre-
 tary  of  Transportation  and  Public Safety) for
 construction support on response actions.
                                         FUNDING

                             Solid  and  Hazardous  Waste  Contingency
                          Fund contains $90K.  The major source of the
                          Fund is solid and hazardous waste penalties and
                          fines.  An initial 2-year appropriations of $2M
                          allocated for program support  costs, not the
                          Fund.  There is no cap on the Fund.  The Fund
                          is authorized for emergency response,  studies
                          and  design,  remedial  actions,   operations  and
                          maintenance  and State CERCLA match.
                                             126

-------
                               VIRGINIA  (continued)
          ENFORCEMENT

  State  has  statutory  authority for  administr-
ative orders,  consent orders, injunctive action,
civil penalties, and cost recovery. The State also
has  a  lien provision and authority for criminal
penalties.   The  State's  preferred enforcement
method consists of obtaining voluntary cleanup,
without  a consent  order.   28  RP  cleanups
(voluntary) currently underway.  No enforce-
ment or cost  recovery to  date-first enforcement
action  planned for 1989.
        CLEANUP POLICIES
           AND CRITERIA

  Cleanup  standards  are  guided  by  health
assessments  and State ARARs.  Health assess-
ments performed  by  staff  lexicologist.   Risk
level of 10s is generally considered a baseline
cleanup level.
      CLEANUP ACTIVITIES

   State has lead at four (4) NPL sites.

   State  also actively involved in groundwater
modeling  and  innovative technologies at EPA-
lead NPL sites.
     PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

  No   formal   requirements   or   informal
procedures.

  Community relations plan and administrative
record requirements for contested sites and fund
sites in draft form.
                                                          FEDERAL/STATE
                                                            PARTNERSHIP
                                                   SMOA signed 9/88.
                                                 and FY89 CORE Grants.
                                                 sites.
                      State  received FY88
                       CAs  obligated at 20
                                           127

-------
                 SITES
NPL sites

Proposed NPL

unconfirmed sites
                                       5

                                       1

                                 304 sites
                             on CERCLIS
WEST   VIRGINIA
                                                                [8/11/89]
                                       STATUTE
          Waste Emergency Response FwdAct,yt?f*, Code §§2Q-5CH
emergency response and State CERCLA match.            |
                                                                                         i>f
          STATE AGENCY

   The Division of Waste Management,  within
the Department of Natural Resources, contains
the Site Investigation and Response Unit. Unit
contains 7.25 FTE staff  working on  four (4)
programs: (1) pre-remedial PA/SI; (2) remedial;
(3)  CORE  programs;   and   (4)  emergency
response. There is an additional  enforcement
unit within  the Waste  Management  Division
with four (4) staff serving hazardous waste and
solid waste. The AC provides legal support with
one (1)  staff member. State administrative costs
allocated from Fund.
                                                                FUNDING

                                                    Hazardous Waste Emergency Response Fund
                                                  contains $1.3M ($800K encumbered for one site
                                                  10% match).  Main source of Fund is hazardous
                                                  waste generator fees assessed on 71 generators
                                                  in State. Fees set annually to approach revenue
                                                  limit of $SOOK per year and  to maintain at least
                                                  $1M at the  beginning of  the calendar  year.
                                                  Generator  assessments  cease  if  unobligated
                                                  balance exceeds $1.5M  at year end. (Fees start
                                                  again when balance reaches $1M.)

                                                    Fund  may be used for emergency response,
                                                  operations and maintenance and State CERLCA
                                                  match. The Fund may not be used for studies
                                                  and  design  or  for  other  preparations  for
                                                  remedial  actions  unless  the Fund  balance
                                                  exceeds  $1M and  the expenditure  does not
                                                  reduce the balance below $1M.
                                            128

-------
                           WEST VIRGINIA (continued)
         ENFORCEMENT

  Prior to Fund  expenditure, director  must
make "reasonable efforts" to secure agreements
from O/O or other RPs to  pay  cleanup and
remedial  action  costs.  All  monies  collected
pursuant to enforcement action or cost recovery
deposited in  Fund. No  enforcement action  or
cost recovery taken to date. Under Fund statute,
State has authority  only  for cost recovery, and
interest collection for unpaid/late paid  generator
fees. Other enforcement action taken under State
RCRA equivalent
     CLEANUP POLICIES
        AND CRITERIA
Not developed.
      CLEANUP ACTIVITIES

  No NPL State-lead sites.

  Ten Sis underway since 1988, almost 200
PAs completed since program inception.
                                                  PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

                                                No   formal  requirements  or   informal
                                              procedures.
                                                       FEDERAL/STATE
                                                        PARTNERSHIP

                                                Draft SMOA.  CAs and FY88 CORE Grant
                                              awarded.
                                        129

-------
 REGION IV
   Alabama
    Florida
   Georgia
   Kentucky
  Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
  Tennessee
     130

-------
                SITES
NPL sites

Proposed NPL

suspected and
unconfirmed sites
  10

   2


500+
ALABAMA
            [5/2/89]
                                     STATUTE
        Hazardous Substance Cleanup  fund (S.  132)  (19$&)
establishes cleanup fond.
                    provides enforcement authorities  and
          STATE AGENCY

   Alabama   Department  of  Environmental
Management,  Special Projects Office  has  no
staff authorized for  State Superfund.  Two  (2)
in-house attorneys are assigned to  RCRA and
Superfund, but work primarily on RCRA. The
AG's office assists on investigations.
                          FUNDING

               Alabama Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
             has a balance of $100K from FY89 appropria-
             tions. $500K authorized  for cleanup  but  not
             appropriated. Cost recoveries and penalties/fines
             accrue to Fund.

               Fund may only be used at sites that are not
             on NPL at time activity  starts. Fund primarily
             used  for  small-scale  emergency  removals  of
             drums.

               No cap on Fund.
                                          131

-------
                                ALABAMA (continued)
          ENFORCEMENT

  Liability  is  proportional,  not joint  and
several, and State  determines proportional con-
tributions; if it cannot it must file declaratory
action and court determines proportions.

  Legal authorities include administrative and
site  access  orders, civil  penalties, and  cost
recovery. Criminal penalties are available only
through the regulatory programs  but  not the
cleanup statute. Hearing required before issuance
of administrative order unless imminent threat to
human  health  or environment State prefers
voluntary agreements with RPs, if not it takes
small-scale  removal actions itself  or refers the
case to  air or water programs for enforcement.
       CLEANUP POLICIES
          AND  CRITERIA

  "Necessary to protect human heath  and  the
environment" but, in practice, use site-specific
risk assessments.
      CLEANUP ACTIVITIES

   State has only conducted removals.
     PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

  30-day comment  period on  Cleanup  Plan
required by statute. Single publication of notice
in paper in county. Hearings required prior  to
issuing  AO  unless imminent threat to human
health.
                                                         FEDERAL/STATE
                                                          PARTNERSHIP

                                                  State has a SMOA, CORE Grants, and CAs
                                                for PA/SI.
                                          132

-------
                 SITES

NPL sites                               32

Proposed NPL                           15

State list         500+ (less than CERCLIS)--
               all sites have some evidence of
             contamination, but are not scored.
       FLORIDA
                                                                  [8/11/89]
                                        STATUTES
1,   FterifaPotttttwt &ti
-------
                               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

-------