-------
W
ft,
1
wo
•i
I
I
I
I
g.
B
i
«
£
8
is"8
o •§
Jh
*i
",!••
.§•8
•s <&
•*
1 t*i
I *S1 8
*ta< ^r u o
i ill III
i
If;
i l
sll
129
-------
TABLE V-15
PROPERTY TRANSFER PROVISIONS
SUMMARY
• 10 States require the seller to disclose information about hazardous materials on the
property before transfer.
• 5 States have authority to place priority liens on property that has been cleaned up
with State funds.
• 2 States require cleanup before transfer of property.
130
-------
m
rH
tt
a
1
i *
feJl
Hi
O^fi
Examine
before
transfer
Disclose
before
transfer
ll
1 §
li
W3 "
*J
i
M
i—
1
i
f
i
8
i
•s-
.a
a
•B
certiiy that
1
E
i
X
X
X
X
^
1
X X
X X
1
8fs JS
"! 8- 1 r
X
X
X
X
X
I
x
X
X
X X X X X
131
-------
si
*t
a £
I*
Q '
I'
I.
I
2
IS
2
£
I
3«l
fr£".s
£•8
f jS
in
•g g
.8
I
t;
II
X X X X X
s g'«
i
•8
i
a
e «
2
•8
1
i I
& So
5j 55
i I*
i i!
•o
ia
X
xx xx
X XX
X X
•2 1
JO l«
0 £
£
M
§
•s
I
I-
•S K
1 JS
3
J
X
XXX
132
-------
I-
s
CO
I
a
i
i
W
1 e
"SI
« *
g
S
g
X
* 8
111
t/3 P. ?
XX x X X X
§
X X
§
133
-------
X X X X
134
-------
CHAPTER VI
STATE SUMMARIES
This chapter contains a concise, two-page summary of each State's hazardous waste
cleanup capabilities. The States are listed according to EPA Regions.
Nine program elements are described in each of the summaries:
• Sites - includes NPL sites, State list sites, State priority list 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 and between the State and the Department of Defense
(Defense and State Memorandum Agreement (DSMOA)).
The information for each of the State programs is current as of the date indicated
on the first page of the summary.
135
-------
FIGURE VI-1
EPA REGIONS
136
-------
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
137
-------
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Identified sites
SITES
15
0
Inventory of Haz. Waste
Disposal Sites: 585 sites
(includes NPL sites)
Approx. 1150
CONNECTICUT
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
1. Public Act 87-561, codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. §22a-114 and §§22a-133a through -133k (1987, amended
1989) creates State Superfund program, authorizes Fund expenditures and cost recovery.
2. Emergency Spill Response Fund, Conn. Gen. Stat §22a^451(d) (1982) provides response Fund.
3. Transfer of Hazardous Waste Establishments Program, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§22a-134 through -134e (1985)
creates property transfer program and negative declaration requirement
4. Water Pollution Control Laws, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§22a-432,22a-433 (1967 and subsequent amendments),
provide authority for administrative cleanup orders.
STATE AGENCY
Department of Environmental Protection, Waste
Management Bureau, Site Remediation and Closure
Division includes 48 staff supported with State and
Federal funds. The AG's office provides legal
support with several attorneys working pan-time on
State superfund issues (2-3 FTEs).
FUNDING
Funding vehicles include the Emergency Spill
Response Fund, with a balance of $4.9M (10/90).
The primary funding source for cleanups is a bond
fund authorized by a Special Act in 1987. Another
bond fund was initiated in 1986, but no expendi-
tures have been made from this fund. The Emer-
gency Spill Response Fund is primarily funded by
a generator tax. Hazardous waste civil penalties and
criminal fines are also credited to the Fund.
The Response Fund and Special Acts monies can
be used to pay for studies and design, emergency
response, removals, remediation and State
CERCLA match. O&M costs are paid from State
General Fund, with a limited amount of funding
from the Response Fund.
In order to expend Funds on remedial actions,
DEP must determine threat is unacceptable, be
unable to determine RP, or RP must be in non-
compliance with or appealing order.
138
-------
CONNECTICUT (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Legal authorities available include strict, joint
and several liability, orders for information and site
access, subpoena authority, administrative and
consent order authority, injunctive action and cost
recovery authority. Civil penalties of $25K/day
available under hazardous waste program, 1 1/2 x
punitive damages available in cost recovery actions.
Priority lien provision also available. Preferred
enforcement method is consent order, followed by
administrative order, or court action. State is
required to attempt cost recovery.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Determined on site-by-site basis, including
consideration of ground-water classification and
related water quality criteria. Cleanup standards for
soil and water are usually set at drinking water
standard, MCL, or State Action Level. If no such
reference standard exists, Department of Health
will assist DEP in setting risk level. Regulations
setting cleanup standards for hazardous waste sites
must be issued by July 1992.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Inventory of 585 sites includes 50 sites that have
been cleaned up. Approximately 500 sites under
consideration for listing on Inventory.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal public participation requirements.
DEP contacts local officials with cleanup workplan
and holds public meetings at various stages of
investigation and cleanup at State-funded sites.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIP
State has two MSCAs, a CPCA, and 2 TAGs.
139
-------
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State Inventory
Identified Sites
SITES
9
0
160
373 (includes NPL sites).
Of these sites, at least 120
need no further action.
MAINE
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
1. Uncontrolled Hazardous Substance Sites Act, Maine Rev. Stat. §§1361 through 1371 (1983, amended
1985,1987, and 1990) provides for cleanup of sites and enforcement authorities.
2. An Act to Assist in the Cleanup of Contaminated Property, P.L. 1991, Chapter 81, L.D. 156 (May 6,
1991) protects innocent landowners from liability for cleanups of spills caused by others.
STATE AGENCY
Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau
of Oil and Hazardous Material Control, Division of
Site Investigation and Remediation has 27 staff
split into three sections: administrative support and
two site management units. Funding from Federal
and State sources.
One and one-half positions in the AG's office
are devoted to Superfund-type enforcement activity.
DEP also works with Bureau of Health in conduct-
ing risk assessments and lab work.
FUNDING
Four accounts:
(1) The Uncontrolled Substances Sites Bond
Account contains approximately $4.8M, as of 8/91.
(2) The Uncontrolled Sites Fund contains $2.3M
obtained through cost recovery actions as of 8/91.
(3) Landfill Closure/Remediation Bond Account,
which contains $13M (8/91) has now become
available for hazardous waste cleanups due to
reorganization of DEP.
(4) Solid Waste Fund, has a balance of $600K as
of 8/91, derived from taxes and fees assessed on
special waste streams, new "white goods," new
electronic equipment, asbestos and other special
wastes.
All four sources of funds can now be used for
site investigation, emergency response, studies and
design, remedial actions, O&M, and State
CERCLA match.
140
-------
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 desig-
nate a site for consent decree. Penalty authority
from hazardous waste statute. DEP also has
property forfeiture provision (used once).
State prefers negotiated agreements. About 20
cleanup orders issued to date. Cost recovery settle-
ment received in two cases. DEP writes and negoti-
ates agreements, AC handles other enforcement.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
No State-lead NPL sites. Six sites cleaned up;
160 sites are known to need investigation or
cleanup. Discovery program in 1987 identified 180
sites in a two-week period. State has complaints of
approximately 150 unconfirmed sites.
As of 8/91, $2.4M was spent and $1.3M
encumbered from the Bond Account; $100K was
spent and $1M encumbered from the Uncontrolled
Sites Fund; $5.1M spent and $1.1M encumbered
from the Landfill Closure/Remediation Bond
Account This information was unavailable for the
Solid Waste Fund.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Case-by-case. Risk to human health, future water
uses, drinking water standards and toxicity levels
considered. Risk range of 10"5 acceptable for
carcinogens. At urban sites, Maine has applied
background level cleanup standards for ground-
water contamination.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements. Participation on an ad
hoc basis. DEP policy is to keep local officials and
residents informed. Records are open for public
inspection under Maine's FOIA.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
For FY91, Maine has 1 DSMOA, 1 CPCA, 2
MSCAs, and 3 TAGs.
141
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Priority List
Unconfirmed sites
State Inventory
(confirmed sites)
Identified sites
25
0
474
2482
2512 (includes
NPL sites)
5137
MASSACHUSETTS
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
The Massachusetts Oil and Hazardous Material Release Prevention and Response Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 2 IE
(1983, amended in 1986), provides for strict, joint and several liability; site access, information, and administrative
order authority; injunctive relief; civil and criminal penalties; cost recovery; priority liens; and citizen suits.
STATE AGENCY
The Department of Environmental Protection's
Waste Site Cleanup Program has 460 authorized
positions, of which 220 positions are funded,
including 22 Federally funded positions. The
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup is the lead bureau
administering the Waste Site Cleanup Program.
Two other bureaus within DEP also have staff
dedicated to the program.
In addition, twelve DEP attorneys and eight
attorneys in the AG's office provide enforcement
support
FUNDING
Bonds fund program activities. A bond balance
of $37M as of 7/91 (out of $85M authorized)
remains available for site investigation, studies and
design, removals, emergency response, remedial
actions, CERCLA match, and O&M. Bonds are
repaid by cost recovery, and hazardous waste trans-
porter fees (approx. $6M/yr) are used for debt
service.
Program administration and personnel costs are
financed by penalties, fines and cost recovery
(including oversight cost recovery) deposited in the
Environmental Challenge Fund (ECF). Balance of
ECF is zero as of 7/91 with expected annual
additions of $3.8M. A one-time appropriation in
1987 of $21M to the ECF was exhausted. DEP is
currently working to establish a permanent funding
source for the Waste Site Cleanup Program.
142
-------
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 used less frequently, due to the appeals process.
Voluntary cleanup is high (80-85%), which
program staff attribute to the statute's provisions
for priority liens and treble costs. Two third-party
lAGs have been being negotiated at Federal facility
NFL sites, which are all EPA-lead.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
264 RAs completed. An additional 2248
confirmed sites and 2482 suspected sites are on the
State List of Confirmed Disposal Sites and
Locations to be Investigated.
80-85% PRP cleanups.
One State lead at one NPL site.
In FY91, $9.3M was spent from the Bond Fund
and $9M was spent from the Environmental
Challenge Fund.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Permanent solutions required. Cleanup to back-
ground conditions required where feasible.
Temporary solutions required at priority sites until
permanent solution becomes feasible. Applicable or
suitable analogous Massachusetts health and envi-
ronmental standards are cleanup requirements at all
disposal sites (although more stringent requirements
may apply). In addition, "total site risk" drives
derivation of site-specific health-based cleanup
requirements for complex sites.
Risk assessments are used to determine cleanup
standards. In sum, a non-carcinogenic effect of 0.2
on the Hazard Index and a combined (additive)
cancer risk of 10"5 are used. The Hazard Index is
calculated for groups of chemicals with the same
mechanism of toxic action.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The statute and regulations require public notice
of site investigation results within 30 days of
completion. Public meetings are held upon petition
for community involvement regarding response
actions. State technical assistance grants and public
site inspections are also available, and local
officials are informed of site activities throughout
the cleanup process.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
For FY91, Masachusetts has one MSCA
covering 22 sites; two site-specific CAs; three
TAGs; 1 CPCA; 1 DSMOA, and 1 LUST CA.
143
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Identified sites
State inventory
16
1
Between 150-175
(non-NPL sites)
400+
NEW
HAMPSHIRE
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
New Hampshire Hazardous Waste Laws, Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund (HWCF), (1981, amended 1983,1985,
1986,1987, and 1990), establishes State Fund and provides for strict, joint and several liability, criminal penalties,
cost recovery, and first priority liens on real property where hazardous waste or hazardous material is located, the
business revenues generated from the facility on the real property where the hazardous waste or hazardous material
is located, and all personal property located at this facility. A lien without priority, effective as of the date and time
of recording and filing, can be established against all other property.
STATE AGENCY
The Waste Management Division of State's
Department of Environmental Services (DBS)
administers HWCF. The Division is broken into
three bureaus. The Waste Management Division is
primarily responsible for Federal and State
Superfund work and has several staff funded or
partially funded by the HWCF. The HWCF also
funds three other hydrogeologist positions within
the Water Supply and Pollution Control Division.
AG's office provides legal support (out of four
attorneys who work on all environmental issues)
and receives an annual appropriation from the
HWCF.
FUNDING
The HWCF has a balance of $3.3M (6/91). The
Fund is derived primarily from quarterly fees paid
by generators of hazardous waste and recovered
costs. Penalties, fines, and appropriations also are
placed in the HWCF. An average of $850K is
collected each FY.
The HWCF can be used for site investigation;
operation and maintenance; CERCLA match; and
grants to local governments. Recent amendments to
the Hazardous Waste Laws allow Fund monies to
be expended for projects that qualify for assistance
pursuant to Federal Superfund. All Fund expendi-
tures must be approved by the governor.
NH Rev. Statutes Ann. 147-B provides for
issuing bonds, to be paid from the HWCF, to fund
remedial investigation and cleanup. There is less
than $100K in this bond fund. A second bond
issuance of $1.5M was authorized in 1991, and will
be paid from the State's general fund.
144
-------
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 busi-
ness 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 was 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. From the HWCF, $1.22M was spent and
$1.35M was encumbered in FY91.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Cleanup must meet or exceed Federal standards.
The State ARARs are as stringent as, or more
stringent, than Federal standards. Cleanup standards
are selected on the basis of site-specific, regulatory
and risk-based assessments. Risk levels are set site-
by-site, based on contaminant, media and land use.
Generally a 1 x 10"' risk level is used.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements. State may hold public
hearings in enforcement actions. The State is
currently studying and establishing public partici-
pation procedures, and intends to hire a public
relations coordinator. Presently RPMs informally
contact local citizens and government officials.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
For FY91, New Hampshire has one MSCA for
seven sites, one SACA that covers ten NPL sites,
five SSCAs, one CPCA, and one TAG.
145
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Identified sites
11
1
290
RHODE ISLAND
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
Hazardous Waste Management Act, R.I. Gen. Laws, §§23-19.1-1 through 23-19.1-33 (1978, amended, 1979,1984,
1987) provides authorities for cleanup of abandoned/uncontrolled/inactive sites. Environmental Response Fund
established by amendment, §23-19.1-23 (1984).
STATE AGENCY
Department of Environmental Management,
Division of Air and Hazardous Materials, Environ-
mental Response Section has 12 full-time
professional staff. Staff funding from CPCA, CAs
for NPL oversight and preremedial work, and Bond
Fund.
In-house legal support provided by one attorney
(60% of time), with assistance from two attorneys
at the AG's office on criminal cases.
FUNDING
Environmental Response Fund has a balance of
$800K (10/91). Primary source of Fund is bonds,
with smaller contributions from cost recoveries and
penalties/fines.
Fund may be used for site investigation,
emergency response, removals, site evaluation,
remedial action, CERCLA match, and temporary
water supplies and resident relocation.
146
-------
RHODE ISLAND (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Legal authorities include "absolute" liability
(strict), subpoena, administrative orders, injunctive
action, civil and criminal penalties, cost recovery
and treble damages.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Case-by-case; no standards. Some degree of risk
analysis usually conducted. Developing State
procedures.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
35 State enforcement orders.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements or informal procedures
on State cleanups. On Federal enforcement sites,
process may include hearings where public can
become involved. Public informational meetings are
conducted upon request
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIP
State has two MSCAs, a CPCA, and one TAG.
147
-------
SITES
NPL sites 8
Proposed NPL 0
State Inventory (includes petroleum 1100
and non-petroleum sites)
Identified sites (includes petroleum 959
and non-petroleum sites)
VERMONT
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
1. Vermont Water Pollution Control Law, Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 10 §§1282-1283, provides a contingency fund
for emergency response, studies and design and remedial actions; and Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit 10 §§1921-1944
provides a petroleum cleanup fund.
2. Vermont Solid Waste Management Law, Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 10 §§6601-6618 (1977, significant amend-
ments in 1981, 1985, and 1987) provides enforcement authorities.
3. An Act Relating to Administrative Enforcement of Specified Environmental Laws (Act 98), VL StaL Ann.
Tit. 10 §§8001-8221 (1989) provides additional enforcement authorities.
STATE AGENCY
Agency of Natural Resources, Department of
Environmental Conservation, Hazardous Materials
Management Division, Hazardous Sites Manage-
ment Section has 11 technical staff. Section
handles all hazardous waste work including
CERCLA, RCRA, pre-remedial and State list work.
