.
           United States       Office of Emergency and    PublicationJ}375.6-08B
           Environmental Protection   Remedial Response     PB92-9634t8
           Agency          Washington, DC 20460    December 1991

           Superfund
&EPA    An Analysis of State
           Superfund Programs:
           50-State Study

           1991 Update

-------
                             Publication 9375.6-08B
                             December 1991
          AN ANALYSIS OF STATE
         SUPERFUND PROGRAMS:
        50-State Study, 1991 Update
                                                 , ft "'-.-.->
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
          Hazardous Site Control Division
             Washington, DC 20460

-------
                           ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
      This report was prepared by the Environmental Law Institute under Cooperative
Agreement CR-817553-01 with funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Environmental Law Institute staff contributing to the report were Marta Costanzo, Kathryn
Groothuis,  Heather Hewett,  Suellen Keiner,  Moira Mcdonald, James McElfish, John
Pendergrass and Anne Platt. Rebecca Donnellan also contributed to this report. EPA staff
were Hugo Fleischman, Ann McDonough, William Ross and Murray Newton.  The
assistance of state program officials is gratefully acknowledged.

      The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreement CR-817553-01 to the
Environmental Law Institute.  It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative
review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
                                       11

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                             Page No.
LIST OF ACRONYMS  	    v
I.    INTRODUCTION	    1
II.   DEVELOPMENTS IN STATE PROGRAMS 	    5
HI.   STATE "SUPERFUND" PROGRAMS  	    7
     Overview of Cleanup Activities and Capabilities	    7
     Statutes	    8
     Hazardous Waste Sites  	    9
     Program Organization	    13
     Funding	    19
     Enforcement	    31
     Cleanup  Policies and Criteria	    37
     Public Participation	    40
IV.   STATE PROPERTY TRANSFER PROVISIONS	    43
V.   50-STATE TABLES 	    51
VI.   STATE SUMMARIES  	    135
     Region I 	    137
     Region II	    151
     Region HI	    159
     Region IV	    173
     Region V	    191
     Region VI	    205
     Region VH 	    217
     Region VIII	    227
     Region IX	    241
     Region X	    251
                                  ui

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS


Table                                                                  Page No.

V-l   Overview of State Cleanup Activities
      and Capabilities	    51

V-2   Statutory Authorities and Provisions	    55

V-3   Hazardous Waste Sites  	    61

V-4   Program Organization	    66

V-5   Program Administration and Staff:
      Funding Sources  	    71

V-6   State/Federal Partnership 	    75

V-7   Funding of State Cleanup Activities	    78

V-8   Fund Expenditures	    87

V-9   Uses  of State Cleanup Funds	    93

V-10  Liability Standards	    102

V-ll  Penalties and Damages Available in State
      Superfund Statute  	    106

V-12  Natural Resources Damage Assessment	    110

V-13  State Cleanup Policies and Criteria 	    115

V-14  State Public Participation Procedures	    123

V-15  Property Transfer Provisions  	    130
                                        IV

-------
                          LIST OF ACRONYMS
AG         - Attorney General
ARARs     - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
ASTSWMO  - Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
CA         - Cooperative Agreement
CERCLA    - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
              Act of 1980
CERCLIS    - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
              Information System
CPCA       - Core Program Cooperative Agreement
DSMOA     - Department of Defense and State Memorandum of Agreement
ELI         - Environmental Law Institute
FTE        - Full-time Equivalent
GAO       - General Accounting Office
HRS        - Hazard Ranking System
LUST       - Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MCL       - Maximum Contaminant Level
MSCA       - Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement
NEAR       - Non-Binding Allocation of Responsibility
NCP        - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NPL        - National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites
OGC       - Office of General Counsel
O&M       - Operation and Maintenance
PA/SI       - Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation
PRP        - Potentially Responsible Party
RA         - Remedial Action
RCRA       - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD         - Remedial Design
RI/FS       - Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD       - Record of Decision
RP         - Responsible Party

-------
SACA       -  Support Agency Cooperative Agreement
SARA       -  Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SMOA      -  Superfund Memorandum of Agreement
TAG        -  Technical Assistance Grant
UST        -  Underground Storage Tank
                                    VI

-------
                                  CHAPTER I

                               INTRODUCTION
      In the eleven years since passage of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA, generally referred to as Superfund),
the  enormity of  the  problems  associated with hazardous waste  sites  has  become
overwhelmingly  apparent.   Coordinated cleanup  efforts between Federal and State
authorities are currently treating numerous sites targeted by the National Priorities List
(NPL).  Still, a vast number of known or suspected waste sites are not eligible for inclusion
on the NPL and, if they are to be addressed, they will have to be cleaned up by the States.
In certain cases States may feel compelled to respond in a manner that is more stringent or
timely than might be  possible in joint Federal-State efforts.  Where  joint  efforts  are
required, Federal and  State authorities need to ensure that their actions are  mutually
supportive  but not duplicative. For these reasons, the role of the States  in addressing
hazardous waste sites,  independently and in concert  with the Federal  government, will
become increasingly important as the numbers of both NPL and non-NPL sites grow.

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

      A key step in enhancing the Federal-State partnership on Superfund is to understand
State superfund programs aimed at NPL and non-NPL  sites. This is the  object of the
present report, which updates the results of a study initially conducted in 1989, and updated
in 1990, by the Environmental Law Institute (ELJ) for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Hazardous Site Control  Division,
State and Local Coordination Branch.  The study examines site cleanup capabilities in all
SO States and provides descriptions of statutes, program organization, funding, and cleanup
procedures.  This year the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico were
added, so that the "50-State Study" now contains information from 52 jurisdictions. In place
of the 1990 update's analysis of political subdivision involvement in the cleanup process, this
1991 update analyzes the property transfer provisions of States superfund programs in
Chapter IV. The report provides detailed information for each State in a "State Summaries"
chapter and in all State  tables that facilitate comparisons between States.  The 1991 Tables
include the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico but the  1989 and
1990 Tables did not.  Thus, comparisons of aggregate data must take  into account  the
addition of the two jurisdictions. Throughout this report, references to "States" are  intended
to include both the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

-------
Purpose of the Study

      Under the Superfund  Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986,
Congress requires the EPA to involve States in the Superfund program in a "substantial and
meaningful" way. The State  and Local Coordination Branch (SLCB) is responsible for
developing regulations, guidance, and policy related to this Congressional mandate. As part
of its responsibilities, the SLCB tries to maintain comprehensive information about State
capabilities  to contribute to  or manage cleanups at hazardous waste  sites.   Under  a
cooperative agreement with EPA,  ELI has collected,  organized, and  summarized  the
information presented here on State cleanup programs.
Research Methodology

      To ensure that the information for this report is complete, accurate, and up to date,
the project team spent several weeks gathering and analyzing research reports, statutes,
regulations, and other State documents, interviewing State program staff by telephone, and
confirming information for each State. ELI initially reviewed both information gathered for
the 1990 version of the report and newer  information concerning State cleanup programs
as found in State documents, legislative reporting services, newsletters, and EPA documents.
Worksheets were developed to organize information on each State. Based on the contents
of these worksheets, ELI drafted requests for information tailored to each State program.
A detailed request for information was sent to each State, along with a general request for
copies of any relevant legislative amendments or State reports.  In addition to the responses
to the detailed requests for updated program information,  ELI received  a  variety of
materials from the States, including annual program status reports, legislative amendments,
program descriptions, and regulations.

      ELI then conducted telephone interviews to obtain information that was not provided
in response to the requests for information, to clarify ambiguities in the information
provided, and to confirm information that had previously been compiled. ELI used this new
information to update the two-page summaries of State programs. ELI then sent each State
program office the revised 1991 summary for that State for review; appropriate changes
were  made in response to State officials'  corrections.  The 1990 set of tables for all the
States was also revised to reflect the new information, including information for the two
jurisdictions added to the 1991 update.  These are presented in Chapters V and VI.
Organization of the Report

      The remainder of this report is divided into three substantive chapters. Chapter II
highlights the  more  noteworthy  developments  in  State capabilities that  emerged in
comparing the 1991 information with the 1989  and 1990 data.  An overview of State
superfund programs is provided in Chapter III. This overview examines statutes, program
funding and organization, enforcement, and the remediation process.  Chapter IV discusses
State property transfer programs.   Chapter V presents program information arranged in
tables that facilitate  comparisons  between States.  Chapter  VI contains the  two-page

-------
summaries of each State program. For those States that do not have superfund programs,
the summaries focus on States' capabilities to address hazardous waste sites using other
authorities and resources.  ^
                                                                         i
      In assembling this report, ELI has tried to take a "snapshot" of State cleanup
programs even though they are in constant flux and information about them is continuously
being updated.  For the purposes of this report, we have used State information that was
available on or before December 2, 1991. States were provided an opportunity to review
and update  all  of the  information in the State Summaries; 38 States provided revised
program information and the remaining 14 States affirmed that the State summaries were
accurate.

-------
                                  CHAPTER n

                 DEVELOPMENTS IN STATE PROGRAMS
      The extent of the States' involvement in the remediation of hazardous waste sites is
a function  of their capacity to develop and implement effective cleanup programs. This
capacity can be assessed through an examination of the resources available to the States for
cleanup purposes-statutory authority, funding, and staff-as presented in  this report. In
comparing the 1989 and 1990 data concerning these resources with the information that was
collected in 1991 for the current version of this study, it is clear that the States' programs
have continued to develop, but that the changes are less dramatic and more incremental
than was the case in the late 1980s.  The recession affected a number of States' programs,
particularly New Jersey's where  $153.8 million was reallocated from a cleanup fund to
balance the State budget.

      An additional two States (Alaska and Kentucky) are now operating cleanup programs
supported by enforcement authorities and dedicated funds, bringing the number of complete
programs to 29. Only one State made fundamental changes to its statutory authority in the
past year.   In October 1990 Michigan's Governor signed legislation creating specific
enforcement authority (effective July 1, 1991) under the State's superfund law.

      The funding available at the State level has  decreased 16% since 1990 but  is still
significantly higher than in 1989. The total of the unobligated balances available in the State
Funds as reported in 1991 is $586.2 million compared to $699.4 million in  1990 and $415
million in 1989. The entire decrease can be attributed to the decrease in New Jersey's
balance in  excess of $148  million.  The average of the Fund balances is $11.27 million,
compared to $14.27 million in 1990 and $8.3 million in 1989. Fifteen States, one more than
1990, have  Fund balances in excess of $10 million; there were nine such States in 1989.
(These 15 large Funds, however, contain over 91% of the total State superfund balance.)
Twenty nine States have less than $5 million available for cleanups. A few States report that
all or part of their relatively large cleanup funds were used to balance their State budgets
at the end of Fiscal year 1991.

      States spent or encumbered a total of at least $427.7 million for cleanups  in the past
year. One State (California) encumbered more  than $50 million for cleanups in fiscal year
1991 and ten other States spent or encumbered more than $10 million during the year
(83.4% of the total).

      Despite  lower  total funding levels,  cleanup program staff levels  continued to
experience  noteworthy  increases during the past year, with 30 States reporting  more staff
in 1991 than in 1990. Only seven States report a  decrease in cleanup program staff. A total
of 3,656 State personnel, including attorneys, work on superfund programs.

-------
      These few statistics are simply the more outstanding indicators of an overall trend
toward increased State cleanup capacity. A close examination of the information contained
in this updated report will lead to a fuller understanding of the cleanup programs that are
emerging as States continue to address the hazardous waste sites within their borders.

-------
                                 CHAPTER

                     STATE "SUPERFUND" PROGRAMS
      The passage of CERCLA in 1980 authorized the EPA to establish a Superfund
program to address the risks posed by hazardous waste sites. Since CERCLA became law,
many States have enacted laws and developed programs with authorities and capabilities
similar to the Federal Superfund program. For the purposes of this study a State "superfund"
program has some or all of the following characteristics:

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

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

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

      4)    staff to manage  publicly-funded  cleanups and  oversee RP-lead
            cleanups.
      In this chapter, information on State "superfund" programs is presented for all 50
States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The latter two
jurisdictions were added to the study in 1991 and are included in all the "Fifty-State" tables.
This chapter highlights similarities and differences among State statutes and State programs
in areas such as cleanup and oversight capabilities, cleanup standards, funding, enforcement
authorities, program organization, and staffing.
A.  Overview of Cleanup Activities and Capabilities

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

-------
      A second project goal is to illustrate areas where the States are making progress in
enhancing their cleanup capabilities. For  some  States,  this may mean the passage  of
enabling legislation, while  for others it may entail an increase in available funding  or
program staff.

      Table V-l summarizes States' capabilities and cleanup activities at the present time.
Twenty-nine States with Funds and enforcement authorities are conducting programs for
removals and remedial actions  at non-NPL sites. This is an  increase of two States with active
cleanup and oversight programs (Alaska and Kentucky) since 1990. Some of these States
also manage or oversee cleanups at NPL sites as well.

      Twelve additional States have the legal capability to conduct public  or RP-lead
cleanups at  non-NPL sites but have limited cleanup  activities  at present. Typically, the
limited activity is attributable  to relatively low Fund balances and/or inadequate staffing
levels. In some instances, the State's Fund is replenished at specific time intervals and the
lull in cleanup activities is temporary. Activities have so far been limited in several States
as they establish program offices and hire staff. In some cases this is because legislation was
only recently enacted (e.g., Delaware), while in others the legislation has existed for several
years but funding has been lacking (e.g., Alabama).