Three attorneys at AG's office spend at least 50%
of time on hazardous waste cases. Administrative
costs from appropriations, Federal grants.
FUNDING
Environmental Contingency Fund balance of
$1M as of 8/91, with $670K collected in FY91. No
cap on Fund. Funding sources are a hazardous
waste generator tax, discharge permit application
fees, cost recovery and damages.
The Petroleum Cleanup Fund (PCF) has a
balance of $3.1M, with $3M collected last year.
PCF is generated by an annual tank assessment fee
required to be paid by UST owners, which gener-
ates S300K per year, and one cent motor fuel
license fee charged to distributors of gas or diesel
fuel, which generates S2.5M-3M per year.
Both funds can be used for site investigation,
emergency response, studies and design, and
remedial actions. However, PCF can also be used
for operation and maintenance costs. PCF covers
up to $1M in cleanup costs per site, with a $10K
deductible, and $1M in third-party claims. State
CERCLA match not financed out of Contingency
Fund. Disbursements for categorical expenditures
specified in statute cannot exceed $50K without
approval of legislative joint fiscal committee.
148
-------
VERMONT (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Under Fund, Agency must give "discharging
party" opportunity to clean up. Agency sends out
letters, to be followed by administrative order in
the event of noncompliance. 95% of sites are
voluntarily cleaned up by RPs. The State has strict,
joint and several liability and treble damages
provisions. Liability apportionment is available.
The Agency has strong order authority including
authority to request information, subpoena
documents, issue administrative orders, issue
consent orers, and issue orders for entry. Civil
penalties of $50K per violation in addition to $50K
per day for continuing violation.
Penalties and fines go to General Fund;
recovered costs go into Contingency Fund.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
438 sites have been closed as of 8/91.
$315K was spent on cleanup from the ECF last
year (FY91) and $4M was spent from the PCF
between 1/91 - 10/91 on cleanup.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Water quality criteria based on ground-water
statute and drinking water standards are used as
triggers for remedial action. Actual cleanup deter-
mination made on a case-by-case basis. State is
developing procedures for determining cleanup
standards on a site-specific basis.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements. Agency meets with
town officials and holds public meetings. Statutory
requirement to notify municipalities of sites within
their borders; site designation must be entered on
deed register.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
Vermont has a SMOA in place, plus one MSCA,
one SACA, one CPCA, one DSMOA and two
LUST Grants.
149
-------
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
151
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State Inventory
Identified sites
109
0
approx. 600 major sites
being inventoried
(expected to be at least
several thousand)
NEW JERSEY
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
1. New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act, NJ.S.A. §§58:10-23 through 58:10-23-26 (1976,
amended 1979,1980,1981,1982,1983,1984,1985,1986,1987,1988, and 1990), establishes Fund for
public cleanups and provides authority for emergency response, removals, and remedial actions and for
cost recovery and damages.
2. New Jersey Hazardous Discharges Law, NJ.S.A. §§13:lk-15 through 13:lk-19 (1984).
3. New Jersey Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act (ECRA), NJ.S.A. §§13:lk-6 through 13:lk-13
(1983), requires transferors of industrial property to obtain certification or approval of cleanup plan.
STATE AGENCY
New Jersey Department of Environmental Pro-
tection and Energy (NJDEPE), Site Remediation
Program, Division of Publicly Funded Site Remedi-
ation is responsible for the publicly funded cleanup
program, provides technical assistance for both
publicly and privately funded cleanups, and con-
ducts community relations activities. Approx. 400
staff funded by Spill Compensation Fund, bond
funds and EPA grants. The Division of Responsible
Party Site Remediation (390 staff) handles site
investigations, negotiates with RPs, oversees RP-
lead cleanups, and administers the ECRA, LUST,
RCRA, and spill response program. This Division
is funded through EPA grants, responsible party
reimbursements, fees, appropriations, and the Spill
Compensation Fund.
The Attorney General's office conducts legal
support for the Division from the Hazardous Waste
Litigation Section (30 staff). The NJDEPE's Envi-
ronmental Claims Administration handles claims
made against the Spill Compensation Fund.
FUNDING
New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund provided
for by transfer tax on hazardous substances
(generates approximately $19.4M per year),
penalties ($3.3M), interest ($6.8M), cost recovery
($2.3M). Cash balance in Fund $94.4M (6/30/91)
(including authorized funds and set asides for
claims). Spill Fund available for emergency
response, removals, studies and design, remedial
action, O&M and CERCLA match, personal or
property damage claims.
NJDEPE must attempt to arrange settlement
between claimant and the RP, or if RP unknown,
NJDEPE must settle claim against Fund. Claims
totaling $78M have been asserted for personal or
property damage.
Hazardous Discharge Site Cleanup Fund is
credited with bond authorizations and cost
recovery. Balance is $115.7M as of 9/91. $200M
authorized in bonds. The Hazardous Discharge Site
Fund available for same uses as Spill Fund, except
personal or property damages claims.
As of 6/30/91, $101.6M of the Capital Fund
lapsed to State Treasury; $52.2M in reserve to
balance budget; $0 available for cleanup.
152
-------
NEW JERSEY (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Legal authorities include strict, joint and several
liability, with a treble damages provision applicable
to NJDEPE costs. Jnjunctive action, cost recovery
authorized in Act. Civil penalties of up to $50K per
day. Catastrophic discharge provision allows for
penalties of up to $10M for discharges £100,000
gallons. Lien provision in statute has priority over
all other liens. Department policy, to preserve
treble damages provision, is to provide RP notifica-
tion and chance to cleanup.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Use appropriate and applicable existing criteria,
or action levels, including water quality criteria,
MCLs/MCLGs, risk standard/assessment, EPA
guidelines and background levels. Standards
assessed on a site-by-site basis and should be
consistent with NCP. NJDEPE in process of
developing risk-based soil and groundwater
standards, currently uses Interim Soil Action
Levels, which are based on approximations of
background concentrations.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Of the NPL sites in State, approx. one-third
State-funded, one-third Federally-funded, one-third
privately-funded. Approx. 40% of NPL sites in
State are State-lead.
Approx $37.7M was spent during FY91 from the
Spill Fund, $11.2M from the Hazardous Discharge
Site Cleanup Fund, and $0 from the Capital Fund.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Spill 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 13 MSCAs and
31 site-specific CAs. CPCA in FY91 and three
LUSTCAs. Three TAGs have been awarded.
State received approximately $196.2M from
Federal Superfund for FY91.
153
-------
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Identified sites
SITES
83
21
1,464; 1,052 on registry
(includes NPL) plus
412 delisted
478: 433 under investigation
and 43 awaiting investigation
NEW YORK
[12/2/91]
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
CERCLA match. 1985 Amendments to State Superfund Act (1985, Chapter 38) increased assessments
and fees.
3. Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1986, authorizes $1.2B in bonds to address inactive hazardous waste
sites, $100M of which was redirected for use in cleaning up nonhazardous waste landfills.
STATE AGENCY
Appropriations for staff from State General Fund
transferred to Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund.
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
has approx. 341 staff working on State and Federal
Superfund activities-314 funded by State and
approx. 27 funded by Federal monies. Most of
personnel in Division of Hazardous Waste
Remediation. Approx. 20 staff work on State
Superfund in die Division of Environmental
Enforcement. Seven attorneys with the AG's office
work on cleanup issues. 82 staff in the Dept. of
Health work on mis program as well.
FUNDING
Current funding mechanism is Hazardous Waste
Remedial Fund, State Finance Law §97-6. Prior to
4/1/87 hazardous waste assessments, regulatory
fees and an oil transfer surcharge funded this
"Investigation and Construction Account." In 1989,
State began selling EQBA bonds. Remaining bond-
ing capacity is $973M.
Since 4/1/87, assessments, fees, and oil transfer
surcharge have been placed in "Industry Fee
Transfer Account," which will be used to pay for
one-half of debt service on bonds. Waste end fee
collections, regulatory fees and petroleum transfer
fee collections totalled $26.5M in 1990/91.
Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund used for site
investigation, emergency response, removals,
studies and design, remedial actions, O&M, State
CERCLA match and Title 3 grants to munici-
palities.
154
-------
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, administrative order
authority, consent order and injunctive action
authority. Civil penalties of $25K per violation in
addition to $25K per day for continuing 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 enforce-
ment method is negotiated settlement
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Of the 1,052 sites on Registry, 824 have action
underway, 77 awaiting cleanup, 45 awaiting
investigation, 54 others with deferred action, 52
sites cleaned up of which 46 require O&M, six
require no O&M. 412 sites delisted, 53 cleaned up,
359 required no action. Goal is to remediate 500
sites by year 2000.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Decisions on site-by-site basis in cooperation
with the Department of Health. DEC policy is to
encourage use of permanent remedies. Standards
have been proposed by interagency task force.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Rules specify DEC must publish notice and brief
analysis of remedial program, allow 30 days for
comments, provide opportunity for comments at
public meeting, establish a document repository and
contact list, and perform mass mailings. DEC must
solicit view of Federal, State and local government
officials, local civic organizations, and local
residents. State Superfund Management Board,
charged with oversight of the remedial program,
includes environmental group and citizen
representatives.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
One MSCA, a CPCA, and 25 SACAs awarded
in State. State submitted draft SMOA November
1990. Nine TAGs awarded in State.
155
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Identified sites
9
0
- 200 (on CERCLIS)
PUERTO RICO
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
Puerto Rico Environmental Emergencies Fund Act, Law 81 (1987). This establishes the Environmental
Emergencies Fund and it authorizes the Environmental Quality Board to respond to emergencies and to recover
response costs from liable parties.
STATE AGENCY
The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) of
Puerto Rico has three sections dealing with
Superfund. The Hazardous Waste Site Inventory
Program (six staff), the Superfund Core Division
(seven staff), and the Emergency Response Team
(three staff). Legal support is provided by one
employee of the legal department of the EQB.
FUNDING
The Environmental Emergencies Fund received
$4.1M for FY91 and, in addition, the Fund receives
a $1M appropriation each year from the Environ-
mental Emergency Response Law 81. The Fund
balance is $2.9M (6/30/91), some of which is
encumbered. In addition to appropriations, the Fund
collects monies from Federal grants and cost
recovery.
Ten percent of the Fund may be allocated for
administrative costs. The Fund currently covers the
salary of the Emergency Response Team, and may
be used for emergency response, removals,
remedial action, CERCLA match, and RI/FS work
on non-NPL sites.
156
-------
PUERTO RICO (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Puerto Rico has a very general liability standard:
if the Environmental Quality Board needs to clean
up a site, the RP must pay. Puerto Rico uses
CERCLA definition of RP. RPs almost always
conduct and fund oil spill cleanup, but no other
types of cleanup. No system exists for collecting
civil penalties or punitive damages.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Puerto Rico does not have any non-NPL sites,
but EQB uses following criteria as standards for
cleanup: water quality, MCLs/MCLGs, background,
and EPA guidelines. EQB only uses risk
assessment for non-NPL sites for which EPA has
lead. EQB evaluates health risk in emergency
response for non-NPL sites.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Cleanup activity is limited to NPL sites and
emergency response. Approximately $1.1M was
spent on cleanup activities during FY91.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No public participation or public meetings on
non-NPL sites. Public meetings are only conducted
for superfund sites, or for EPA lead emergency
removal sites.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
Working toward signing SMOA before 9/92.
Puerto Rico received SACA and CPCA. One TAG
was granted for FY92.
157
-------
REGION III
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
159
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State sites
Priority list
Identified sites
20
0
70
under development
investigated 250 sites
DELAWARE
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
Delaware Hazardous Substance Cleanup Act, Del. Code Ann. tit. 7, §§9101-9120 (1990), establishes fund for site
cleanup and provides authority for emergency response, removals, and remedial actions and for cost recovery and
damages.
No cleanup can be undertaken (i.e., at a property contemplated for transfer) without the department's approval or
oversight, under the Interim Regulations Governing Hazardous Substance Cleanup, §10.1(3).
STATE AGENCY
Department of Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Control (DNREQ, Division of Air and
Waste Management, Superfund Branch has 20 staff
supported with State and Federal funds.
Legal support is provided by the AG's office
with one attorney assigned to CERCLA work.
FUNDING
Program was funded through annual
appropriation of $12SK for emergency response,
with additional appropriations as needed. New
Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund receives
petroleum products tax receipts, penalties, cost
recovery and interest, which are expected to
generate $SM annually. Fund available for
emergency response, removals, remedial actions,
CERCLA match and loans to nonprofit and small
business PRPs wjio settle. No more than 15% of
fund balance may be expended for administration
of the act without approval of legislative joint
fiscal committee.
160
-------
DELAWARE (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Hazardous Substance Cleanup Act establishes
strict, joint and several liability and authorizes cost
recovery. DNREC must attempt settlement prior to
initiating enforcement action, unless emergency
exists. State has injunctive action and order
authority. Civil penalties of up to $10K per day;
treble damages.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND
CRITERIA
DNREC references water quality criteria and
EPA guidances. New cleanup regulations
anticipated by March 1992. New statute requires
establishment of priority list
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Four NFL State-lead cleanups ongoing.
In the last year the State obligated approx.
$200K from the fund for emergency response.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public must be notified and provided opportunity
to comment on proposed settlement agreements and
proposed remedial action plans.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA signed 10/88. FY91 CPCA. State also
has 13 SACA grants and two MSCAs.
161
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Identified sites
0
0
0 [+3 sites cleaned up]
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
The Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1977, D.C. Law 2-64, as amended, D.C. Code §6-701,
authorizes the mayor to "institute the actions necessary to terminate" a violation where a person fails to
take correction actions to comply with a notice of violation. It also provides for injunctions and civil
penalties.
The District of Columbia Underground Storage Tank Management Act of 1990, D.C. Law 8-242,
authorizes the establishment of an Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund to undertake corrective action
including site assessment and cleanup under certain provisions.
STATE AGENCY
The Department of Consumer and Regulatory
Affairs, Environmental Regulation Administration,
Pesticides, Hazardous Waste and Underground
Storage Tank Division has five people in the
hazardous waste program and six people in the
UST program. The Division does not at present
have legal staff.
FUNDING
The District does not have a fund for hazardous
waste cleanup. However, the District has funding
for the cleanup of underground storage tanks.
Funding for cleanup and administration comes from
District general funds, Trust Fund, and Federal
grants.
162
-------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The District has injunctive and civil penalty
authority. Civil penalties are assessed by civil
infraction notices which function like traffic tickets.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
The District has promulgated a standard of
lOOppm for petroleum and is in the process of
looking at standards for other substances. Until it
promulgates its own standards the District uses
EPA standards and site assessment protocols.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
The District has cleaned up the three known
sites.
Although the District does not have a cleanup
fund for hazardous waste, it is currently setting up
an Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund in FY92
which will be funded by tank registration fees and
penalties.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The District has no formal public participation
requirements. In each case it gives notice designed
to reach persons directly affected by the site.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
The Districts has a CPCA, but no MSCA or
SACA. The District is discussing an SMOA with
EPA.
163
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Priority list
Identified sites
Inventory
10
0
40
393 (CERCLIS and State
non-NPL remedial)
531 (CERCLIS)
MARYLAND
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
Annotated Code of Maryland, Environment Article, Title 7-Hazardous Material and Hazardous Substances, Subtitle
2--Controlled 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), Hazar-
dous and Solid Waste Management Administration,
CERCLA Program has three divisions: (1) Pre-
remedial Division, with approx. 14 full-time staff;
and (2) Response Division, with 13 full-time staff;
and (3) CORE Division, with seven staff. AG's
office has staff located at MDE, two attorneys
devote approx. 75% of time to CERCLA. Admin-
istrative costs from CORE grant, appropriations.
FUNDING
Subaccount of State Hazardous Substance
Control Fund is funded by bond issuances. Fund
balance of S8.25M (11/91). No cap on fund. Board
of Public Works authorization required prior to
expenditure; Board has allocated funding for 31
projects. Fund monies can be used for emergency
response, studies and design, remedial actions,
O&M and State CERCLA match.
164
-------
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. AG may bring cost
recovery action on an apportionment basis when
there is reasonable basis for determining
contribution. Recovery otherwise not apportioned.
Statute authorizes orders for entry and search but
not for information.
State has injunctive action, corrective action,
consent order, and civil penalty authority.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
State hazardous waste regulations and State
hazardous substances response plan being updated
to include cleanup standards.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Two state-lead NPL sites. Thirty-one ongoing
non-NPL cleanup projects, including sites where
State oversees RP cleanup.