      Of the remaining eleven States, some lack enforcement authorities, others have funds
only for NPL CERCLA match requirements (but not for state-lead removals or cleanups),
and others lack any program.  Nebraska and the District  of Columbia are the only States
without a cleanup Fund of any kind.
B.     Statutes

       Beginning in the early 1980s, many States enacted laws in the image of CERCLA that
established State response funds. These statutes typically include provisions for enforcement
authorities, a State priority list, and remedy selection criteria. In some States, provisions for
a cleanup program and enforcement authorities may be contained in one statute, while a
separate act creates a State response fund and defines its uses, and restrictions. Table V-2
provides a summary of the principal cleanup statutes and selected provisions for the fifty
States, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.

       The pace of change in State superfund statutes has slowed in the past two years,
partly due to the fact that virtually all the States now have some type of cleanup statute. In
1991, only one new state, Michigan, passed a comprehensive Environmental Response Act
that expanded its  existing  fund and program to include enforcement authorities and a
property transfer program. A total of thirty-nine States now have statutes providing full
Fund and  enforcement  capabilities.  The remaining  States have funds  with  limited
capabilities and/or enforcement authorities in statutes that were not specifically intended
to address hazardous waste sites. Ten States and Puerto Rico fall into this latter category
(see section F of this chapter for more details).  All States, except Nebraska and the District
of Columbia, have a cleanup fund or an account that can be tapped for some or all types
of cleanup costs (greater detail on funding is provided in Section E).

                                         8

-------
       The greatest change occurred in the number of States which either make use of or
are authorized to develop a priority list for State sites.  Twenty-four States, three more than
last year, reported the use of priority lists; Oregon, which was previously developing its list,
now has it in place.  A priority list typically is one of three types: (1) a list similar to the
NPL comprised of sites identified by a minimum threshold score; (2) a ranking of sites that
determines the order in which sites should be addressed; or (3) a multi-tiered list indicating
the urgency and extent of remediation required. A number of States also have an inventory
or registry of sites which are of particular  interest to the State (see Section C below).

       Seventeen States, two more  than  last year, have  citizen  suit provisions in their
statutes. These provisions allow parties who are or will be adversely  affected by a release
or threat  of a release of a hazardous substance to  file a civil action requiring that the
responsible parties prevent further damage or take corrective action. Courts may also assess
civil penalties in civil actions filed by citizens. Citizen suits and property transfer programs
(discussed below and in Chapter IV) provide alternative methods for accomplishing cleanups
outside of the superfund process.

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

       A recent development at the State level is the property transfer program.  The
objective of a property transfer program is to ensure that real property, in the process of
being transferred, does not pose health or environmental risks related to hazardous waste
releases. For this Update, more extensive information was collected about property transfer
programs  in the States. A detailed analysis of these programs is contained in Chapter IV.
C.    Hazardous Waste Sites

      Estimates of hazardous waste sites in the fifty states vary greatly.  Despite the
uncertainty surrounding estimates of existing sites and the risks that they pose, the number
of sites reported in a State can be indicative of the level of program activity, as well as the
need for future cleanup activity. Table V-3 reports the number of sites contained in various
categories of hazardous waste sites in each of the 50 States. Figure III-l on page  10 shows
the number of sites on the Federal NPL in each State.

      The numbers of sites listed in each state are not always comparable. Different States
use vastly different criteria to determine placement on the State's list of hazardous waste
sites.  For example, Vermont lists 1100 sites on its State Registry. This figure is high  in
comparison with other States of similar size.  Vermont combines all hazardous waste issues
into one program and includes all petroleum cleanup sites on its list  of hazardous waste
sites.

-------
      Each of the States lists the number of total known and suspected sites in the State
(often this number is taken from CERCLIS, a database maintained by the EPA).  The Total
Number of Sites Needing Attention are those  sites  of the previous list that have been
evaluated and determined to  require  some level  of action.  In addition  to  these two
categories, some states maintain either a State registry or a priority list. In this year's study,
the two separate categories of registry/inventory and priority list were merged into one
category.  This change was made because investigation revealed that some  "priority lists"
were  not actually used  to  determine which sites should be addressed first while some
"registries" were used for that purpose.   Given this overlap  in  function  continuing to
distinguish the two categories seemed inappropriate.
      Priority Lists and Registries

      Many States have developed a registry or priority list to determine the order in which
State sites will be remediated. Although each State attaches its own meaning to the priority
list or registry, generally these lists indicate that the sites on  the list have undergone an
additional level of analysis.  For the most part, such a list requires prioritization of sites
though a ranking, scoring, or formal screening procedure.  In  Texas, the State Registry is
statutorily mandated, and sites listed on it are ranked by priority.

      In most cases, the list includes all the sites listed on the NPL.  Some States, such as
Connecticut, keep a registry that includes  NPL sites as well as  a sub-list of State-lead NPL
sites, which in Connecticut includes five sites.  Maryland compiles a Disposal Site Registry
which is a list of ranked sites, including NPL sites, requiring remedial action. Maryland also
keeps a Master List of sites that  are not formally ranked but are evaluated in terms of
potential hazards to public health and the environment, risks  of fires and explosion, toxic
hazard and other criteria established in CERCLA

      Ten States organize their ranked lists into priority areas or tiered ranks. California,
for instance, has a three tiered priority list that includes immediate, substantial and limited
threats for sites needing cleanup. Iowa and Missouri both maintain registries of hazardous
waste sites that classify sites in a five-tiered system where sites are ranked in categories from
immediate action required to no action required. Ohio's list is less formal, but contains sites
categorized  after a preliminary assessment as high, medium or low priority.

      Ranking Systems

      Not all States have a formal ranking system.  Many, however, do categorize sites
using one of several systems including the Federal Hazardous Ranking System (HRS II),
modified HRS II, and other non-quantitative systems.   Most States which use a  formal
ranking system use HRS II or HRS II with some modifications.  HRS II, the ranking system
that is used to determine the National Priorities  List, was developed by the EPA and
implemented in  1990 (replacing the original HRS). The original HRS was altered to be
more encompassing.  It now takes into consideration potential  for air release and two new
routes of exposure; exposure through soil contact and exposure through the human food
chain. South Carolina uses the original HRS system to score sites and includes on its State

                                         10

-------
priority list all sites that score less than 28.5 according to the HRS (in other words, those
that do not qualify for the NPL).

       HRS II includes  a  more  extensive evaluation  of factors  such as surrounding
population, groundwater,  and wind patterns than the previous HRS system. Because the
new system requires more staff time, many States, such as Minnesota, have modified the
HRS II system to make it more practicable for State use. The Michigan Site Assessment
Model (MSAM) differs from HRS II in various ways.  MSAM measures potential exposure
by fire and explosion - factors not included in the current HRS II numerical score.