Last fiscal year, $1,185,500 was spent from the
fund.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements. Community Relations
Coordinator or the site project manager arranges
public meetings.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA in negotiations phase. State received
CPCA for FY91, and has six MSCAs. Recently
signed a DSMOA.
165
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Priority list
State sites
Identified sites
94 [+7 sites cleaned
up and delisted]
2
8
119 awaiting PA
2501 with completed PA
(not NPL or Priority list)
PENNSYLVANIA
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
The Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (HSCA) (Act 108), 35 P.S. §6020.101 et seq., enacted October 18, 1988,
effective December 19,1988, establishes a state fund, and provides for administrative and judicial enforcement
authority, cleanup procedures, public participation, and loans and grants.
STATE AGENCY
The Department of Environmental Resources has
approximately 127 staff in the State Superfund
program and funded by the Fund~30 in the Hazar-
dous Waste Sites Cleanup Program in the Bureau
of Waste Management, 77 in the six regional
offices, 12 in fee collection, four in advanced
science and research, and four in construction
management In addition, 18 legal personnel are
assigned solely to the HSCA program. The Stale
also has an Emergency Response Program with its
own funding and a staff of 18, plus six regional
response teams of DER employees with other
duties, and a six-member investigative unit
FUNDING
HSC Fund has a $21.8M balance (6/91) and
anticipates annual revenues of $89.75M; $26.2M
appropriations, $52.2M from capital stock and
franchise tax, $4.5M from hazardous waste trans-
portation and management fees. The fund also
receives civil penalties and fines, and cost
recoveries.
In addition to emergency response, removals and
remediation, the fund may also be used, up to
$2.5M for emergency response related to non-
hazardous substances, for a $100K loan fund to
facilitate private party cleanups, $2M/year for
grants for recycling equipment, for demonstration
grants, and $2M for incentives to municipalities
where hazardous waste disposal facilities will be
sited.
166
-------
PENNSYLVANIA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The HSCA has comprehensive order and injunc-
tive authorities, civil penalties, criminal penalties,
treble damages, and orders for information and
access. The HSCA provides for NBARs, de
minimis settlements, natural resource damages,
legal presumptions of culpability for contamination,
and whistleblower protection. There is a 120-day
notice period before a site may be placed on the
State list, to encourage RP cleanup prior to listing.
There is also a 120-day moratorium on
enforcement at multi-party sites if RPs seek to
negotiate shares. For remedial actions extending
beyond interim actions, section 1301 requires DER
to initiate action under other state laws (e.g. Clean
Streams Law, Solid Waste Management Act)
against owners or operators before it may do
HSCA enforcement or cost recovery against RPs.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
EPA and/or the State have completed 2288 PAs
at CERCLIS sites. Approximately half require no
further action. Only 86 sites still need PAs. State
has lead at six NPL sites for RI/FS. State has
initiated responses at 20 non-NPL sites with 16
actions completed.
Last year the State spent $26.3M on cleanup at
Federal and State lead sites, $179K on recycling
grants, $2S4K on host municipality grants and
loaned the State UST fund $292K to assist in start-
up.
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 including state ARARs, or it may waive
or modify otherwise applicable requirements under
HSCA §504.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
DER must take public comment and hold public
hearing on administrative record for remediation.
DER must respond to all significant comments in
making its decision on the record. However,
interim response action can be taken as long as
notice is provided within 30 days.
HSCA has citizen suit provision.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
No SMOA; no CPCA. MSCA for six RI/FS.
TAGs awarded at five sites.
167
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State Inventory
Identified sites
20 [+1 site delisted]
0
100
531
VIRGINIA
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
Virginia Waste Management Act, Va. Code §§ 10.1-1400 through 10.1-1457 (1986, amended 1987,1988, and 1990),
provides for the Solid and Hazardous Waste Contingency Fund for emergency response, studies and design,
remedial actions, and State CERCLA match.
STATE AGENCY
The Department of Waste Management, Division
of Special Programs, has three branches dealing
with site cleanup: (1) the Federal facilities program
with three staff; (2) the pre-remedial program with
nine staff; and (3) the Superfund remedial program
with eight staff. The Division also has two admin-
istrative staff. For the most part, all three programs
are Federally-funded. Budget cuts have curtailed
State cleanup activity. The Department works with
one attorney in the AG's office for enforcement
and relies on the Dept of Emergency Services
(under the Secretary of Public Safety) for
emergency response actions.
FUNDING
Solid and Hazardous Waste Contingency Fund
contains a balance of $73K (6/30/91). The major
source of the Fund is solid and hazardous waste
penalties and fines, of which $64K was collected.
The Fund also receives money from appropriations
and cost recoveries. There is no cap on the Fund.
The Fund is authorized for emergency response,
removals, studies and design, site investigation,
remedial actions, O&M and State CERCLA match.
168
-------
VIRGINIA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
State has statutory authority for administrative
orders, consent orders, injunctive action, civil
penalties, and cost recovery. Civil penalties can be
imposed up to $25,000/day. 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 enforcement or cost recovery to
date.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Cleanup standards are guided by health assess-
ments and State ARARs. Health assessments per-
formed by staff lexicologist. State also uses water
quality criteria, NCLs/MCLGs and risk assessment
Risk level of Iff6 is generally considered a baseline
cleanup level.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
State has lead at four NPL sites. Three non-NPL
sites are RP lead, and one is State lead.
State also actively involved in groundwater
modeling and innovative technologies at EPA-lead
NPL sites.
$11 IK was spent on cleanup activities during
FY91.
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, CPCA, MSCA, SACA and DSMOA are
all in effect CAs obligated at 20 sites. State has
also received annual pre-remedial grants. One TAG
was granted.
169
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State sites
5
0
431 (CERCLIS)
WEST VIRGINIA
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
Hazardous Waste Emergency Response Fund Act, W.Va. Code §§20-5G-1 through 20-56-6, provides Fund for
emergency response and State CERCLA match.
The Hazardous Waste Management Act, W.Va. Code §20-5E, contains property transfer disclosure requirements.
STATE AGENCY
The Waste Management Section, within the
Division of Natural Resources, within the
Department of Commerce, Labor, and Natural
Resources contains the Site Investigation and
Response Office. The Office contains 11 FTE staff
working on four programs: (1) pre-remedial PA/SI;
(2) remedial; (3) CORE programs; and (4) emer-
gency response. There is an additional enforcement
unit within the Waste Management Section with
seven staff serving hazardous waste and solid
waste. The AG provides legal support with one
staff member. State administrative costs are paid
from fund and Federal grants.
FUNDING
Hazardous Waste Emergency Response Fund
contains $1.28M (9/91). Main source of fund is
hazardous waste generator fees assessed on 71
generators in State. Fees set annually to approach
revenue limit of $500K per year and to maintain at
least $1M at the beginning of the calendar year.
Generator assessments cease if unobligated balance
exceeds $1.5M at year end. (Fees start again when
balance reaches $1M.)
Fund may be used for emergency response,
O&M, site investigation, and State CERCLA
match. The fund may not be used for studies and
design or for other preparations for remedial
actions unless the fund balance exceeds $1M and
the expenditure does not reduce the balance below
$1M. Fund may be used only for hazardous wastes,
not hazardous substances.
170
-------
WEST VIRGINIA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Prior to fund expenditure, director must make
"reasonable efforts" to secure agreements from
owner/operator or other RPs to pay cleanup and
remedial action costs. All monies collected
pursuant to enforcement action or cost recovery
deposited in fund. No enforcement action or cost
recovery taken to date. Under fund statute, State
has authority only for cost recovery, and interest
collection for unpaid/late paid generator fees. Other
enforcement action taken under State RCRA
equivalent.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
No State-lead NPL sites.
Fifteen Sis underway since 1988, over 200 PAs
completed since program inception.
Last fiscal year, $394,658 was paid out from the
fund.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
In the process of being developed.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements or informal procedures.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA and a DSMOA. CPCA and two MSCAs
awarded.
171
-------
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississipi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
173
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Identified sites
12
0
400-500
ALABAMA
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
Alabama Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund (S. 132) (1988) provides enforcement authorities and establishes
cleanup fund.
STATE AGENCY
Alabama Department of Environmental Manage-
ment, Special Projects Office has twelve staff
including support for its Federal and State
programs. Special Projects has two units: the
remedial unit (three staff) and the site assessment
(pre-remedial) and State Superfund unit (five staff)
plus four staff that can be used as needed.
Legal support is provided by the AG's office and
OEM's six attorneys, though only used 1/3 FIE
during FY91.
FUNDING
Alabama Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
had a balance of $147K as of 9/30/91. $50K was
added to the Fund during FY91. The Fund receives
monies from cost recoveries, penalties/fines, and
appropriations.
The Fund may only be used at sites that are not
on NPL at time activity starts. The Fund is
primarily used for small-scale emergency removals
of drums.
No cap on Fund.
174
-------
ALABAMA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Liability is proportional, not joint and several,
and State determines proportional contributions; if
it cannot it must file declaratory action and court
determines proportions.
Legal authorities include administrative and site
access orders, civil penalties, and cost recovery.
Criminal penalties are available only through the
regulatory programs but not the cleanup statute.
Hearing required before issuance of administrative
order unless imminent threat to human health or
environment State prefers voluntary agreements
with RPs, if not it takes small-scale removal
actions itself or refers the case to air or water
programs for enforcement
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
State has only conducted removals.
During FY90 (ending 12/31/90), approximately
$10K was spent on cleanup activities. As of
9/30/91, $48K was spent on cleanup activities
which has not been reimbursed by RPs.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
"Necessary to protect human heath and the
environment." Cleanup standards include water
quality criteria and MCLs/MCLGs. State performs
risk assessments and follows EPA guidelines and
standards where there is no State standard.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
30-day comment period on Cleanup Plan
required by statute. Single publication of notice in
paper in county. Hearings required prior to issuing
AO unless imminent threat to human health.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
State has a SMOA, DSMOA, CPCA, SACA and
CAs for PA/SI.
175
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Sites needing attention
Identified sites
54
1
708
980
FLORIDA
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
1. Florida Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Removal Act, §§376.30 through 376.319 (1983, amended
1984, 1986, and 1988) establishes Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund.
2. Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act, Ha. Stat. §§403.701 through 403.7721 (1974, numerous
amendments) establishes certain enforcement provisions and the Hazardous Waste Management Trust
Fund, which serves as a holding account for Federal monies.
STATE AGENCY
Department of Environmental Regulation,
Division of Waste Management, Bureau of Waste
Cleanup contains five sections: (1) Hazardous
Waste Cleanup (15 staff); (2) Prelim. Assessment
(eight staff); (3) Site Investigation (14 staff); (4)
Technical Support (17 staff) and; (5) Enforcement
with six District staff. Approx. 60 total staff. Legal
support provided by two attorneys in DER's Office
of General Counsel. Administrative support from
Fund, general revenue, other trust funds, and
Federal monies. 12 additional staff are pan of an
Emergency Response Program, 5 in Tallahassee
and 7 in regional offices.
FUNDING
Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund was set up
with $11M transfer from Coastal Protection Trust
Fund. It is now funded by excise taxes, discharge
permit fees, interest transfers from other funds, cost
recovery and penalties and fines. Balance S13.5M
(5/91) unobligated funds. Projected revenue for
FY91 is $24.3M. Tax is levied if Fund balance
falls below $5M and suspended if Fund is over
$12M.
The WQATF funds emergency response, site
investigation, studies and design, remedial actions,
O&M, and State CERCLA match.
The Hazardous Waste Management Trust Fund
serves as a holding account for Federal monies. It
contains $167K (10/91).
176
-------
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 40% of NFL sites.
Twenty State cleanups completed, work in progress
on 18 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
One CA for preremedial program, one TAG.
177
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State registry
Identified sites
13
0
67
753+
GEORGIA
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Act, GA Code Ann. §§12-8-60 through 12-8-83 (1979) establishes the
Hazardous Waste Trust Fund and authorizes cleanups by State and makes generators, transporters, and
owners/operators liable. This is primarily a regulatory statute as is the program. Statute amended effective 3/30/90
to increase public participation in RCRA permitting and add pollution prevention requirements.
STATE AGENCY
Land Protection Branch of the Environmental
Protection Division of Department of Natural
Resources. Three staff for Federal Superfund; 11
additional staff authorized for pre-remedial and
PA/SI program. Entire hazardous waste program is
RCRA oriented. All legal support handled by
Department of Law, with four attorneys and one
supervisor to handle all of DNR's work.
FUNDING
Hazardous Waste Trust Fund has a balance of
about $2.8M (9/91), funded from penalties and
interest. Amount collected in FY91 was $569K.
Virtually all hazardous waste activities are
through RCRA and CERCLA EPA grants with
some State funding.
Trust Fund may not be used for normal
operating expenses and must be used only for
mitigating environmental problems. Fund can be
used for CERCLA match.
178
-------
GEORGIA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
State RCRA/HSWA corrective action provision
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, adminis-
trative orders and injunctive actions. No lien
authority or punitive damages. State does not take
Fund-lead actions, all are paid for by RPs.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Water quality criteria. Groundwater cleanup to
background, or drinking water standards in some
cases. For soil, RP proposes standards; State has
internal guidelines.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
All cleanups done under State's RCRA/ HSWA
permit program. 80 RCRA permits with 75%
required to do corrective action. About 40 are
active.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Statute requires consistency with Federal RCRA.
Local officials must be notified of RCRA permit
applications and a hearing held if requested.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
CPCA, three SACAs, and three TAGs.
179
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Identified sites
17
2
600 (CERCLIS)
KENTUCKY
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
Kentucky Rev. Stat. Ann. §224.876(13) (1980) establishes the Hazardous Waste Management Fund. Other sections
of chapter 224 outline enforcement authorities. Also provides for a priority list and citizen suits.
STATE AGENCY
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
Cabinet, Division of Waste Management, Uncon-
trolled Sites Branch has funding for nine full-time
professional staff plus two clerical staff for NPL
sites, and 16 staff under PA/SI grant. Two
attorneys in the Department of Law, Waste Legal
Branch.
FUNDING
Hazardous Waste Management Fund has a
balance of $SM with $2M 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 the 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.
180
-------
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 settlement
not reached, issues administrative orders.
Enforcement efforts to date have focused on
removals.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Either use risk assessment or cleanup to
background. Site-by-site standards used in
consultation with the Air and Water Divisions.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
State actively involved in 100 sites.
Less than $100K paid out last year, mainly for
drum removals and cost sharing.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements but try to involve public
as much as possible through public meetings.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
State negotiating SMOA. CPCA awarded in
FY91. A CA on a PA/SI and one TAG awarded.
181
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Identified sites
0
259 sites on a
pre-CERCLIS list.
340 (on CERCLIS).
MISSISSIPPI
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
1. Mississippi Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1974, amended numerous times (most recently in 1990), Miss.
Code Ann. §17-17-29(4) and (6); enables State to take response action but there is no specific Superfund
law.
2. Miss. Code Ann. §49-17-401 (1988) created a UST Trust Fund.
3. Miss. Code Ann. §49-17-68 (1988) created the Pollution Emergency Fund.
4. Air and Water Pollution Control Act, Miss. Code Ann. §17-49-1 et seq., also enables reponse actions.
STATE AGENCY
Department of Environmental Quality, Office of
Pollution Control, Hazardous Waste Division has a
RCRA and CERCLA section. The CERCLA
section has IS employees. These positions are
funded almost entirely by State general fund and
Federal grants. Two attorneys from the AG's office
handle all Department of Environmental Quality
work.
FUNDING
The Pollution Emergency Response Fund was
created in 1988 and has a balance close to $200K
(6/30/91). The State spent $211,000 on emergency
removals which it could not recover from PRPs
(6/30/91). 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 investigate sites,
mitigate, abate, cleanup or remediate solid waste,
air and water pollution. The State appropriates
funds on a site-by-site basis for CERCLA match.
182
-------
MISSISSIPPI (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The Department must use its general enforce-
ment authorities or its authorities in other regula-
tory statutes to compel RP action and for enforce-
ment 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 recover its cost of response.
The Act gives Commission authority to regulate
any contamination of the air and waters of the
State.
State has RPs coming forward voluntarily
signing "Consent Orders." Ex parte or Consent
Orders issued at each stage of process outlining
work to be done.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
93 sites in RI/FS stage.
11 site cleanup completions or no further action
decisions since July, 1989.
44 sites RP-lead cleanups with active State
oversight
40-50 RP-lead where State will review final
result.
$200K was spent on cleanup activities during
FY91.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
State considers background, detection limit,
published standards (MCLs), health criteria, generic
risk (10"6), alternate concentration limits (ACLs),
and Hazard Index to determine cleanup levels.
State chooses highest of the above as cleanup
standard.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Policies require public comment period, direct
mailings, and possible public meetings during
remediation process. Local governments and
governor notified when emergency order issued.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
State has a one-year SMOA, renegotiated yearly.
State has CPCA, CA for PA/SI, MSCA for NPL
sites plus lAGs with DOE and DOD. State has a
DSMOA with DOD.
183
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State Priority List
State sites
Sites listed in State
Inactive Hazardous
Waste Inventory
22
0
101
672
925 (includes NPL sites)
NORTH
CAROLINA
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
1. Inactive Hazardous Sites Response Act of 1987, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§130A-310 through -310.13 (July 1987,
amended June 1989,1991), authorizes the Inactive Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund and provides authority
to order RPs to conduct cleanup and to recover costs.
2. North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous Substances Control Act of 1978, N.C. Gen. Stat §§143-
215.75 through 215.103 (first passed 1973) provides for Fund and authority to clean up releases similar
to §311 of the Clean Water Act
3. Section 306 of Solid Waste Management Laws, N.C. Gen. Stat. §130A-306, authorizes the Emergency
Response Fund for emergency hazardous waste cleanup.
There are four provisions which govern the disclosure of hazardous substance contamination in property transfer:
(a) Inactive Sites Response Act, N.C.G.S. §130A-310.8; (b) Solid Waste Management Laws, N.C.G.S. §130A-301;
(c) Solid Waste Management Rule, 15 NACA 13B.0502; (d) Hazardous Waste Management Rule, 15A NCAC
13A0009 and .0010 (40 CFR 264.119 and 265.119).
STATE AGENCY
Superfund Section of Solid Waste Management
Division of Environment, Health & Natural
Resources (DEHNR) has 25 positions (one attorney
and one clerical are in AG) and administers the
Inactive Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund. The Emer-
gency Response Fund is administered by the
Hazardous Waste Section of the Solid Waste
Management Division. Fourteen of the positions are
funded by CERCLA for PA/SI, eight are State
funded, and three are funded by a CPCA.
The Environmental Management Division and
the Environmental Management Commission
administer the Oil or Other Hazardous Substances
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 $180K as of 9/91 and may be
used for remedial actions, emergency responses,
removals, and studies and design of responses.
IHSCF funded by appropriations 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 FY90/91. Monies in the Emergency
Response Fund above the $500K cap go into
IHSCF.
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) has a
balance of $500K as of 10/91. It is funded solely
by RCRA penalties and is capped at $500K. Excess
funds are transferred to the IHSCF.
184
-------
NORTH CAROLINA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Secretary of DEHNR must seek voluntary action
by RPs before issuing orders or taking direct action
under the Inactive Hazardous Sites Response Act.
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 its expenses were reasonably necessary 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, and administrative orders for monitoring,
analysis and emergency response. There is a
general judgment lien provision. Civil penalties for
the failure to comply with administrative orders.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
No current State lead cleanups.
In October 1990, $64,800 was spent from the
Inactive Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund to
remediate an arsenic site. Nothing was spent from
the Emergency Response Fund last year.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Site-by-site. Groundwater standards used and are
below detection limits for non-naturally occurring
organics. Also use a health-based risk assessment,
with an acceptable risk level of 10"*.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Statute requires Secretary of DEHNR to develop
plan for public notice and local government
involvement in RA program. Secretary must also
notify and involve local board of health and health
director. Notice and summary of RA plan
published weekly for three weeks in local
newspaper and copy of plan filed with register of
deeds before approval. 45-day public comment
period for State-funded cleanups, with public
meeting at discretion of Secretary. Public
participation requirements reduced for RP voluntary
cleanup.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
PA/SI CA effective 4/1/90. A CPCA and a
SACA, and an MSCA is pending. State has a
DSMOA. Two TAGS have been awarded.
185
-------
SITES
NFL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Identified sites
23
0
88 (all sites with
0-28.5 HRS scores
ate placed on list)
425 (on CERCLIS)
SOUTH
CAROLINA
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
Hazardous Waste Management Act (1980), South Carolina Code Ann. §§44-55-10 through -840 (S.C. Code Ann.
§44-56-10-330 the more general cite), authorizes fund and provides for a priority list and the authority to take or
compel action. Amended 1989.
STATE AGENCY
Department of Health and Environmental
Control, Environmental Quality Control, Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management Bureau has five
divisions. The Site Engineering and Screening
Division has two sections. The Site Screening
Section, funded totally by a CA has nine staff who
handle the PA/SI. The Site Engineering Section has
seven staff, funded mostly by the State, who handle
State and NPL sites. Legal support is located in the
Office of the Commissioner. Eight attorneys are
assigned to geographical districts to handle all
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 unobligated fund balance in the uncon-
trolled sites part of the fund was $10M and $5.5M
is obligated as of 7/91. 80-90% of revenues come
from fees. Appropriations, interest, and cost
recovery also contribute. Actions including
emergency response, removals, studies and design,
investigation, remedial action, O&M, and CERCLA
match, but, excluding victim compensation, may be
funded only after Federal or RP dollars are
exhausted or unavailable.
186
-------
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. Department
procedure is to serve RPs notice with deadlines and
inform EPA at same time.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Site-by-site decisions to be consistent with the
NCP. Normally use MCLs for groundwater
contamination and background for soil
contamination.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Three sites State funded in RI/FS stage; negoti-
ating RP lead on another site. RPs voluntarily
seeking consent decrees for several other sites.
One million dollars was spent and $2.SM
obligated in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1991.
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. SAGA, CPCA, and SMOA in place.
Negotiating a DSMOA and ESMOA.
187
-------
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Identified sites
SITES
14
0
164; 3 in rulemaking stage
for deleting from list
1000 sites on State
suspected list
TENNESSEE
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
Tennessee Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1983 (amended 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991). Part I covers
RCRA. Part II (Tenn. Code Ann. §§68-46-201 through -221) covers Superfund, authorizes the Hazardous Waste
Remedial Action Fund, and provides authority to take or compel remedial actions. 1988 amendments require notice
to register deeds for any site listed. 1991 amendment does not hold local governments liable if they take over a
site involuntarily.
STATE AGENCY
Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (DEC), Division of Superfund
(created 1/86) has four regional offices with a total
of S3 staff authorized, S3 established, funding for
53; 39 are filled. State Superfund supports two
attorneys in DEC and receives some AG attorney
support on a cost reimbursement basis.
Administrative costs are funded out of
Hazardous Remedial Action Fund and from Federal
grants.
FUNDING
Hazardous Waste Remedial Action Fund has a
balance of $4.6M (6/91), with annual additions of
$2M. Fund is comprised mostly of fees on trans-
porters and generators. Cost recovery, penalties and
fines, and interest may also contribute.
Fund may be used for emergency response, site
investigation, removals, remediation, studies and
design, O&M, and CERCLA match.
188
-------
TENNESSEE (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Statute provides for strict and several liability
and AG equitably apportions liability. The statute
provides for a lien that is limited to marginal
improvement in cost of land and does not have
priority.
Commissioner of DHE is authorized to issue
orders for information, access and remedial
response, assess civil penalties, and impose
punitive damages of up to 150% of die State's
costs.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
722 PAs and 478 Sis have been completed for
sites on State suspected list. Two-thirds of sites
determined not to be a hazard to health and envi-
ronment have been placed on inactive list.
Remedial action of operable unit at one NPL site is
near completion and 12 State-listed sites. No
completed RAs at "significant" sites, numerous
removals and containments.
Last fiscal year, $1,812,743.19 was paid out
from the fund for cleanup, staff salaries, expenses,
emergency response and RITE'S.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
No standards in statute. To the extent
practicable, remedies are consistent with the NCP.
Use State ARARs, seek compliance with environ-
mental laws, protection of human health and envi-
ronment and cost-effectiveness. Risk assessment
used where no promulgated standards.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public meeting required at end of RI/FS stage
for input in development of ROD. Rulemaking
hearings must be held prior to site(s) being added
or deleted from State site list
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
DOD SMOA in draft; eight SACAs, CPCA and
ESMOA in place.
189
-------
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
191
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State Inventory
Identified sites
37
0
37
1430 (some of which
are on CERCLIS)
ILLINOIS
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
1. Illinois Environmental Protection Act (1970, amended 1983,1984,1985,1986,1987,1988) establishes
Hazardous Waste Fund and provides for strict liability, injunctive relief, civil and criminal penalties, cost
recovery, and punitive damages.
2. Responsible Property Transfer Act (1988), Public Act 86-679, provides for environmental disclosure for
real property transfers.
STATE AGENCY
The Division of Land Pollution Control (263
staff total) in the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (IEPA) administers State's Clean Illinois
program with 48 staff working on Clean Illinois.
Included in the Clean Illinois program is the
Remedial Projects Management Section which has
three departments: state unit (four staff), immediate
removal unit (four staff), and Federal sites unit (ten
staff). Each unit expected to add three new staff for
FY92. AG provides some legal support for agency
in addition to the seven technical advisors in
lEPA's Office of Legal Council.
The Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB)
adopts all regulations to implement the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act, including State
contingency plan. IPCB also is only agency
authorized to issue unilateral orders, but only after
a hearing.
FUNDING
There is one source of funds for cleanup work:
the Hazardous Waste Fund (HWF). Two funds
used in the past, the Clean Illinois Fund and the
Build Illinois Program, are no longer available for
cleanups.
The HWF, with a balance of $7.7M as of
6/30/91, receives 90% of the fees collected for
transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes and
monies collected in consent agreements. $2.SM 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, site investigations, and
CERCLA match. No more than $1M can be used
on any single incident without legislative
appropriation.
192
-------
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.
Five §4(q) notices have been issued during FY91
for immediate removals and voluntary cleanups.
Approximately 75% of sites are handled by RPs.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Cleanup objectives set on a site-by-site basis by
two Agency committees. Initial standards are set by
a technical committee. These standards are
evaluated by an administrative management
committee based on other site issues; this
committee makes the final recommendation for
cleanup standards. An ARARs manual has been
published by State. ARARs include water quality
criteria, MCLs/MCLGs, background, and risk
assessments (if performed following Federal
guidance). Risk levels below IxlO"6 are considered
de minimis and levels above that are studied
further. $9.6M was spent on cleanup activities
during FY91.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Three sites on State Remedial Action Priorities
List have completed RAs. Of the approximately
1370 sites on State CERCLIS list, 95% have
completed PA, 65% have completed SI, 25%
require no further action. 12 RP cleanups were
completed during FY91.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Majority of Superfund sites and many RP-lead
sites are assigned community relations coordinators
from the Division of Land Pollution Control.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA was finalized 9/91. CPCA FY89. Eight
CAs. MSCA, DSMOA in effect.
193
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State Inventory
Identified sites
32
0
No list yet; one under
development pursuant to
statute effective 7/1/89.
about 1500
(on CERCLIS)
INDIANA
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
Indiana Hazardous Waste Act (1980), Environmental Management Act, and Hazardous Waste Land
Disposal Tax Act (1981), Indiana Code §13-7 et seq. and Ind. Code §§6-6-6.6-1 through -3, combine to
authorize cleanup activities in the State. The statute was amended effective 7/1/89 to consolidate and
clarify cleanup provisions, require development of a State scoring system, increase the tax that partially
funds the cleanup Fund, and provide new authority to the Commissioner including authority for mixed
funding consent agreements. The most recent amendment (1991) authorized Fund expenditures on sites
contaminated with petroleum.
Indiana Responsible Property Transfer Law, Indiana Code §13-7-22.5, effective 1/1/90, provides for full
environmental disclosure for transfers of real property that is listed on CERCLIS, contains a facility
subject to sections 311 and 312 of SARA Title in, or contains a regulated UST.
STATE AGENCY
Project Management Branch in Office of Envi-
ronmental Response in Department of Environ-
mental Management Two State cleanup sections,
the Federal Superfund program and the immediate
removal program have a total of 27 project
managers and four supervisors. A technical support
section with 13 staff serves both sections and
LUST. Attorney General represents IDEM in all
court proceedings, with 3 attorneys working on all
cleanup issues. IDEM Office of Legal Counsel has
three attorneys for all non-LUST cleanup work and
three attorneys for LUST work.
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. Biennium
beginning 7/1/91 legislature authorized $5.2M out
of a fund of $18.4M ($2.6M/year) to be spent
entirely on site-specific activities. Of the $5.2M
authorized for biennium 1991-93, $3.4M remains
(9/91). $3.2M designated for CERCLA match.
Administrative costs come from State general fund
and Federal grants. There is no cap on the Fund.
Funds may be used for site investigations, studies
and design, emergency response, removals,
remedial actions, O&M, CERCLA match and
actions at non-petroleum LUST sites, and pre-
authorized mixed funding claims. Fund expendi-
tures must be authorized by the Commissioner.
194
-------
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 administrative orders. The State may
also sue for injunctive relief, cost recovery,
punitive damages, civil penalties ($20,000/day) and
criminal penalties. Commissioner authorized to
enter mixed funding consent agreements. The
majority of cases have been agreed orders. No
cases have yet been decided by a court. Owners of
sites must record restrictive convenant with County
Recorder; and Commissioner determines if one is
necessary to warn future buyer.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Statute requires consistency with NCP. Indiana
Interim Groundwater Standards require MCLs
where an aquifer is or may be a source of public
drinking water. For soil cleanup or where MCLs
are not required, State considers MCLs, cancer risk
levels, background, non-cancer health risks, EPA
guidelines, and exposure pathways. Risk
assessment is essential.
Surface water and sediment cleanup levels are
based on Indiana's Water Quality Criteria.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
39 non-NPL sites currently active. Majority are
RP lead. Five NPL sites are State lead. Eight non-
NPL Federal facilities. $1.8M was spent on cleanup
activities from 7/1/89 - 9/30/91.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Policy is to include a 30-day comment period for
final remediation decisions of NPL sites.
In practice, public meetings occur several times
during the investigation and are increasingly
supplemented with availability sessions in the
communities.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA expected to be signed 12/91. MSCA,
CPCA, eight SACAs and seven CAs awarded.
Eight Federal facilities identified in DSMOA
(signed into effect 5/91).
195
-------
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State Inventory
Identified sites
SITES
78
0
2844
approx. 8500
(includes 6000 LUST sites)
MICHIGAN
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
Michigan Environmental Response Act ("MERA" or "Act 307"), Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§299.601, et seq.,
(1982) (amended 1984 to allow Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to reimburse individuals that replaced
own water supplies due to hazardous waste discharge), primarily intended to allow DNR to clean up abandoned
hazardous waste sites. A 1990 amendment to Act 307 provides the State with enforcement, liability and cost
recovery capabilities. Ten related pollution control acts supplement cleanup program authorities.
STATE AGENCY
Environmental Response Division in Department
of Natural Resources leads cleanup and response
work. Division has four cleanup programs, two of
which are State-funded: Act 307 has 61 staff (110
authorized), Environmental Cleanup Bond
Programs has 66 staff (76 authorized); and two of
which are Federally-funded: Federal Superfund
Support has 36 staff (41 authorized), and LUST
has 35 staff, as authorized.
AG's office handles all legal work and the State
program uses approximately 7.5 positions. AC files
all enforcement and cost recovery actions.
Michigan Department of Public Health replaces
water supplies on contract with DNR.
FUNDING
Environmental Protection Bond Fund monies
(- S387.3M in remaining authorized bonds) may
be used for site investigation, studies and design,
removals, emergency response, remedial actions,
CERCLA match, grants to local government,
O&M, and administrative costs (up to 6% of Bond
Fund).
$13.9M appropriated for Act 307 for FY92
including expected cost recoveries and penalties.
Of the S13.9M, $6.9M is authorized for staffing,
$4.3M for court ordered settlements and
judgements, $1M for alternative dispute resolution,
and the balance (~ SUM) for projects. This fund
may be used for all above activities except grants
to local governments. The balance for Act 307 was
$10.7M at the end of FY91 (9/30). However, of
that $10.7M, only $2.2M will carry forward to
FY92.
196
-------
MICHIGAN (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
State uses pollution regulatory statutes and
appends MERA cost recovery claims.