       New York has developed a scoring system that combines three ranking systems: the
HRS, a State-developed Health Ranking Model (emphasizing human exposure), and a State-
developed Biothreat Ranking Model (emphasizing natural resource damages).  New Jersey
uses a  Severity Index, modeled after the HRS, to group sites into six "action" categories.
Montana uses a  non-quantitative  ranking  system based on  the  following  factors: 1)
contamination of  a drinking water supply, 2) air  contamination  that may  pose a  health
threat, 3) contamination of  surface waters that provide recreation and drinking water, 4)
impacts on wildlife and 5) danger of fire or explosion.
                                       11

-------
        FIGURE III-l
FINAL AND PROPOSED NPL SITES
        January 1992
             12

-------
D.    Program Organization

      Administration of a State's program to clean up hazardous waste sites is invariably
centered in the State agency with primary responsibility for environmental matters.  The
responsible agency's entire focus may be on environmental protection, as with the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, or its duties may be broader, e.g., Colorado's Department
of Health. Table V-4 lists the responsible agencies for the 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the
District of Columbia.

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

      Many cleanup programs are divided into several units, each with responsibility for
a different program element. In Maine, for example, the Department of Environmental
Protection's Site Investigation and Remediation Division consists of 27 staff, split into three
sections- administrative support and two site management units. The administrative support
section handles grants, policy review, and development of the site ranking system, and is
funded through the State's core program cooperative agreement (CPCA) with the U.S. EPA.
The site management units supervise sites from discovery through cost recovery.

      In Pennsylvania, the Department of Environmental Resources has approximately 127
staff in the State superfund program and funded by the Fund--30 in the Hazardous Waste
Sites Cleanup Program in the Bureau of Waste Management, 77 in the six regional offices,
12 in fee collection, four in construction management, and four, added in FY91, in advanced
science and research.
                                        13

-------
      Case Management Team

      Several States (e.g., Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Oregon) report the use of
case management teams.  In New Jersey, for example, a site will be assigned to a team
consisting of a case manager, a technical coordinator, and a groundwater advisor. There are
separate teams for publicly-funded and privately-funded sites, and a case may shift from
team to team if its  funding source changes,  as when an administrative consent order
requiring private funding is signed. Separate negotiation units engage in communication
with responsible parties, and once a site enters the remedial action phase, a  separate
construction team assumes oversight responsibility. For a more detailed discussion of State
cases management teams see Enhancing State Superfund Capabilities:  A Nine State Study.
U.S. EPA (PM-220) (1990).

      Multiple Personnel Functions

      A number of States report that an individual staff member may have duties under
both the cleanup program and another related State waste management program, such as
a RCRA-type program.   Vermont has  taken this approach one step  further  and has
integrated its RCRA, CERCLA, preremedial and State list activities into one unit, called
the Hazardous Sites Management Section. During 1991, Vermont added Corrective Action
and LUST activities  to the authority  of the eleven technical personnel who work in the
Section.
      Intragency Activity

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

      Arizona's Department of Environmental Quality has 14 technical staff who manage
site activities in  the Office of Waste  Programs  and seven hydrologists who work on site
cleanup issues in the Office of Water Quality. Upon request under interagency agreements,
the Department of Health Services performs epidemiological studies for the State Superfund
Program.
      Program Changes

      Since 1990, there have been basically two types of program changes-changes which
affect the State Superfund process and changes which affect enforcement authorities and
program structure.

      In terms of process change, South Dakota designated its Division of Environmental
Regulations to serve as the lead agency. Two staff members are dedicated to work full-time
on the State Superfund program. It should also be noted that the number of identified sites
has increased from one to 73 in the past year.

                                        14

-------
       Program structures changed in several states over the past year, Iowa eliminated its
State Abandoned and Uncontrolled Sites Registry and added one staff member to the Solid
Waste Section for a net loss of three staff members.  Maryland removed LUST and UST
activities from the CERCLA program. In reorganizing its program, Vermont expanded the
scope of the Hazardous Sites Management Section to include Corrective Action and LUST
activities in its State superfund program.

       Tennessee, Utah  and California shifted  the  authority of their  State superfund
programs from one department to another.  Other states reorganized Superfund divisions,
bureaus, and sections, often because of changes in funding levels.

       Staffing Levels

       The  number  of  personnel devoted to  site  cleanup varies  greatly, from  the
approximately 800 people in New Jersey's Divisions of Publicly Funded Site Remediation
and  Responsible Party Site  Remediation  (with  some RCRA-type responsibilities), to
Wyoming which has  one full-time person in the Water Quality Division. Program staff
levels are indicated on Table V-4. In total 3,394 personnel in the States are working on
cleanup programs, with an additional 262 attorneys handling cleanup cases and issues. Ten
States, an increase of two since 1990, have over 100 people working on cleanup activities:
California,  Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Washington, and Wisconsin. Michigan and Wisconsin  both increased their staff levels over
100 in the past year.  These States all have very large numbers of confirmed or suspected
sites; Washington with 950 sites on its State database has the  fewest number of sites among
these ten States.

       Only three States have staff levels between 51 and 100 people: Florida, Minnesota,
and Oregon.  Again, each of these States has a great many sites, at least 400 confirmed or
suspected.  The largest number of States (28) have between 11 and 50 personnel, while 11
States have 10 or fewer people assigned to their programs. Figure III presents the staffing
distribution for the 50 States.

       Staff levels increased in 30 States over the levels reported in 1990,  including Puerto
Rico and the District of Columbia. Seven States  reported a decrease in cleanup program
staff over the year, while the number of personnel remained constant in 15 States.

       In many States, staff members assume multiple duties both within and outside of the
cleanup program, and State officials are often unable to indicate the precise percentage of
time those personnel devote to cleanup activities.  In Table V-4, the number of personnel
with split duties is indicated by a footnote, with the explanation that some staff also perform
non-superfund work.  Seven States have more program positions authorized than are
currently filled, due largely to lack of funding. In Massachusetts, for example, 460 (up from
286  in 1990) superfund-related  positions  are  authorized within  the  Department of
Environmental Protection, but only 208 are filled.
                                        15

-------
                            PROGRAM STAFF LEVELS

                   Number of Personnel            Number of States
                       Over 100
                       51-100
                       11-50
                       0-10
10
 3
28
11
       Interagency Activities

       Most States report that the agency with primary responsibility for site cleanup relies
upon other units of State government for assistance. Often, the Attorney General's (AG's)
Office handles court actions, as discussed under Legal Support, below.  Over 15 States rely
on their Departments of Health or equivalent agencies for assistance and guidance in risk
assessment and  standard-setting.  Generally, either the State's Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) or the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the lead agency
for  program administration. In cases where the DNR or DEP are not one of the lead
agencies, they are consulted regarding natural resources damages  and  related issues.
Emergency response activities often involve the State Department  of Transportation.
Regional Water Quality Control Boards in California have asserted jurisdiction over some
remediation activities, as have Regional Groundwater Management Districts in Kansas.