Most RP lead response actions are negotiated
with DNR. 832 of sites on State list have RP lead
work.
Liens are authorized under the Hazardous Waste
Management Act (regulatory statute).
State first negotiates with RPs then seeks Federal
response and CERCLA funds prior to using State
funds.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
State has recently promulgated cleanup standards
which place sites into one of the following
categories:
Type A - cleanup to background;
Type B - risk-based cleanup protective
of human health and environment;
Type C - less stringent than Type B,
cases of low priority.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Since 1984, cleanup activities have been funded
at 732 sites (73% of all sites); alternate water
supplies provided at approximately 468 sites;
evaluations at approximately 214 sites; surface
cleanups at approximately 235 sites; and final
cleanups at approximately SO sites. Of the 73% of
sites undergoing cleanup activity, 60% are PRP
lead and 13% State lead.
Approx. $19.2M from the Environmental Protec-
tion Bond Fund was spent during FY91, and $7.5M
was spent from Act 307 and an additional $3.2M
was encumbered during FY91 (ending 9/30/91).
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public hearing when State list updated. New
rules provide public hearing during remedy
selection. State models its system on CERCLA.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA, CPCA, six MSCAs and 12 State lead
SSCAs in effect. Three TAGs were awarded.
197
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State Inventory
Identified sites
42
0
178 (includes some NPL)
447 (on CERCLIS)
MINNESOTA
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
Minnesota Environmental Response & Liability Act (MEKLA), Minn. StaL §§115B.01 - .24 (1983, amended 1984,
1985, 1986, 1987, 1990, and 1991), establishes State Fund and provides for strict, joint and several liability,
injunctive relief, civil penalties, cost recovery, and citizen suits. The 1991 amendment clarified that lenders are
not liable solely because they are an owner or because they have a capacity to influence the operation. Hazardous
Substance Injury Compensation Fund, §§115B.25 - .37, is available for victim compensation.
STATE AGENCY
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA),
Groundwater and Sob'd Waste Division has three
sections dealing with Superfund. The Site Response
Section (65 staff) is primarily responsible and
handles hazardous waste sites. The Program
Development Section (15 staff) handles preliminary
assessment and listing, and the Solid Waste Section
(18 staff) handles sanitary landfills. All together
there are 98 positions related to or funded by the
cleanup program. Legal support is from three attor-
neys in the AG's office who work full-time for the
State program.
FUNDING
MERLA Fund balance of $19.1M (8/91), with an
average of $3.4M/yr collected through appropri-
ations, cost recovery and penalties/ fines, waste end
taxes, and interest
The Fund may be used for remedial actions, site
investigation, studies and design, removals, emer-
gency response, victim compensation, grants to
local government, O&M, and CERCLA match.
MPCA must obtain Pollution Control Board
approval (Determination of Inadequate Response)
before expending funds. MPCA must seek RP or
Federal funding before using State funds.
198
-------
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.
MERLA requires RPs to conduct MPCA requested
response actions. State has had an estimated
$180M of RP cleanups conducted through 9/15/91.
$8.3SM in costs recovered since 1983, and seven
major lawsuits have been filed. RPs are conducting
126 of the 140 cleanups being performed.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
MPCA has lead for all but two NPL sites, with
RI/FSs averaging 18-24 months and $300-800K.
RD averages 6-10 months and RA averages 12-18
months and $l-8.5M. There have been response
actions at 140 sites since 1983. 46 sites have RA
completed with O&M in place. 13 sites have been
delisted.
$7M was spent on cleanup activities for FY91.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Cleanup decisions are made on a case-by-case
basis using criteria similar to the NCP. The MPCA
seeks a permanent cleanup and uses ARARs. A
10~s cancer risk factor is used in the absence of
applicable standards. Other standards include
recommended allowable limits (RALs) for drinking
water contaminants, water quality criteria,
MCLs/MCLGs, EPA guidelines, cleanup to back-
ground and groundwater cleanup levels. Proposed
soil cleanup levels are expected to be finalized late
1991. Permanent remedies are always the goal, and
the strictest standards are applicable at each site.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Entire process is public with notification of RPs
and approval of all State actions at a public
meeting of Pollution Control Agency Board.
As a matter of policy, a public relations officer
is assigned to each site and MPCA conducts public
meetings after completion of the RI/FS to explain
the proposed plan.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA reached 9/89. FY92 CPCA, preremedial,
and enforcement CA in place. CAs and SACAs
awarded to date. DSMOA signed in 1991.
199
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State Inventory
(high or medium priority on
Ohio Masters Sites List)
Identified sites
33
0
700
1300
OHIO
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
Ohio Solid and Hazardous Waste Disposal Law, Ohio Rev. Code §§3734.01 - .9 (1980, amended 6/88) contains
provisions for two cleanup Funds and enforcement authorities.
STATE AGENCY
Division of Emergency and Remedial Response
in the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA) administers the cleanup program. Program
employs 154 staff and receives its funding from the
cleanup fund. Federal grants and solid waste
disposal fees.
Program has seven full-time staff attorneys,
AG's office supplies three full-time Assistant AGs
plus 2-3 FTEs (funded by OEPA).
FUNDING
State has two Funds available for cleanups.
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund has a balance of
$13.4M (10/91). Approximately 20% is from cost
recovery and 80% from solid waste disposal fees.
The Fund is used for day-to-day activities. The
Fund may also be used to build additional hazar-
dous waste facilities and to buy sites. Hazardous
Waste Facility Management Fund has a balance of
$21.2M, all from fees, although recovered costs
may return to the Fund. This Fund is used for
CERCLA10% matching funds, State level-of-effbrt
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.
200
-------
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 agreement
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
140 sites being addressed (most in Rl/FS stage),
17 sites are in RD/RA phase. Three sites are in
O&M phase.
$6.1M was spent on cleanup activities from the
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund and $1.6M from
the Hazardous Waste Facility Management Fund
during FY91.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Use promulgated standards (MCLs) wherever
possible. Otherwise use risk assessments, water
quality criteria, background, and EPA guidelines.
Cumulative carcinogenic risk to be reduced to 10"4
to 10"', where 10~6 is point of departure. Also
conduct ecological risk assessments. Cleanup
criteria also based on best available treatment
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Limited statutory authority; general rules in Ohio
Administrative Code apply; policy under revision.
Current policy is to be consistent with NCP.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA, one CA for PA/SI work, CPCA, MSCA,
and two TAGs in effect. Currently working on
obtaining DSMOA.
201
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State Inventory
Identified sites
39
0
62 (includes NPL)
4000 known waste
disposal sites
(44500 LUST sites)
WISCONSIN
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
1. Environmental Repair Statute, Wis. Stat. §144.442 (1984). Enacted as part of the Groundwater bill, this
section creates the Environmental 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 DNR to use money appropriated for
EF to remove and dispose of abandoned containers that have hazardous substances.
3. Hazardous Substance Spill Statute, Wis. Stat. §144.76, authorizes DNR to use money appropriated for
EF to respond to discharges of hazardous substances, requires development of a contingency plan.
STATE AGENCY
Within the Department of Natural Resources, the
Energy and Remedial Response program has a staff
of 90 and deals with Federal Superfund, LUST,
State reponse and State tank programs. Of the 90
positions, 14 are dedicated to the State cleanup
program known as the Environmental Repair
program.
Legal support comes from three full-time
attorneys in the DNR's Bureau of Legal Services
and on a case-by-case basis from the AG's office
(four attorneys).
FUNDING
The Environmental Fund (EF) had approximately
$8M appropriated for biennium ending 6/30/91, and
will have $7.8M for biennium ending 6/30/93. The
$7.5M in bonding not spent during FY91 will carry
over into FY92. An additional $15M was
appropriated for FY92. As of 6/30/91 the balance
was less than $1M.
EF may be used for emergency response, site
investigation, removals, O&M, CERCLA match,
LUST match, studies and designs, and remedial
action. Remedial action may be subject to prior
administrative hearing and judicial review.
202
-------
WISCONSIN (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The State has strict, joint and several liability
under the Abandoned Container and Spill Laws but
under the Environmental Repair Statute the stan-
dard is explicitly not strict (it is joint and several).
The burden of proof is on the State.
The State estimates a 75% rate of RP cooper-
ation. When they don't comply the State tries to
initiate a Federal Superfund or LUST action at the
site. The State will use EF for a State-funded
action when RPs are nonexistent or insolvent. State
reports 98% RP cooperation at LUST sites.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Either State or Federal action underway at all but
four of final NPL sites. Two sites being addressed
under RCRA authority. Eight Fund-financed NPL
sites. 40 State-funded projects ongoing.
$8M was spent or encumbered for cleanup
activities during the biennium ending 6/30/91.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Have promulgated groundwater standards in
NR140 with a minimum enforcement standard and
a prevention action standard. Use water quality
criteria. Guidelines for soil contamination currently
being promulgated in an administrative rule that
addresses the entire cleanup process.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The State list is subject to public notice, 30-day
comment period and hearing requirements.
Remedial actions are subject to public notice, and
a public hearing if requested, within 30 days. There
have been no formal challenges by the public to
State-funded RAs. All files open to public with
limited confidentiality and enforcement exceptions.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA under negotiation to cover remedial and
site assessment actions. State received CAs
covering three sites, site assessment CA, CPCA,
LUST CA, and two SACAs covering 12 sites.
203
-------
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
205
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State Inventory
Sites needing attention
Identified sites
10
0
7 (2 NPL)
101
351
ARKANSAS
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
The Remedial Action Trust Fund Act (RATFA) (Act 479 of 1985, 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).
Emergency Response Fund Act (ERFA) (Act 432-F of 1985) establishes the Emergency Response Fund
(ERF). Both RATFA and ERFA provide for proportional liability, civil and criminal penalties, treble
damages, cost recovery, and "superlien" authority; and RATFA establishes a state priority list of
hazardous waste sites.
STATE AGENCY
The Superfund Branch of the Hazardous Waste
Division is located in the DepL of Pollution
Control and Ecology. The Branch is staffed by one
employee, with legal support available from eight
Dept attorneys. A staffing freeze has limited
program operations. For the FY92-93 biennium, the
Superfund Branch has an increased staffing level of
ten.
FUNDING
HSRAT Fund, with a balance of $5.3M (10/91)
derives primarily from annual fees (approximately
$600K/year) on hazardous waste generators within
State or those accepting waste generated outside
State for transport/storage/disposal. The Fund also
receives revenues from penalties, and some other
funding through appropriations, cost recoveries,
interest and the Emergency Response Fund.
HSRAT Fund can be used for studies and design,
removals, and remedial actions at State-listed sites,
and for CERCLA match; but cannot duplicate
CERCLA, and funded sites must be on the Site
Priority List. 10% of the HSRAT revenues are
deposited into the Environmental Education Fund.
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.
206
-------
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 authorizes civil and
criminal penalties for violating the Act, making
false statements, or violating an order. RATFA also
provides for treble punitive damages, cost recovery,
and "superliens." ERFA also provides for orders,
treble damages, cost recovery and superliens.
Action by the legislature in the 1990 legislative
session impedes use of the superlien provisions,
which, however, were not repealed.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
State has lead on one NPL site which is
currently in RD phase.
$180.00 was spent from the Hazardous Waste
R.A.TJ7., and $155K was spent from the
Emergency Response Fund on cleanup activities
last year.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Air and water regulations, MCLs/MCGLs, risk
assessments, EPA guidelines and background levels
are all used as standards for hazardous waste
cleanup.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A public hearing is held prior to decisions to add
or delete a site from the State priority list.
Transcripts of public hearings and comments
received on sites become pan of administrative
records. Public meetings and/or fact sheets are
provided prior to major milestones on cleanup
projects.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
Arkansas has two MSCAs, eight SACAs, one
CPCA, and zero TAGs.
207
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State Inventory
11
0
637
LOUISIANA
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
Several chapters of the Louisiana Environmental Quality Law, La. Rev. Stat Ann. Title 30 §§2001-2496 (1979),
provide relevant authority. The Hazardous Waste Control Law (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§2171-2206), Inactive and
Abandoned Hazardous Waste Site Law (La. Rev. StaL Ann. §§2221-2226), and chapter 12 entitled Liability for
Hazardous Substance Remedial Action (La. Rev. StaL Ann. §§2271-2280), together establish several funds and
provide for strict, joint and several liability; information-gathering; administrative order authority; injunctive relief;
cost recovery; liens; 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 Enforcement
is the lead agency. The Division has 38 of its 46
authorized positions currently filled. One DEQ
lawyer provides enforcement support. About 80%
of the Division's $5.7M budget is federally funded.
FUNDING
The primary cleanup fund is the Hazardous
Waste Site Cleanup Fund (HWSCF). In 1991 the
cap was increased to $4M. The Fund's balance is
$2.2M as of 11/91. A portion of the taxes on
hazardous waste generation as well as sums
recovered through judgments and settlements are
the sources of the HWSCF. Appropriations from
general outlay are made only for specific capital
expenditures for cleanups. The Fund can be used
for emergency response, removals and remedial
actions, studies and design, and O&M. DEQ must
demand payment from PRPs once the work is
done.
Two other funds are the UST Trust Fund and the
Motor Fuels Underground Tank Trust The UST
fund is used for administrative costs associated
with the UST program and UST cleanups. The
Motor Fuels Trust can be used for certain UST
response actions when the UST owner is in
compliance with State law.
208
-------
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 2 leads at State NPL sites. One is
an enforcement lead and one is a fund lead.
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 substan-
tial use of EPA procedures and guidance and aims
for permanent remedies.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Of the 23 completed RAs, 18 were conducted by
PRPs, and 5 were State-funded.
26 PRP-lead cleanups are scheduled at an
estimated cost of $200M. An additional 154 site
cleanups are expected, at an average cleanup cost
of $12-15M per site. From HWSCF, $1.2M was
spent or encumbered as of 11/91.
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
In 1991, Louisiana has one SMOA, one MSCA
covering seven sites; one site-specific CA; nine
SACAs incorporated into MSCA; one DSMOA;
and 4 TAGs.
209
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State Inventory
Identified sites
10
0
600
220
NEW MEXICO
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
1. Hazardous Waste Emergency Fund, N.M. Stat. Ann. 74-4-8 within Hazardous Waste Act, N.M. Stat. Ann.
74-4-1 to 74-4-13 (1988) provides Funds for removals, emergencies, and State CERCLA match and
certain enforcement authorities.
2. Water Quality Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. 74-6-1 et seq. provides additional enforcement authorities.
STATE AGENCY
Within the Environment Department (NMED),
the Remediation Section and the Superfund Section
of the Groundwater Protection and Remediation
Bureau have six and ten staff respectively that
work on Superfund, remediation and corrective
action; 15 other ED staff also work on the
program.
The ED General Counsel provides legal support
with ten attorneys. Approx. 1.5 FTE of legal
support work on hazardous waste cases.
FUNDING
Hazardous Waste Emergency Fund funded by
appropriations, bonds, cost recovery, and penalties
and fines. Balance in the Fund approx. $191K
(10/91). No cap on the Fund. Penalties and fines
are the only continuing source of funds. The Fund
is replenished as amounts are obligated or spent.
Fund can be used for emergency response, site
investigation, studies and design for emergency and
removal response, State CERCLA match, and
remedial actions pursuant to court action. No State
long-term cleanups.
210
-------
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
several. No cases litigated to date.
and
Preferred enforcement method includes sending
notice of violations with a time period for
compliance and a proposed penalty or injunction.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
One State-lead NPL site (not using State funds);
most State fund monies are currently used for
short-term emergency responses, as well as the
State match for NPL cleanups. In FY91, $90K was
spent and $125K was encumbered from the HWEF
on cleanup.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Uses hazardous waste cleanup standards, ground-
water standards, water quality criteria, and MCLs.
State also uses 10"6 additional lifetime cancer risk
in deciding cleanup levels.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
State follows CERCLA/NCP procedures at NPL
sites. Settlement agreement process includes public
participation.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
New Mexico has one SMOA, one MSCA, one
CPCA, one SSCA, one DSMOA, and one TAG.
211
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State Inventory (GAO)
10
0
30
OKLAHOMA
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
1. Controlled Industrial Waste Disposal Act (CIWDA), Ok. StaL Ann. Title 63, Article 20, §1-2001 through
2014.
2. Controlled Industrial Waste Fund Act (CIWFA), §1-2015 et seq.
These are RCRA-type laws that potentially could be used for abandoned sites that threaten public health.