       Legal Support

       State Superfund programs obtain legal support from within their agency, from the
AG's Office, or  from some combination of personnel  from  these two sources.  In many
States the attorneys assigned to handle superfund cases and issues also handle other types
of cases.  Approximately 260 attorneys were reported by the States to be  working on
superfund issues. Twenty-six States report that the State AG's Office is the primary source
of legal support for the cleanup program, while agency legal personnel provide the primary
support for ten State programs.  Fifteen States rely upon a combination of attorneys from
both the AG's  Office and the responsible agency. The District of Columbia indicates that
their program is receiving no legal support. Table V-4 presents sources of legal support for
the 50 States, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.

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

       Staffing levels for legal personnel do not vary greatly among the States.  Of the
                                        16

-------
States reporting staff levels at the AG's Office, 23 reported that they have four or fewer full-
time  employees  working  on  cleanup cases.    Only  Colorado  (14),  California  (9),
Massachusetts (8), Michigan (7.5), and New York (7) reported higher figures. The most
significant  change in legal staffing occurred in New  Jersey.  As part  of a general
reorganization of legal staff, attorneys formerly assigned  to the DEPE were reassigned to
the AG's Office.  A new  Hazardous Waste Litigation  Section, which has 30 full-time
attorneys, was created in the AG's Office.  Twenty-six States reported agency staff levels;
of these  States, 13 devote five or fewer full-time employees to cleanup cases, and seven
States have between six and ten full-time staff. New York's Department of Environmental
Conservation Division of Environmental Enforcement has 20 staff (a decrease of five since
1990), while the Chief Counsel's Office in Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental
Regulation has 18 cleanup-related legal support staff (an increase of six since 1990).
       Funding Sources

       There are three basic sources of funding for state program administrative and
personnel costs: State cleanup funds, State general funds, and Federal grants. The funding
sources used by the States are presented in Table V-5. Forty-nine States fund their program
staffs through a combination of Federal grants and State monies. State funding is obtained
only through general fund appropriations in fifteen of these States, while fourteen States rely
only upon their separate  site cleanup funds for  the State share of administrative and
personnel costs. Fifteen States use a combination of general fund appropriations and
cleanup fund monies to pay staff and administrative costs, and one State (Nevada) obtains
all of its State funding for administration through its Hazardous Waste fees. A few States
have incidental funding sources, indicated under the "Other" heading on Table V-5.

       Two States (Nebraska and Oklahoma) rely solely upon Federal funding to support
their cleanup  programs. These two Federally-supported programs are relatively  small,
however, each having less than ten staff. In past years Delaware's program was also entirely
federally funded, but in 1991 it received funding for program administration from its new
Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund and from the State's general fund.  The  District of
Columbia has no staff and no funding for program administration.

       Table V-6 presents the various Federal CERCLA grants available to the States-Site
Specific Cooperative Agreements (SSCAs), Multi-Site  Cooperative Agreements (MSCAs),
Support Agency Cooperative Agreements (SACAs), and Core Program Cooperative Agree-
ments (CPCAs)--and indicates which States receive funds through these grant mechanisms.
A SSCA enables the use of Federal funds for site-specific activities at a State-lead NPL site.
An MSCA is a similar funding mechanism which covers site-specific activities at a number
of sites. An SACA grant provides funding to States with limited  cleanup  staffs to  enable
them to provide oversight assistance on EPA-lead sites. CPCAs are available to fund non-
site-specific program administration activities, such as  database maintenance.
                                        17

-------
         FIGURE III-2
STATE "SUPERFUND" PROGRAM STAFF
                         O
                         O
                     O  O
                  O O  T-
                  m ^~
                         O
                   o  o  -*-1
              18

-------
       Forty-five States report having CPCAs, 30 have SACAs, 22 have SSCAs, 38 have
MSCAs, and one State has a draft MSCA. Since 1990, four more States reported having
CPCAs and 16 more reported  having MSCAs.  Only two  States, North Dakota and
Wyoming, report receiving no funds through these grant mechanisms.  These two States,
however, receive Federal funds for cleanup program administration through other programs,
such as RCRA grants.
              STATES RECEIVING FEDERAL CERCLA ASSISTANCE


                  SSCAs      MSCAs      SACAs      CPCAs

                  22          38           30          45
      States with Superfund Memoranda of Agreement (SMOAs) are also indicated on
Table V-6 and Figure III-3. A SMOA documents the agreed-upon relationship between the
EPA and a State as regards Superfund activities. It can cover issues such as review times,
sharing of documents,  and site-lead responsibilities. Unlike cooperative agreements with
EPA, SMOAs do not provide funding for States. SMOA terms range from very broad to
very specific. Eighteen  States currently have signed SMOAs, three have draft SMOAs, and
six States are negotiating with EPA over SMOA terms.
E. Funding

      A Fund or funding mechanism is an essential element of a State's hazardous waste
cleanup program. It allows a State to investigate, plan, and conduct emergency response and
remedial actions at sites where there are no viable RPs, RPs are unwilling to conduct or pay
for remedial actions, or immediate action is required. Typically, a Fund is characterized by
both depleting and revolving expenditures. If there are no RPs, the Fund is depleted as a
result of expenditures for cleanup activities and must be replenished. There may also be
certain types of expenditures that the State is not authorized to recover  from RPs, such as
administrative (see Section D above) and certain pre-remedial costs. If RPs refuse to
cooperate on cleanups or a  State elects to use the Fund for emergency  response or
investigations, the State typically will attempt to recover these Fund expenditures from RPs.
                                       19

-------
               FIGURE III-3
SMOAS SIGNED OR IN NEGOTIATION/DRAFT STAGE
                      >     0
                     U3     u-
                     t5  "   Q
                      o .
                        
                     D
                   20

-------
       A Fund also allows a State to control the pace of cleanups: if RPs fail to cooperate,
the State can proceed with the cleanup and may be authorized to seek punitive damages
from RPs in addition to recovering costs expended from the Fund. Of course, in order to
effectively clean up sites the Fund must be large enough to pay for whatever cleanup
activities may arise. If the State can clean up the site and recover its costs in a timely
manner then RPs may decide that it is in their interests to agree to conduct future cleanups.
Thus, depending on its size and latitude of use, a Fund can enhance a State's enforcement
effort and ability to compel RPs to conduct or pay for cleanups.

       State Funds are authorized and/or used in 50 States (including Puerto Rico) for one
or more purposes relating to mitigation of hazardous waste risks (see Table V-7). Nebraska
and the District of Columbia are the only States without an authorized cleanup Fund. Not
all State Funds or accounts are included in Table V-7. Those funding instruments that are
used solely as repositories for Federal monies or only provide debt servicing on bonds are
excluded.  However,  these accounts and Funds are included in the State  summaries in
Chapter VI.

       Eighteen States have more than one Fund  or account for handling hazardous waste
site cleanups (an increase of two since 1990). In most cases a State's Funds will differ from
each other with regard to sources or uses. For example, one Fund may derive primarily from
hazardous waste fees, while another in the same  State receives legislative appropriations.
In New Jersey, the Hazardous Discharge Site Cleanup Fund, derived from appropriations
and bonds, may be used for the same purposes as the Spill Compensation Fund, which is
funded primarily from penalties and taxes; however, the DEPE taps the latter Fund first for
cleanups.

       There is  considerable variation among the States in  terms of funding sources,
authorized uses of Funds, and restrictions or preconditions on the use of funds. State Fund
characteristics are described in Table V-7 and Table V-9. A synthesis of State trends in
funding is presented below.
       Fund Balances and Additions

       Analysis of Fund balances and additions would ideally provide a sense of the States'
capacities to pay for cleanups. The Fund balance measures the current availability of funds
while estimated additions to the Fund provide a sense of a State's potential to sustain and
increase the Fund over time. Both measures of capacity are flawed, however, particularly
when comparisons are made across States. Some of the problems:

       1.    Up-to-date balances as of a single date cannot be obtained for all Funds
            from every State-dates span a year's time ranging from October 1990
            to December 1991.

       2.    Fund balances may be low because of infrequent collection of fees or
            taxes (causing the Fund to "pulse"),  timing of appropriations, or a
            program's need to exhaust its Fund at the end of the fiscal year because

                                        21

-------
             carryover is not allowed.   At least one of California's Funds, for
             example, has had a balance of $0 at the end of the fiscal year in each
             of the last two years, even though its annual expenditures on cleanups
             are in the $50 million range.

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

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

With these caveats in mind, the total unobligated State "superfund" balance for all States,
including Puerto Rico and the District  of Columbia,  is approximately $603.7 million,  a
decrease of $95.7 million from the balance of $699.4 million in 1990 (13.7%) but still 45%
higher than the $415 million in  1989. Since  obligated funds have been earmarked for  a
particular use and are therefore not available for use on new projects, they are not counted
in the balance totals. An additional $1,614.8 million in bonds is authorized in six States-a
decrease of $114.4 million from 1990 and a total decrease of $366.2 million since 1989.

       As in 1989 and 1990, the distribution of  Funds continues to be heavily weighted
towards lower levels of funding: including bond authorizations, 13 States have less than $1
million, 14 States have from $1 million up to $5  million (1 less than 1990), 5 States have
from $5 million up to $10 million (1 more than 1990),  14 States have from $10 million up
to $50 million (1 more than 1990), and 4 States have more than $50 million (unchanged)
(see Figure III-4).

       As was the  case  in 1990, a  disproportionate  amount  (35%) of the  total State
superfund balance for all States is in New  Jersey.  New Jersey's share of the  total is,
however, significantly less than 1990 when its share was greater than 50%.  This is due to
a sharp decline in New Jersey's balance from $358.5 million in 1990  to $210.1 million in
1991.  In fact, New Jersey's decrease accounted for the entire decrease in the total Fund
balance and even offset an  increase of $52.7 million in the balance for all the other States
combined.

       The total amount of money available in Fund balances continues to be concentrated
in a few States. The 15  States with  the largest  Funds comprise 87% of the total State
"superfund" balance (compared to 90% in 1990 and 78% in 1989). If bond authorizations
are included the disparity between the two groups becomes even larger. The total amount
of funds available for the 18 States with Fund balances (including bonds) of $10 million or
more is $2.140 billion or 96% of the total amount authorized within the States, and $1.854
billion (84%) is in just four States with balances (including bonds) greater than $50 million.

                                        22

-------
       As noted above, New Jersey reported that $153.8 million from the State's Capital
Fund was returned to the State Treasury or reserved for the purpose of balancing the
budget.

       Thirty four States were able to provide specific information about annual infusions
of money to their Funds.  Most of the other States reported that annual additions to their
Funds were too variable to estimate reliably. The total estimated annual additions to the
Funds of the 34 States reporting figures was $381.6 million, a 13% increase over 1990 when
39 States reported a specific amount.  As with Fund balances, a few States will receive most
of this new funding.  Pennsylvania expects $89 million to be added to its Hazardous Sites
Cleanup Fund and California expects its Hazardous  Substance  Account to receive  $50
million. Another seven States (Alaska, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Texas  and
Washington) expect to receive between $10  and $50 million in annual additions to their
Funds.  At the other end of the scale nine States expect to receive less  than $1 million
annually (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South
Dakota and West Virginia).  Among the more significant changes in annual additions were
the decrease from $71-76 million to $19.4 million in New Jersey and the increase in Alaska
from $1 million to up to $50 million.
       Sources of Funds

       Table V-7 indicates the sources for State Funds or funding mechanisms and whether
each is a major (contributing more than twenty percent of the Fund's total revenues) or
minor  source.  There are nine general  types of sources: legislative appropriations, State
bonds, fees attached to hazardous waste handling or other activities, taxes, penalties or fines,
transfers from other Funds or accounts, cost recoveries, interest on Fund monies or other
State investments, and general public or private funds. It should be noted that information
on the  relative contribution of each source was not available for all Funds, and in such cases
the table does not indicate any one source as being major. The Table shows a source as
major  only when  there is positive evidence to support that description;  lacking such
evidence, a source is shown as minor. This qualification should be heeded in the discussion
that follows.
                                        23

-------
              FIGURE III-4

FUND BALANCE INCLUDING AUTHORIZED BONDS

      (As of date indicated in Table V-7)
                                  o:
                                  LJ
                     {/>  o  o  -Z °
                     U* +* •*•'  ^ ^
                     UJ        O O
                     -j T- m  ^- in
                     D
                    24

-------
       A total of 73 Funds or funding mechanisms for handling cleanup of hazardous waste
sites were identified among the States (18 States have more than one Fund or account). As
noted previously, this number does not include Funds that receive only Federal monies or
provide only debt servicing on bonds; Funds earmarked for leaking underground storage
tanks are also excluded. The chart below shows the number of Funds or funding mechanisms
and the number of States that rely on each of the nine types of sources described above,
either as a major or minor source.
SOURCES OF FUNDS
Maior Source For: Minor Source For:

Fees
Appropriations
Penalties/fines
Bonds
Taxes
Cost recovery
Transfers
Interest
General funding
No. of
Funds
25
19
15
15
13
11
2
2
~
No. of
States
22
17
14
13
12
10
2
2
—
No. of
Funds
6
15
34
—
3
44
5
26
12
No. of
States
6
15
30
—
3
39
5
24
10
       Fees on  the  generation, transport, treatment, or  disposal of hazardous waste,
hazardous substances, or solid waste are a critical source of revenue for many State funds.
They represent a major portion of 25 Funds in 22 States (an increase of one State since
1990 and three since 1989), and a minor  portion of six Funds in another six States. In
addition to providing revenue for State Funds, fees on hazardous waste are often intended
to reduce the hazardous waste stream and encourage recycling efforts. For example, fees on
the transport and disposal of hazardous waste make up 90% of Illinois' Hazardous Waste
Fund; these fees have been raised each year between FY 1989 and 1991 to increase the
Fund and discourage hazardous waste generation. In Kentucky, fees are based on the level
of treatment required for hazardous wastes; a sliding scale is also applied on solid waste
disposal in Ohio, where such fees are expected to provide 80% of total funds. In Tennessee,
a public board sets a hazardous waste fee structure for generators and transporters within
a statutory  minimum and maximum in order to encourage recycling and discourage land
disposal. South Carolina charges a land disposal fee of $5.00 per ton for hazardous waste
originating within the State, and a minimum of $7.50 per ton for wastes generated outside
                                        25

-------
the State, as well as a hazardous waste storage fee; these fees provide 80-90% of fund
revenues.