STATE AGENCY
The Department of Health's Solid Waste
Management Service has seven staff members
working full-time on Superfund. Legal support is
provided by one Department attorney working full-
time on Superfund.
Administrative costs are paid through CAs,
CPCAs, and SACAs.
FUNDING
Controlled Industrial Waste (CIW) Fund, with
balance of $60K (10/91), is derived primarily from
RCRA-type permit fees. Funds may be transferred
from Public Health Special Fund. Fund balance is
not obligated most of the time.
CIW Fund can be used for emergency response,
removals at abandoned sites, CERCLA match,
monitoring, and assistance to counties and
municipalities.
212
-------
OKLAHOMA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Orders for site access are provided under general
authorities granted to the Department of Health.
The State has authority to issue subpoenas,
administrative orders, and consent orders under a
general procedures law.
CIWDA authorizes injunctive action and both
civil and criminal penalties for RCRA-type
hazardous waste violations. No cost recovery
except under Federal CERCLA.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
RA completed at one NPL site under the
direction of State Water Resources Board, and one
NPL site under direction of the State Health
Department RA 50% complete at another RP-lead
NPL site under supervision of State Health
Department. In FY91, $15K from the CIWF was
spent on cleanup.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Air and water cleanup levels are determined on
a site-by-site basis. Oklahoma has promulgated
guidance for water quality criteria and risk
assessments, which are contaminant specific but
usually fall in the range of 10~5 to 10"6.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements or informal provisions.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
Oklahoma has one Lead Agency CA, one CPCA,
one MSCA, eight SACAs, and three TAGs.
Oklahoma is in the process of developing a
SMOA.
213
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State Inventory
Identified sites
25
0
38
over 1000
TEXAS
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
The Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act, Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. Art. 4477-7, was amended in 1987 to
establish the Hazardous Waste Disposal Fee Fund (Fund SSO). In 1989 the statute was substantially amended to
strengthen the Fund program and its enforcement provisions. Texas also has a Spill Response Fund, established
under the Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention & Control Act, Texas Water Code §26.261 et seq. (amended
1983, 1985).
Texas Health & Safety Code Ann., Chap. 361, Subchap. F, was amended in September 1991 to establish the
Hazard Ranking System as an inventory mechanism for the Texas Superfund Priority List.
STATE AGENCY
Texas Water Commission, Hazardous & Solid
Waste Division, Contract & Remedial Activities
Section~38 positions as of 10/91. There are five
staff devoted to the State list Superfund program;
the remainder work on NPL and pre-remedial
programs, and LUST. Commission legal staff and
three attorneys with the Attorney General's office
provide enforcement support as needed. The Fund
covers administrative costs for the State list
Superfund unit.
FUNDING
Fund 550 has a balance of $29.5M (9/91), and is
funded by fees on hazardous waste disposal, and
two new fees (1991 legislature) on lead acid
batteries ($2.0/6 volt; $3.00/12 volt) and motor oil
(50/qt.). The Fund also receives cost recoveries,
penalties and interest on late fees. Revenues are
approximately $20M annually beginning 1/92.
Fund 550 can be used for site investigations,
studies and design, removals, emergency responses,
remedial actions, CERCLA match, O&M and
administrative costs.
The Spill Response Fund has a balance of
S300K (9/91). It receives appropriations, and fines
and penalties under the Texas Water Code. It is
capped at $5M, exclusive of fines and penalties.
Spill Response Fund has limited use for removals,
emergency response and threatened or actual
discharges to waters or groundwaters of the State.
214
-------
TEXAS (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Comprehensive order and injunctive authority,
civil penalties, cost recovery, liens, de minimis
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 PRPs to offer to
do RI/FS and 60 days thereafter to negotiate agreed
order; if not, then RI/FS is financed by State Fund.
After RI/FS is completed, the Director proposes a
remedy, solicits public comment and holds a
meeting. PRP has 60 days after meeting to offer to
perform remedy, and 60 days to negotiate agreed
order. If not, men Commission lists the site and
issues the order.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Of seven pre-1989 administrative orders on
State-listed sites, PRPs at four have complied and
are doing RI/FS. Three have pending appeals.
There are eight negotiated PRP cleanups at State
sites.
As of 7/91, $10M was encumbered from Fund
550. During FY91, which ended 8/31/91, $31M
was spent from Fund 550, of which $26M was
reimbursed by EPA. Approximately $5M in State
derived fund money was spent last year.
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 circumstances, 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."
Texas is preparing to adopt rules that apply these
standards for State and Federal cleanups and
RCRA corrective action.
Texas is also proposing rules to establish a risk
range between 10"4 to 10"6 for carcinogens.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public notice and comment required in order to
list a site on the Texas Superfund Registry. Public
meetings are required on sites proposed for the
Registry, and prior to remedy selection.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
Texas has two MSCAs, one SMOA, one CPCA,
one DSMOA, probably at least 1 SACA, and 4
TAGS.
215
-------
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
217
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Identified sites
20
1
64 (plus 20 proposed)
(includes NPL sites)
454 (on CERCLIS)
IOWA
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
1. Iowa Environmental Quality Act, Iowa Code ch. 455B (1972, amended 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977,
1978,1979,1980,1981,1982,1983,1984,1985,1986,1987,1991). Significant amendments concerning
cleanup authority for abandoned and uncontrolled sites enacted in 1979,1981, and 1987.1984 amendment
establishes Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund.
2. Iowa Groundwater Protection Act, Iowa Code ch. 455E (1987), requires procedures and establishes
criteria for cleanup.
3. Groundwater Hazard Documentation Law, Iowa Code ch. 558.69 (1987, amended 1988), establishes
disclosure requirements for real property transfers.
STATE AGENCY
A subdivision of the DNR's Solid Waste Section
is connected with the State Superfund program. It
is responsible for enforcement/remedial activities
and the Registry of Hazardous Waste or Hazardous
Substance Disposal Sites. Staff is 9.75 FTEs. Legal
support is provided by DNR attorneys for adminis-
trative actions; AG's office institutes all legal pro-
ceedings. Administrative costs covered by HWR
Fund, EPA grants, and Oil Overcharge Fund.
FUNDING
Hazardous Waste Remedial (HWR) Fund
balance of $314K (7/91) with $154K/yr collected
primarily through fees on the transport, treatment,
and disposal of hazardous waste.
HWR Fund can be used for administration, site
investigation, emergency response, removals,
studies and design, remedial actions, O&M,
CERCLA match, and development of alternatives
to land disposal. 75% of the Fund must be used for
remediation at non-CERCLA sites and for
CERCLA cost share.
218
-------
IOWA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Liability is strict, joint and several. The State
must try to negotiate a settlement with RPs prior to
using Fund monies for cleanup. The State can issue
orders and seek 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.
Penalties are available for violations of air and
water pollution laws.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Cleanup decisions are made on a site-by-site
basis pursuant to regulations. Specific regulations
provide cleanup goals for groundwater and for soils
and surface water in order to protect groundwater.
Action levels established requiring hierarchy of
choices. Risk assessment used to help determine
applicable cleanup standards.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Approximately 30 RP cleanups are either
completed or ongoing for non-NPL State sites.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Must provide technical advice and assistance to
political subdivisions and to other persons upon
request.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
MSCA for preremedial program. SACA for
multiple sites, and CPCA.
219
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State inventory
11
0
412
KANSAS
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
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 Response Fund (ERF) which
replaced the Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund and the Pollutant Discharge Cleanup Fund, and provided enforcement
authorities for hazardous substances as well as hazardous wastes. As of 1990, the Water Plan Special Revenue
account became the primary fund. It is currently used predominantly for the CERCLA match. The ERF is primarily
used for State sites and emergency response.
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. 35 of its
46 employees are assigned to Superfund duties at
least pan-time, in addition to two Department
lawyers who work on Superfund. Administrative
costs are covered by appropriations from the
State's general Fund.
FUNDING
Kansas maintains four funds. The Water Plan
Special Revenue-Contamination Remediation
account is the currently the primary cleanup
account. The account has received transfers of $2M
in both FY91 and FY92. The funding source is
fees charged to water users and some carryover
money from the Economic Development Initiative
Fund (funded by Lottery receipts). The account is
used for studies and design, removals, emergency
response, remedial actions, CERCLA match and
O&M.
The Environmental Response Fund contains
approximately $550K of which $300K is allocated
to emergency response, non-specific sites. The
remainder is allocated to specific sites. Annual
additions vary and consist of appropriations and
cost reimbursements.
The Hazardous Waste Perpetual Care Trust Fund
contains $122K (7/90) with annual additions of
$10K. It is designed primarily for activities at
RCRA facilities, which pay fees to support it.
However, up to 20% of the Fund may be used for
emergencies at facilities closed prior to 1981.
The State also has a Petroleum Storage Tank Re-
lease Trust Fund providing financial assurance for
corrective actions by operators of underground pet-
roleum storage tanks. This fund is supported by a
fee on petroleum products other than aviation fuel.
220
-------
KANSAS (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The ERA authorizes the State to issue orders and
injunctions against RPs to effect site cleanups.
Civil penalties for violation of an ERA order are
not available, however. Penalties are available
under RCRA, nuisance, or water laws; and State
can use these authorities for enforcement (including
cleanup of groundwater and soil).
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
BER uses groundwater cleanup target concen-
trations which the Bureau of Water has established.
Groundwater regulations are under development.
State uses EPA guidelines and other standards.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
RP investigations, remedial design or remedial
actions are underway at 88 sites, and post-cleanup
monitoring is occurring at 22-25.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements or informal procedures.
The State generally follows the National Contin-
gency Plan public participation procedures. State is
developing a contingency plan which will include
guidelines on community participation.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
State has CPCA, one MSCA, one pre-remedial
program grant. It has continuing CAs for four sites,
and SACAs for nine sites.
221
-------
SITES
Final NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Identified sites
22
0
58
1250
MISSOURI
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Law, Mo. Rev. StaL §§260.350 - 260.552 (1977, amendments in 1980,
1983,1985,1987,1988) authorizes Fund and provides for strict liability, site access, administrative order authority,
civil and criminal penalties, and punitive damages. Legislation passed in 1990 (S.B. 530) provided additional
authorities, funding, and personnel. The legislation was geared to the State's solid waste program and has not
bolstered resources in the State's superfund section.
STATE AGENCY
Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
Division of Environmental Quality, Hazardous
Waste Program has three sections: Superfund
Section, Hazardous Waste Section, and an Enforce-
ment Section that handles only RCRA sites. The
State's Superfund Section has 21 technical and
administrative staff. About ten lab technicians are
located in the Environmental Services Program,
which handles much of the waste management field
work. Three attorneys in the Department are
available for the Division of Environmental
Quality. The AG's office handles all litigation.
FUNDING
The Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund has a
balance of $5.3M (9/24/91) 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 $150K/yr because of increasingly strict
land restrictions. Cost recovery, penalties/fines,
donations, and appropriations 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 develop-
ment of a hazardous waste facility in the State.
222
-------
MISSOURI (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
State seeks RP cleanup first. If RPs are
recalcitrant or insolvent, and if site is small, the
State will fund removal-type actions. If the cleanup
is costly, the State will try to use EPA authority
and funds. The State has had substantial success in
convincing PRPs to conduct cleanups.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
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 298
PAs, 155 Sis. There are 26 ongoing cleanups in
State including work at NPL sites, RCRA closures,
EPA removals, two State-funded cleanups
(basically drum removals), and 16 RP cleanups.
Six of 22 NPL sites are State lead, and the State
plans to take the lead on new sites added to the
NPL.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Annual meeting required to report status of
hazardous waste program to public. Public has
access to information collected under various
authorities, unless it is a trade secret or otherwise
exempted from disclosure. Local governments must
be notified of sites in their jurisdiction and sent a
copy of the registry.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
Draft SMOA, two MSCAs, one CPCA, one
TAG, and a number of CAs and SACAs.
223
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Identified sites
6
2
334 (on CERCLIS)
NEBRASKA
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
Nebraska Environmental Protection Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. §81-1501 through §81-1533) does not cover Superfund
sites specifically. However, State uses Title 118 of its regulations, promulgated under §81-1505, to prohibit
pollution of groundwater and set standards for cleanup.
STATE AGENCY
The Superfund unit of the Hazardous Waste
Section (Department of Environmental Control) has
five professional staff; three support staff also work
within the Section. Legal support is provided by
Department attorneys and two attorneys from AG's
office who work with the Department Administra-
tive support costs are covered by CORE grants and
EPA funding.
FUNDING
No Superfund.
224
-------
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. Liability standards
are not specified in statute.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Cleanup standards assessed on site-by-site basis.
Title 118 sets standards for groundwater cleanup.
MCLs/MCLGs and other lexicological information
are also used.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
State has one State lead at Well M3 subsite of
Hastings NPL site. Funding for State share of
RD/RA is expected to be through State
appropriation.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Title 118 requires RP to submit Remedial Action
proposal based on "detailed site assessment."
Public notice of the proposal is given by newspaper
and radio, with copies available in public libraries.
A 30-day comment period and any requested
hearings run prior to final review.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
CAs covering seven sites and five SACAs.
CPCA and MSCA awarded.
225
-------
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
227
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Identified sites
16
0
420 sites (CERCLIS)
COLORADO
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
1. Hazardous Substances Response Fund, Colorado Rev. Stat. Section 25-16-101 et seq., 1985 as amended,
provides funds for State CERCLA match, some administrative costs, and some site-specific future costs.
2. CERCLA Recovery Fund, Colorado Rev. Stat. Section 25-16-201,1985 as amended, provides an account
for natural resource damages.
STATE AGENCY
Within the Office of Environment of the Depart-
ment of Health, the Hazardous Materials and Waste
Management Division contains three sections with
Superfund staff in each: (1) Remedial Programs
with 15 staff working on Superfund; (2) Hazardous
Waste Control (RCRA type program) with two
staff working on Rocky Flats cleanup and; (3)
Solid Waste and Incident Management with two
staff working on PA/SI and emergency response.
AG's office provides legal support with 14 staff
handling natural resource damages litigation.
FUNDING
Hazardous Substances Response Fund had a
balance of approx. $11M as of 8/91. The Fund is
collected from solid waste disposal fees (approx.
$2.6M/yr) and site-specific settlement costs. The
fund is used for CERCLA match, site investigation,
2.5% for administrative costs, and site-specific
operations and maintenance costs. There is no cap
on the Response Fund, but it will sunset on Dec.
31, 1994.
The Natural Resources Damages Trust Fund
receives revenues for natural resource damages and
is available for natural resource restoration and
enhancement.
228
-------
COLORADO (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
State's cleanup fund statute contains no enforce-
ment authorities. Colorado may use authority under
other statutes (e.g., Water Quality Control Act and
Hazardous Waste Management Act) for cleanup of
some sites. The AG has filed seven CERCLA
natural resource damages lawsuits, of which three
have been settled with remedial action underway.
Two others have received favorable court rulings,
one has joint agreement with RP for Rl/FS and one
is being addressed under Federal Superfund. State
has used its hazardous waste law at Rocky Flats
and Rocky Mountain Arsenal; no other enforce-
ment has taken place at inactive or abandoned sites.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
State has the lead on one NPL fund-lead cleanup,
and various operable unit cleanups at other NPL
sites that are not fund-lead. Approximately $10M
from the HSRF was either spent or obligated as of
8/91. Approximately $10M from the HSRF was
either spent or obligated as of 8/91.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Cleanup standards are determined on a site-
specific basis, using State ARARs and risk assess-
ment where applicable.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal public participation requirements.
AG follows NCP procedures under natural resource
damages cases.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
A SMOA has been signed. State has received 1
MSCA, 2 SACAs, 1 CPCA and 5 TAGs for FY91.
229
-------
SITES
NPL sites 8
Proposed NPL 0
State Inventory 227 (includes NPL sites)
High Priority sites on State List 25
Identified sites 227
(CERCLIS plus 15 petroleum sites)
MONTANA
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
1. Until 5/10/89, the law in effect was the Environmental Quality Protection Fund Act, Mont. Code Ann.
§§75-10-701 to -715 (1985), which provided for strict liability, judicial civil penalties, punitive damages,
and cost recovery.
2. The Montana Comprehensive Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act (CECRA) was passed by
the legislature and signed by the governor 5/10/89. CECRA provided for the following additional
authorities: joint and several liability, information gathering and site access, subpoena and administrative
order authority, administrative civil penalties, liens, and administrative condemnation power.