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

       Appropriations  are also a primary source of State cleanup  funds or funding
mechanisms. Nineteen Funds (down three from 1990) in  17 States (down one from 1990)
derive a major portion of their revenue from appropriations, and an additional 15 States
provide some level of appropriations for their cleanup Funds. The manner in which funding
is appropriated by State legislatures indicates the flexibility with which a State can handle
hazardous waste cleanups. Many States allocate funding to their superfund programs on a
regular, typically annual, basis. In some States, such as Kansas, however, appropriations for
state-Fund cleanups must be requested on a site-specific basis. Alaska is anomalous in that
the appropriations to the Oil and Hazardous Substance Release Fund come from a tax on
each barrel  of oil transported in the Trans-Alaskan pipeline.

       Bonds are a major source of funding for 15 Funds in 13 States. Four of these States
(New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Michigan) have been authorized to issue $2.01
billion in bonds, of which $313 million have been issued to date.  New York has issued
approximately $227 million  out  of a total bond authorization of $1.2 billion.  Similarly,
Michigan has issued about $38 million of its $425 million authorization, and Massachusetts
has issued $48 million of the initial authorization of $85 million. New Jersey has not issued
any bonds in 1991, reporting that it still has  $200 million  authorized.

       Taxes are a major revenue source for 13  cleanup  funds in  12 States  (up two since
1990 and three since 1989). Several States charge a tax on hazardous wastes or substances
that is similar  in nature to the fees  described  above, with some of the same  types of
restrictions.  For instance, Florida's main source of revenue for its Water Quality Assurance
Trust Fund  is a tax on pollutants of $0.02/bbl; the tax is  suspended  if the Fund's balance
exceeds $12 million and reinstated if it falls below $5 million. Missouri's fund is derived
from taxes on hazardous waste generators based on tonnage and method of waste handling;
the tax is not to exceed $50,000 per company per year and is capped at $1.5 million per
year. In Washington a tax on the wholesale value of hazardous substances funds  both the

                                         26

-------
State and Local Toxics Control Accounts. The main source of revenue for New Jersey's Spill
Compensation Fund  is a transfer tax  on hazardous substances. After November 1992,
Pennsylvania's taxes on capital stock and franchises will be either increased or decreased by
$500,000 depending on whether the Fund balance is below or above the previous year's
expenditures.

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

       Penalties and fines provide a major source of revenue for 15 Funds in 14 States  (up
from 12 Funds in 12  States in  1990), and cost recoveries provide a major source for 11
Funds in ten States (an increase of one Fund since 1990). Each category appears as a minor
source for many  Funds and States (see chart above). These numbers do not accurately
reflect the actual use of penalties/fines or cost recovery since many States do not use their
statutory authority to  pursue these sources, often because of limited resources.
       Fund Expenditures

       The amount of money spent by States on cleanups in the past year provides another
indication, in addition  to Fund balances and  annual additions to  Funds, of States'
capabilities to clean up sites contaminated by hazardous substances.  The annual additions
to Funds  should theoretically be an  accurate predictor of States' capabilities to pay for
future cleanups, while Fund balances should indicate  capabilities for the coming year.
Reality does not, of course, accord with theory and these two measures do not necessarily
accurately indicate States' cleanup capabilities.

       For the 1991 Update a third measure, expenditures from Funds, was added to help
give a more complete picture of States' financial capabilities to conduct cleanups.  Fund
expenditures gives some idea of a State's past cleanup capabilities.  This can be a good
indicator of future capabilities if other factors show that the State is  maintaining a stable
cleanup program.

       This year each State was asked how much money had been spent from the State's
Fund(s) during the most recent past fiscal year.  Some States did not have figures for the
amount actually spent but did have records for amounts encumbered, i.e. where contractors
have been authorized to do specific work but have not been paid. Other States could not
readily separate amounts spent from  those encumbered. Two States did not  provide any
information about expenditures. Table V-8 presents the amounts States reported that they
spent or encumbered or a combined figure or both figures separately.

       This variation in the basis of the data provided by the States means that comparisons
between States cannot be made across the board. Completely valid comparisons can be
made only after ensuring that the amounts being compared represent the same concept; that
amounts spent are compared with amounts spent and totals that include expenditures plus
encumbrances are compared with similar combined totals.  The aggregate figure for all

                                        27

-------
States is also somewhat misleading since it includes all the amounts reported by States,
whether they were spent or encumbered.

       With these caveats in mind, fifty States reported spending or encumbering $427.7
million from State Funds on cleanups in the previous fiscal year.  California spent the most
at $57 million, followed by New Jersey ($48.9M) and Alaska ($47M).  These three  States
accounted for 36% of the  total  spent  or encumbered by all States and eleven  States
accounted for $356.8 million or 83% of the total. The majority of the States (33) spent or
encumbered less than $5 million on cleanups.

       California is an example of how one measure of capacity can be misleading.  Since
1989 its Fund balance at the end  of the fiscal year has never exceeded $10 million, yet it
spent more on cleanups in 1991 than any other State.  In this case the Fund expenditure
total is a better indicator of the program's capabilities than is the Fund balance, which is
always near zero at the end of the fiscal year because the agency spends all the available
money.

       Comparing Fund balances, annual additions to Funds and Fund expenditures can be
an indicator of the stability of a State program.  Annual additions that significantly exceed
past annual expenditures may  indicate that a State is expanding its program or preparing
to pay for the relatively more expensive remedial actions.  Pennsylvania, with a current
balance of $21.8 million and annual additions of $89 million compared to expenditures last
year of $38 million, is an example of a relatively new program that is expanding its resources
and activities.  Where annual  expenditures exceed additions by a significant amount the
Fund balance becomes critical to the State's ability to maintain  its program at the same
level of activity. Decreases in the funding available for New Jersey's cleanup program may,
for example, eventually force it to reduce its cleanup activities, although other factors (see
Chapter IV State Property Transfer  Programs) may mitigate the impact  of decreased
funding. For the near future, however, New Jersey's Fund balance of $210.1 million plus
$200 million in authorized bonds can absorb expenditures that significantly exceed its annual
additions.  In fact, despite the fact that one entire Fund was  made  unavailable to the
cleanup program, the aggregate balance of the other two Funds grew by $6 million in fiscal
year 1991.