3. 1991 Amendments to CECRA added requirements for public notice, financial assurance for longterm
operation and maintenance, and new definitions of "emergency responder" and "hazardous materials
incidents." Mont Code Ann. §§75-10-711, 713, 716-717, 719, 721, 724.
STATE AGENCY
The Superfund Program of the Solid and Hazar-
dous Waste Bureau in the Montana Department of
Health and Environmental Sciences (MDHES) has
25 people, mostly funded through EPA cooperative
agreements. Staff includes three special assistant
attorneys general assigned to the agency.
FUNDING
Although the Environmental Quality Protection
Fund Act was enacted in 1985, funding was not
appropriated until 1987 for the 1989-91 biennium.
The fund balance as of 5/91 was $1M. Funding
will come from a trust fund that collects taxes on
natural resource extraction, with additional funding
expected from cost recovery, penalties, and appro-
priations. The tax and other sources are expected to
generate $250K per year.
The Fund can be used for emergency response,
removals, remedial actions, and investigations.
Funding for State CERCLA match and actions at
LUST sites are provided by other statutes.
In addition, $10M in bonds are authorized for the
Hazardous Waste/CERCLA Special Revenue
Account, although no bonds have been issued.
230
-------
MONTANA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Montana Department of Health and Environ-
mental Sciences (MDHES) is required to make a
good-faith effort to have RP clean up prior to using
the Fund. Money obtained from cost recovery and
civil penalty assessments are returned to the Fund.
The State can choose to issue a unilateral order,
negotiate a consent order, institute a civil action, or
clean up a site using State funds.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
MDHES has issued five negotiated orders for
RI/FSs. It has issued four unilateral orders for
conduct of RI/FS and one unilateral order for an
emergency cleanup. In addition, the DOD has
completed cleanup at three sites pursuant to a
negotiated order. From the EQPFA $500K was
spent and $290K obligated as of 5/91.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
CECRA requires cleanup that assures present
and future protection of public health, safety and
welfare, and the environment and that is consistent
with all applicable and well-suited environmental
requirements, criteria, and limitations. In addition,
the State is required to select cleanups that use
permanent solutions, are cost-effective, and that use
alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. Site-specific cleanup criteria may also
be imposed.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
CECRA requires public notice of administrative
orders and consent decrees. New amendments now
require notice to local governing bodies and city
commissioners and, at their request, a public
meeting must be held.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA development is being considered. CPCA
in FY88, FY89, FY90, and FY91. One MSCA;
three other CAs for individual site work. Three
TAGs awarded.
231
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Identified sites
2
0
3
NORTH DAKOTA
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
North Dakota does not have its own State Superfund law. Its Hazardous Waste Management Act (HWMA), N.D.
Cent. Code §§23-20.3-01 to -10 (1981, amended 1983,1987 and 1991) provides some authority that can be used
in conjunction with cleanups, but it is limited. Its Water Pollution Control Law, N.D. Cent Code §61-28-01 et
seq., provides most enforcement authority.
A bill enacted by the 1989 legislature and effective 7/1/89 created the Environmental Quality Restoration Fund.
N.D. Cent Code §§23-31-01 to -03. This fund provides cost recovery authority but no liability standard, and it
applies to all environmental programs.
STATE AGENCY
The lead agency is the Division of Waste
Management, in the Department of Health &
Consolidated Laboratories' Environmental Health
Section. There are five staff in the Hazardous
Waste Program within the Division. The Division's
legal support is an Assistant Attorney General
assigned to the Department who works on all
environmental programs.
FUNDING
The Hazardous Waste Program operates on
appropriated funds and RCRA grants.
The 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 admin-
istrative expenses. The fund balance is $S9K
(10/91).
232
-------
NORTH DAKOTA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The Water Pollution Control law, which protects
surface water and groundwater, and which governs
activities that may pollute such water, is the
primary enforcement statute. It authorizes admin-
istrative orders, injunctive relief, and civil and
criminal penalties.
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. Three sites are still being evaluated for
possible action.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Division notifies local officials with
information about a site. Local communities can
become involved in site activities.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
No agreements.
233
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
1
Identified sites 73 (on CERCLIS)
(includes ~20 Native American
Reservation sites, which the
State cannot act on)
SOUTH DAKOTA
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
1. South Dakota's Regulated Substance Discharge Law, S.Dak. Codified Laws Ann. §§34A-12-1 to -IS
(enacted 1988, amended 1989), establishes a cleanup fund and provides for strict liability, administrative
order authority, injunctive relief, cost recovery, and liens.
2. The Hazardous Waste Management Act, S.Dak. Codified Laws Ann. §§34-11-1 to -23 (1983, amended
most recently in 1988), provides for civil and criminal penalties, information orders, and site access.
STATE AGENCY
The Department of Environment and Natural
Resources is the lead agency. State activities have
been PAs, and supporting EPA in the Superfund
process which are performed with EPA funding.
The Division of Environmental Regulation,
Groundwater Quality Program has 2 FTEs
dedicated to these activities.
The Attorney General's office provides legal
support as needed.
FUNDING
The Regulated Substances Response Fund has a
balance of S976K. Current funding sources are
penalties, cost recovery, and interest. 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 $150K in
earlier years.
The fund may be used for administrative
activities, emergency response, removals, inves-
tigations, and managerial activities, with some
restrictions.
234
-------
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
The State uses surface and groundwater
standards, and State soil cleanup criteria for
petroleum, pesticides and fertilizers discharges.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Whitewood Creek is in the RD stage, Williams
Pipe is in the RI stage, and Ellsworth AFB is in
the SI stage.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal provisions.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
One MSCA and a CPCA.
235
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Sites needing attention
Total identified hazardous
waste sites
11
1
195
210
UTAH
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
The Utah Hazardous Substances Mitigation Act, Utah Code Ann. §§19-6-301 to -321 (1991) was amended 9/91.
The law provides for strict liability, site access, administrative order authority for direct and immediate threats,
injunctive relief, abatement actions, civil penalties, liability agreements, voluntary cleanup agreements, cleanup
recoveries, and cost recovery. Joint and several liability is explicitly not authorized.
STATE AGENCY
The lead agency is the Department of Environ-
mental Quality, Division of Environmental Health,
Bureau of Environmental Response and Remedia-
tion. The Superfund Branch in the Division has
primary responsibility; it has a staff of 20 of which
two are State funded. Of the remaining 18
positions, six are funded by CORE grant, ten are
funded by a multisite cooperative agreement, and
two are funded by Responsible Party Oversight
agreements. One staff attorney at the Division level
handles most legal duties, and three FTEs in the
AG's office handle administrative negotiations, as
well as litigation, as needed.
FUNDING
The Hazardous Substances Mitigation Fund had
$3M appropriated for startup; of this, approxi-
mately $1.SM remains in the fund. Funding
primarily comes from annual appropriations,
although cost recovery monies and penalties are
also 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. In addition, CERCLA
match monies must be explicitly appropriated.
236
-------
UTAH (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Utah strongly desires PRP leads with State
oversight, because its funding is limited. The State
intends PRPs to perform most remedial investiga-
tions. In the absence of PRP action, the State will
pursue enforcement and/or initiate an RI using the
State Fund. Remedial actions will be conducted
either under State enforcement authorities or the
Federal Superfund statute.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Under the old law, one PRP cleanup with State
oversight took place. RODs have been signed for
five NPL sites. In FY91 $33SK was spent from the
HSMF.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Utah 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 contam-
inants, environmental considerations, technical
feasibility, and economic considerations. Use
MCLs where applicable. Utah's Corrective Action
Cleanup Standard Policy has been promulgated in
the Administrative Code. Risk assessments are
based on EPA guidelines (10"* to 10* risk range).
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Records obtained by DEQ are to be made avail-
able to the public unless entitled to confidentiality.
Rules providing for public participation during
remedy selection will be promulgated in the near
future. There is strong public participation by the
PRPs and on a site-specific basis. DEQ efforts to
involve the public in the process have been
successful.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
Utah has one MSCA, one CPCA, one SMOA,
and one Site Specific CA.
237
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Sites Needing Attention
Identified Sites
3
0
86
100-120 sites
(on CERCLIS)
WYOMING
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
The Wyoming Environmental Quality Act (EQA), Wyo. Stats. §§35-11-101 to -1207 (1987), does 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 Water Quality Division within the Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality has one full-time
staffer under its DSMOA devoted to Federal
Superfund project at F.E. Warren AFB. The Solid
Waste Management and Air Quality Divisions
contribute to those efforts, but have no full-time
staff assigned to Superfund. The Attorney
General's Office has one person who works half-
time on cleanups.
The Environmental Quality Council is an inde-
pendent body of seven members serving an admin-
istrative judicial role. The Council conducts
hearings and hears appeals, and approves all regul-
ations recommended by DEQ.
FUNDING
The DEQ Trust and Agency Account Fund
(TAAF) can be used for emergency cleanups, mine
reclamation, closure of solid waste facilities, and
post-closure monitoring and maintenance where
bonds are inadequate. DEQ is compelled to sue to
recover those costs, where possible, whenever
TAAF funds are spent
Effective June 8, 1989, a new provision under
the EQA will enable DEQ to fund emergency
actions with the Environmental Quality Council's
approval, through the existing DEQ Trust and
Agency Account. The current balance in this fund
is $1M as of 10/91, and none of that is
encumbered. The Fund, previously limited to aban-
doned mine reclamation activities, is funded by
penalties and fines.
EQA provides a cleanup fund for UST sites and
emergency spills where there is no PRP.
238
-------
WYOMING (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
DEQ does not consider itself to be an initial
response agency. During releases, DEQ's first
priority is to contact responsible parties to
determine if they have conducted or will conduct
cleanup. When PRPs 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 contin-
gency account
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 one proposed
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.
F.E. Warren AFB has been added to the NPL.
In FY91 $150K was spent from the DEQ
Trust and Agency Account Fund.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Standards are developed on a site-by-site basis,
with guidance coming from Federal standards such
as MCLs and ACLs. The State has standards for
inorganic compounds in water and establishes site-
specific cleanup criteria based on groundwater
protection standards of Wyoming Water Quality
Division Rules. Wyoming also is currently
developing regulations which will specify cleanup
standards for UST sites.
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
two citizen commissions for the Mystery Bridge
NPL site and at F.E. Warren AFB to comment on
site activities.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
Wyoming has one DSMOA, but no cooperative
agreements with EPA.
239
-------
REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
241
-------
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State priority list
State sites
Identified sites
SITES
10
1
24
500
800+ on Arizona CERCLA
Information and Data
System (ACIDS) list
ARIZONA
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
The Arizona Environmental Quality Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat Ann. §§49-281 to -287 (1986, amended 1987, 1990),
establishes the Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF, popularly called "warf') and provides for strict,
joint and several liability, administrative orders, abatement and remedial actions, injunctive actions, civil penalties,
cost recovery, and treble damages. In 1990, the 39th Legislature passed a bill providing fees and taxes as major
sources of WQARF funding. This legislation, however, reduces State appropriations to the fund.
STATE AGENCY
The Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) has two offices overseeing Superfund work.
The Office of Waste Programs (OWP) is
comprised of mostly technical people managing
most site activities, including enforcement case
development; this office has a staff of 14. The
other office is the Office of Water Quality, which
has seven hydrologists working on site cleanup
issues. The AG's office provides two staff for legal
support
The Department of Health Services performs
epidemiological studies for the WQARF program
upon request under interagency agreements.
FUNDING
The Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund
(WQARF) is the State Superfund, with resources of
approximately $11.6M (6/91). WQARF was
formerly supplied primarily by legislative appropri-
ation but will be funded by taxes and fees.
Penalties and cost recovery enhance the fund,
which is used for administrative costs, emergency
actions abating threats to State waters, remedial
actions, O&M, water quality monitoring, and State
CERCLA match costs.
To use fund monies, the program must demon-
strate that a release does or may impair State
waters.
Political subdivisions are eligible for State
matching funds for ground and surface water
remediation.
242
-------
ARIZONA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The State must demonstrate culpability before
initiating enforcement actions, as RPs have the
right to a review hearing. Generally, responsible
parties are encouraged to perform work voluntarily.
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 assistant attorneys
general assigned to the Office of Waste Programs
(two FTE).
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
WQARF rules require prior approval for
remedial actions by private parties when a cost
recovery action is contemplated. A number of
voluntary cleanups are being supervised. Operable
units or partial cleanups are underway at five NPL
sites. Fifteen sites have been remediated under
WQARF authority, and 13 others are underway. A
large number of sites are still in the investigation
stage.
Last year approx. S3.5M was spent and obligated
from the fund.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Remedial actions must assure the protection of
public health and welfare and the environment,
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 may use
Arizona health-based guidance levels which impose
a 1ft6 risk for unregulated carcinogenic chemicals.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Important site and program actions are
announced in two state-wide newspapers. Public
comment is required for the annual priority list and
elective for other remedial actions. Comment
summary and response is required for the annual
list and others for which comment has been
invited. Any political subdivision that uses, has or
will use the waters of the State, and State agencies
may apply for matching funds for remedial actions.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
Arizona receives federal funds under MSCAs.
Since 1987 DEQ has received over $2M in EPA
grants. In early 1990 a MSCA was completed that
covered 11 NPL sites, two of which were State
leads. There is a PA/SI agreement for the State to
conduct site discovery work. There are no current
plans to develop a SMOA, although the State does
have a DSMOA.
243
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Identified sites
86
2
Three-tiered--
approx. 350 total
Approx. 26,000 potential
sites on the CAL-SITES
database
CALIFORNIA
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
California Hazardous Substance Account Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code §§25300 et seq. (1981, amended 1982,
1983,1984, 1986, 1987,1988 and 1989), which includes the 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 and provides cleanup fund.
Property transfer disclosure requirements are included in §25357.9, chapter 6.8 of the Cal. Health & Safety Code.
STATE AGENCY
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
(made a separate department in July 1991), Site
Mitigation Program is staffed with 233 people in
four regional offices and headquarters. Budget for
site mitigation activities $55M--approx. $35M for
staffing and support costs. Bond fund no longer
major funding source. Funding primarily through
Hazardous Substance Account.
DTSC has in-house legal staff, with four to five
attorneys assigned to Site Mitigation Program.
AG's office has nine attorneys assigned to Site
Mitigation. DTSC also works with California Water
Resources Control 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 hazardous waste.
Collects an average of S50M per year; obligated
through legislative appropriations. Fund used for
removal and remedial actions (prohibited until RPs
given notice and opportunity to cleanup), site
investigation, studies and design, O&M, State
CERCLA match, and enforcement against RPs.
(2) Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
§25385.3, known as "bond fund," authorized debt
of $100M-balance of approx. $3M (8/91).
(3) Hazardous Substance Clearing Account, to
pay off bond debt, receives cost recovery.
(4) Superfund Bond Trust Fund, to ensure pay-
ment of interest on bonds, receives $5M annual
transfer from HSA.
(5) Appropriations authorized for Hazardous
Substance Victim's Compensation Fund ($2M/year
authorized; small amounts expended).
(6) §25354 creates Emergency Reserve Account
($lM/year subaccount of HSA) for spill response
and local assistance.
(7) Additional authorization for health effects
studies, funding local agencies for hazardous
materials equipment, and other items.
244
-------
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 $2SK/day or up to $2SK/ violation,
criminal penalties up to $25K/day and/or
imprisonment for up to one (1) year. (Penalties
associated with hazardous waste management law
rather than Superfund specifically.) Treble damages
available. Citizen suit provision under Proposition
65. PRP may seek judicial review of final remedial
action plan, RP must be given notice and
opportunity to assume cleanup responsibility and
fail to comply in order for State to undertake
cleanup or enforcement activity. Preferred method
is negotiated settlement, consent order with
stipulated penalties for noncompliance.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
As of 7/1/91, remedial actions (State and
Federal) have been completed on 213 sites-approx.
20 of those were State-funded, a small percentage
Federal, the remainder are RP cleanups.
Of the sites on the priority list-approx. 100
undergoing RP cleanup, 100 in negotiations with
RP as site investigation continues, 20 are State-
funded cleanups, the remaining sites have
unidentified RPs, no agreement, are potential
orphans, or are backlogged.
Last year, State encumbered approx. $50M from
the Hazardous Substance Account and $7M from
the Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
State has Applied Action Levels (AALs) based
on 10~6 risk for carcinogens. Remedial action plans
must be based upon, among other things, the effect
of contamination on beneficial uses of resources,
the effect of alternative remedial action measures
on groundwater, site-specific characteristics, and
cost-effectiveness. State has promulgated MCLs for
many water contaminants and a number of other
standards including air toxics. Deed restrictions are
used to prevent inappropriate uses of land in future.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
DHS must hold at least one public meeting
before adopting a remedial action plan and must
review and consider any public comments.
Anyone affected by a removal or remedial action
must be provided with the opportunity to par-
ticipate in DHS's decisionmaking process. DHS
must develop and make available to the public a
schedule of activities for each site.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
MSCA since 1/1/88 covering State oversight
expenses at NPL sites-currentiy renegotiating.
State has two SACAs, an MSCA and CPCA in
FY91. State also has a DSMOA and is working an
an DSOMA. Five TAGs awarded in State.
245
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Identified sites
1 (DOD)
1
not yet promulgated
approx. 140 (CERCLIS)
HAWAII
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
The Hawaii Environmental Response Law, Haw. Rev. Stats. §§128D-1 et seq. (1988, amended 1991), establishes
a fund for emergency response actions and provides for strict, joint and several liability, administrative order and
site access authority, civil penalties, and cost recovery.
STATE AGENCY
The Hawaii State Department of Health, Envi-
ronmental Protection and Health Services Admin-
istration, Office of Hazard Evaluation and Emer-
gency Response Program is the lead agency. The
program has 20 staff members. Legal support is
provided by the AG's office.
FUNDING
The Environmental Response Revolving Fund
has a balance of $120K (9/91). Sources of the fund
are appropriations, cost recovery, interest, and
penalties. The fund may be used for emergency
response actions, removals, remedial actions, site
investigation, the State CERCLA match, and opera-
tion and maintenance.
246
-------
HAWAH (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
There do not appear to have been enforcement
activities yet by the State. The State is developing
regulations and policies.
Liability is strict, joint and several, and includes
liability for natural resource damages. Orders and
injunctive authorities are available. Punitive
damages for failure to perform removal or remedial
actions are treble. Civil penalties of up to $2SK per
day for noncompliance with statute, rules, or
orders. Cost recovery actions must be commenced
within six years of completion of response actions.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
During FY91 (7/1/90 - 6/30/91), $117K was
expended from the fund.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
State references water quality criteria, drinking
water standards, background quality and EPA
guidelines. State is currently developing administra-
tive rules to implement State law. As part of this
effort the State is developing risk management
criteria and cleanup policies. State has officially
adopted NCP as its interim rules.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public participation activities will be defined in
the administrative rules. 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 or SACAs for FY91. State has
SACA, MSCA, and DSMOA.
247
-------
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State sites
Identified sites
SITES
1
0
40
160 (on CERCLIS), of which
about 85 are mining sites.
NEVADA
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
Nev. Rev. Stat. §§459.400-459.600 (1981, amended 1983,1985,1987,1989,1991) lacks a specific name, but State
officials refer to it as the "hazardous waste statute." Primarily covering operating facilities, this law gives authority
for spill cleanup by either the State or responsible parties. This statute also established a Hazardous Waste Manage-
ment Fund, which may be used for removals, oversight, and site operations and maintenance costs. State statute
also requires State certification of consultants providing environmental consulting services. The 1991 amendment
strengthens the ability to require and perform site assessments.
STATE AGENCY
Housed within the Division of Environmental
Protection, which itself is part of the Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources, the Waste
Management Bureau oversees the State's hazardous
waste, solid waste, and UST programs. The Waste
Management Bureau has the lead on activities
governed by the hazardous waste statute. The
Bureau's Superfund Branch has a staff of five
people. One Deputy Attorney General and one
assistant provide legal support for all NDEP
functions.
A variety of other agencies are involved in the
hazardous waste program secondarily. The most
important, the State Environmental Commission, is
the rulemaking and hearing body for all
environmental matters in the State. Other agencies
with intermittent roles include the Division of
Health, Division of Emergency Management, the
Division of Water Resources, the State Fire
Marshal, and the Divisions of Forestry and
Wildlife.
FUNDING
Most of the State's funding for cleanup comes
from the Hazardous Waste Management Fund and
LUST grants. Roughly three-fourths of the monies
in the fund (balance $3M, 10/91) 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,
site investigation, removals, remedial actions, and
activities related to oversight of the management of
hazardous waste.
248
-------
NEVADA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Liability is strict for those in possession of
hazardous material involved in a spill. Administra-
tive order authority, including orders for informa-
tion and site access, subpoena authority, injunctive
action, civil and criminal penalties, and cost
recovery. Cost recovery is generally secured in
consent agreements.
The State issues orders for cleanup. The State
has collected approximately $400K in penalties in
the last two years.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Presently, State does not have a superfund
program. Authorized RCRA regulatory program
and statutory authority of Water Pollution Control
Law are the primary mechanisms used to require
and oversee remedial actions. Ongoing cleanups for
sites with RPs include hydrocarbon contamination,
hazardous waste releases, emergency response
actions, abandoned sites, and problems related to
mining. Where no PRP is available cleanup only
occurs if the site presents an "imminent and
significant threat to public health or the environ-
ment." Overall, the goal of environmental clean-up
action is to reduce risk to public health and the
environment posed by contaminants and to restore
land and water resources to the highest potential
beneficial use existing prior to contamination.
Last year, S800K was paid out of the fund for
staff. None has been paid for cleanup yet.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
The State has adopted regulations which estab-
lish standards for soil and groundwater contami-
nated by petroleum products. For all other releases
the State refers to applicable waste and water
quality standards and guidelines to set cleanup
goals.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
There are no statutory requirements or program
policies for public participation. Citizens, however,
usually notify the Department of hazardous waste
problems, and the Department typically informs
concerned citizens of site progress.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
The State has grants for PA/SI, CPCA, LUST,
an MSCA, and an ESMOA.
249
-------
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
251
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State contaminated site list
6
0
900
ALASKA
[12/2/91]
STATUTES
1. Alaska Oil and Hazardous Substance Releases Law, Alaska Stats. §§46.08.005 to .900 (1986, amended
1989), authorizes a fund and provides for administrative and consent order authority, injunctive relief,
civil and criminal penalties, and cost recovery.
2. Hazardous Substance Release Control Law, Alaska Stats. §§46.09.010 to .900 (1986), covers enforcement
and other provisions.
3. Liability and Cost for Oil and Hazardous Substances Discharge Law, Alaska Stats. §§46.03.822 et seq.
(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 Contaminated Sites Section is responsible for
cleanup activities. This section has 44 staff
including 27 devoted to State and Federal
Superfund activities.
The Office of the Attorney General provides
legal support, approximately three FTEs.
The Department of Emergency Services also has
involvement in emergency situations.
FUNDING
The Oil and Hazardous Substance Release
Response Fund has a balance of $27M (12/91).
Fund monies may be used for emergency response,
remedial actions, and the State's share of Federal
oil discharge cleanups and CERCLA match. These
monies derive from a 50 per barrel tax on oil from
the pipeline. The Fund has a $50M ceiling.
Monies from forfeited performance bonds, cost
recovery and penalties are placed into a "mitigation
account" separate from the Fund but are available
for the same purposes. In FY91 this accounted
contained $1.7M.
252
-------
ALASKA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Liability is strict, joint and several. Civil
penalties are $500-100,000 for first violations, and
no more than $10,000 per day that a violation
continues. Individuals are subject to criminal
penalties of $10,000 per day, up to one year
imprisonment, or both, for knowingly falsifying
documents used for purposes of compliance
monitoring.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Focus on site investigation and cleanup. Hie
Release Response Fund is expected to support
investigation and/or remediation at about 20 sites
per year. DEC has developed a site ranking system
distinct from the Federal HRS. 300 sites have been
reviewed using this new system.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
The State uses MCLs/MCLGs, water quality
criteria, EPA standards, risk assessment, and
promulgated standards for cleanup of petroleum
spills in addressing contaminated sites.
The remedy is selected after completion of site
and risk assessments and study of treatment
alternatives.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Citizen advisory panels are formed for major
cleanups. National Contingency Plan public partici-
pation guidelines are followed. The legislature has
established a Citizens' Oversight Council on Oil
and Hazardous Substances.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
One MSCA, one SACA, and a CPCA. A
DSMOA was signed 6/90.
253
-------
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Identified sites
SITES
9
0
approx. 175 (on CERCLIS)
IDAHO
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
Idaho has no State Superfund law. The Idaho Hazardous Waste Management Act (HWMA), Idaho Code §§39-4401
to -4432 (1983, amended 1984, 1986, 1987, and 1988), establishes two funds but provides only minimal legal
authority for site cleanups.
STATE AGENCY
The lead agency is the Department of Health and
Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality.
CERCLA responsibilities are split between two
divisions within the Division of Environmental
Quality: the Division of Planning and Evaluation
and the Division of Community Programs. The
Division of Planning and Evaluation handles CORE
grant funding and support services; the Division of
Community Programs handles pre-remedial activi-
ties and site-specific remedial work. Of a total of
32 personnel in the two divisions, 17 work
primarily on Superfund. Four deputy AGs are
assigned to handle cleanup cases for the Division
of Environmental Quality.
FUNDING
Funding for cleanups is generally obtained by
legislative appropriations. The HWMA, however,
establishes the Hazardous Waste Training, Emer-
gency, 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 was
$355K as of 6/30/91. $1.1M was added from
appropriations and fees for FY91. Monies are
obtained primarily through appropriations and a
waste disposal fee.
The HWMA also establishes the Hazardous
Waste Emergency Account, which has a balance of
$169K (6/30/91) and can be used for emergency
response. The Fund's primary source of monies is
penalties, and it is not relied on heavily by the
agency. Approx. $57K was added from penalties
and cost recoveries for FY91.
254
-------
IDAHO (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The State prefers RP cleanup, particularly since
it has no funding of its own. The State has
essentially no enforcement authorities under the
HWMA. For emergency conditions, the State has
injunctive and order authorities under the Idaho
Environmental Protection and Health Act.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
The State has not yet developed cleanup
standards.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
There is a joint State/Federal lead at one of the
nine NPL sites (Bunker Hill). There have been
several removal actions at the Bunker Hill site and
a ROD has been signed for residential soil cleanup.
Of the other NPL sites, one is virtually complete
and another has been partially cleaned up. The
remainder are in the RI/FS phase.
$8K from the Hazardous Waste Emergency
Account was spent on cleanup activities during
FY91. Although the Hazardous Waste Training,
Emergency, and Monitoring Account is authorized
for removal and remedial action, it is currently
used only for RCRA.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A full-time on-site community relations person
has been contracted 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. CPCA and DSMOA in effect One
MSCA covers six NPL sites. One CA exists for
Bunker Hill (two operable units), one CA for
PA/SI work, and one CA for DOE facility. An IAG
was signed for the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory between the State, EPA and DOE.
255
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State Inventory
Confirmed Release List (CRL)
Site Discovery Database
8
0
44
71
1010
OREGON
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
Oregon Environmental Cleanup Law, Or. Rev. Stats. §§465.200 - .420,465.900 and 466.995 (1987, amended 1989,
1991), establishes the Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Fund (HSRAF) and provides for strict liability,
administrative order authority for cleanup, injunctive relief, civil penalties, cost recovery, liens, and punitive
damages. Amendments establish Orphan Site Account within HSRAF and modify the inventory provisions for State
sites (ORS §465.215 - .245). 1991 amendments require classification of secured creditor exemption and extend
defense to liability for contamination caused solely by acts of God, war and third parties to "knowing purchasers."
STATE AGENCY
Lead agency is the Environmental Cleanup
Division (ECD) in the Department of Environ-
mental Quality (DEQ). Program has 66 permanent
staff. One FTE from the AG staff handles litigation
and advises ECD as requested.
FUNDING
HSRAF has a balance of $3.9 (6/91) with an
average of $3.8M 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 supports
just over half the agency's administrative budget
DEQ also receives Federal Superfund monies.
The Fund can be used for emergency response,
removals, studies and design, remedial actions,
O&M, and State CERCLA match.
The Orphan Site Account, within the HSRAF,
has the potential to provide an additional $3M/yr
for purposes of bond debt retirement, with equal
amounts collected from hazardous substances fee,
petroleum fee, and solid waste tipping fee. No
bonds have yet been issued.
256
-------
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. Statute estab-
lishes strict liability for owners, operators, and any
person who caused or contributed to hazardous
substance release. However, transporters and off-
site generators are generally not regarded as liable.
Although the statute is not explicit, ECD interprets
liability as joint and several; this has not yet been
challenged.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Regulations require cleanup to background (pre-
release) levels. If this is infeasible, a remedial
action is to be selected that attains the lowest
concentration level that satisfies certain protective
and feasibility requirements. Oregon has developed
LUST cleanup standards and is currently proposing
numeric standards for soil cleanup.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
ECD is providing oversight at 75 sites. 33 of the
sites are voluntary cleanup projects with State over-
sight provided by the recently established
Voluntary Cleanup Section. The DEQ is providing
oversight under State authorities at one NPL site in
which EPA is not actively involved. At that site,
EPA has deferred to the State.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The law mandates public notice of DEQ's pro-
gram for identifying releases, proposed settlement
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.
Regulations for the statute were promulgated, as
mandated, with significant input from a 22-member
committee composed of citizens, local govern-
ments, environmental groups, and industry.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
One MSCA, one SACA, a CPCA, and one
SMOA.
257
-------
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Priority list
State inventory
SITES
45
4
311 (includes NPL sites)
950 (includes NPL sites
and State sites)
WASHINGTON
[12/2/91]
STATUTE
Model Toxics Control Act, Wash. Rev. Code ch. 70.105D (1988), authorizes funding for two accounts, enforcement
and public participation procedures.
STATE AGENCY
Department of Ecology, under the Assistant
Director for Waste Management, has 148 staff in
the Toxics Cleanup Program. 34 of the positions
are federally funded-die remaining are supported
by the State Toxics Control Account. The Attorney
General's office, handling settlements, has approx.
3-4 FTEs working on cleanups.
FUNDING
Two accounts replenished biennially: (1) State
Toxics Control Account and (2) Local Toxics
Control Account.
State account receives 47% of the revenue from
a tax on wholesale value of hazardous substances
plus cost recovery, penalties and fines. Balance in
fund estimated to be $25.9M on 7/1/91. Amount
collected per year available for cleanup $13M. No
cap on fund. State account funds related activities
in other agencies, in addition to various divisions
within Ecology. Legislature must appropriate fund
monies for cleanup.
Fund can be used for site investigation, emer-
gency response, studies and design, remedial
actions and O&M, State CERCLA match, program
administration. Part of cleanup fund set aside for
LUST hardship cleanups. Penalties and fines
earmarked for best management practices and
recycling, not cleanup.
Local account receives 53% of tax revenue from
tax on wholesale value of hazardous substances to
help local governments pay for site cleanups, waste
planning, reduction and recycling. Balance $43M
as of 8/91.
258
-------
WASHINGTON (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Model Toxics Control Act provides for strict,
joint and several liability, subpoena authority, site
access authority, enforcement order authority,
injunctive action, civil penalties (up to $25K/day),
cost recovery, treble damages. Citizen suits and
contractor indemnification authorized. Consent
decree must be obtained by AC and issued by
Court Approx. 60-70% of cases resolved through
negotiation, 30-40% through enforcement orders.
Only one traditional cost recovery action at NPL
site-cost recovery usually built into consent
decrees.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
At least as stringent as all applicable State and
Federal laws, including health-based standards
under State and Federal law. DOE references water
quality criteria, drinking water standards,
background quality, risk levels, and EPA
guidelines. State cleanup standards adopted on
February 28, 1991.
Priority list of projects was established 9/90 and
is updated twice each year.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
14 NPL State-lead sites (in addition to Hanford
site which is a mix of authorities). Fewer than 20
sites with completed remedial actions, 142 State
and 48 NPL cleanups in progress.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
DOE must establish regional citizens' advisory
committees, notify public of development of
investigating or remedial plans and availability of
RI/FS and Cleanup Action Plan, give concurrent
public notice of all compliance orders, enforcement
orders, or notices of violation. Provisions include
public notice and hearing on consent decrees.
Model Toxics Control Act authorizes public partici-
pation grants to affected persons or not-for-profit
public interest organization.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA, CPCA, SACA, CA, and 2 TAGs.
* U.S. G.P.O.:1992-311-893:60711
259
-------