       Focusing only on Fund expenditures can also be misleading. Enforcement and other
tools can be effective in obtaining cleanups, rendering Fund-financed cleanups unnecessary.
A number of States have reported, however, that the willingness and demonstrated  ability
to cleanup a site by spending State funds provides significant incentive to RPs to agree to
conduct or fund cleanups.  Thus, Fund expenditures may be most useful as an indicator of
State cleanup capabilities  after several years of data are collected, allowing  comparisons
within a State over the years.
                                        28

-------
       Uses of Funds

       Table V-9 indicates the uses of State cleanup Funds. There are nine basic types of
activities for which  Fund  monies may be  used: remedial  actions,  CERCLA match,
emergency response, grants to municipalities and local governments, site investigation,
operations and maintenance, removals, studies and design, and victim compensation. The
following chart shows the number of Funds whose monies are or may be applied to each
activity, as well as the number of States having at least one Fund whose monies are or may
be applied to each activity.
USES OF


Emergency response
Removals
Studies and design
Remedial actions
CERCLA match
Operation and maintenance
Victim compensation
Site investigation
Grants to municipalities and
local governments
FUNDS
No. of
States
49
47
45
47
44
42
13
39

11

No. of
Funds
64
63
58
61
52
52
14
50

12
      Emergency response actions remain the most common activity for which Funds
monies are authorized~64 Funds in 49 States may be used for this purpose. Removals, as
part of both emergency and remedial actions, are also widely authorized. At present, 63
Funds in 47 States may be  used for this purpose. The gap  in the number of States that
authorize remedial actions (47) and the number that authorize operation and maintenance
(42) has narrowed a little,  from seven in 1989, perhaps because a few more  States have
reached this final stage in the  remedial process.

      Victim compensation is  authorized in 14 States, but in North Carolina  water
replacement is authorized  under its Solid Waste Management  Laws not under its two
cleanup Funds. Thus, victim compensation is  an authorized use of the Funds of 13 States.
The nature of compensation is  limited to providing  alternative  drinking water supplies,
except in five States: California, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont (see
Table V-2). In New Jersey, anyone can file  a claim for personal  or property damages
resulting from a hazardous discharge, within a one-year statute of limitation from the date
of discovery of damage. The  State must attempt to arrange a settlement between  the
claimant and the responsible party, but if the source of the discharge cannot be determined,
                                       29

-------
the State must settle the claim against the Spill Compensation Fund. Seventy eight million
dollars in claims have been filed. Minnesota may partially compensate innocent landowners
for cleanup costs. California has a Hazardous  Substance  Victim's Compensation Fund
intended to provide compensation for medical and economic damages caused by the release
of hazardous substances when a responsible party cannot be found. With money yet to be
appropriated to this Fund, the three  claims made to date have been paid out of the
Hazardous Substance Account.

       Several Funds are not designated  strictly or even primarily for use on hazardous
waste sites. For example, Kansas' Hazardous Waste Perpetual Care Trust Fund is intended
primarily for RCRA activities, but up to 20% of the Fund can  be used for emergency
response actions  at hazardous waste disposal facilities closed prior to the State's  1981
hazardous waste  act. Virginia's Fund  is  intended for solid as well as hazardous waste
incidents. Other Funds are designated strictly for hazardous waste sites for very limited uses.
Ninety-five percent (95%)  of the Colorado Hazardous  Substances Response Fund, for
example, must be used for federal CERCLA match.

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

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

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

       Although many Funds are statutorily authorized for use in a range of activities, low
funding levels may restrict actual usage of monies. Kentucky's Fund was intended for use
on virtually every aspect of hazardous site cleanup and management but, due to low funding
levels, it has been used mainly for CERCLA matching funds. The Virginia Fund may be
used for the full range  of remedial activities but, containing under one hundred thousand
dollars, its actual use is quite limited. Alabama's  Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund may
be used  for remedial  actions and operations and maintenance, but with a balance of
$147,000, is primarily used for small-scale emergency removals of drums.

       Utah allows a range of site activities, including site investigation and studies and
design, but the  State agency may not use  the Fund for remediation. Similarly, Colorado's
Fund may be used for site investigation, but not for removals or remediation.
                                        30

-------
       Special Conditions on Fund Use

       Restrictions and preconditions on Fund use are primarily of two types: those that
statutorily require the State to exhaust every funding alternative, whether Federal or private
party, before drawing upon State cleanup monies, and those that require the State cleanup
agency to obtain specific authorization before undertaking any response action. In Alabama,
sites receiving funds must not be on the NPL at the time activity starts; and in several other
States, State funds may be used only where Federal  funds are not available or sufficient.
Eighteen States require that an attempt be made to obtain responsible party participation
in site cleanup before State funds are used; many States  waive this restriction in the
presence of an imminent threat to public health or the environment. Virtually all States
pursue RP participation first as a matter of practice  and policy. Although it appears that
only a relatively small number of States are required to seek alternative fund sources before
using State monies, it is probably safe to assume that many more do so as a matter of policy.

       Six States require that the State agency responsible for cleanup obtain prior approval
from some administrative authority before undertaking one or more types of response or
remedial action at hazardous waste sites. All expenditures must be approved by the governor
in New Hampshire, the Pollution Control Board  in Minnesota, the Environmental Quality
Council in Wyoming,  the Board of Public Works in Maryland, and the agency's Commis-
sioner in Indiana. Arkansas requires a commission to approve expenditures over $30,000.
       In six States the agency must obtain prior legislative approval for some types of
expenditures. Washington requires that any expenditure from its State or Local Toxics
Control Account first be appropriated by statute. Oklahoma requires a site-specific appropri-
ation whenever  site costs are expected to  exceed $1 million; Illinois must get a similar
appropriation if site expenditures will exceed $1 million for a single incident. According to
Illinois program officials, this cap has not affected the program's effectiveness. In Vermont,
non-emergency expenditures over $50,000 must be approved by the legislature or its joint
fiscal committee. Similarly, Delaware's joint fiscal committee must approve any expenditures
that would exceed 15% of the Fund balance. Finally, Nevada's Interim Finance Committee
must  approve any studies not already budgeted.

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

      Enforcement authorities and capacities under State laws vary significantly. Many of
the States with cleanup fund laws have incorporated enforcement provisions into those laws.
These States may also use other enforcement authorities in dealing with sites, such as water
quality and hazardous and solid waste laws.
                                        31

-------
      Some States have no enforcement provisions directly linked to State remediation
programs for hazardous sites, either because they have no such program independent of
CERCLA (e.g., Idaho, Nebraska), or because the State's cleanup fund statute was enacted
without supporting enforcement provisions (e.g., West  Virginia). Michigan was in this
position until 1990, when it enacted enforcement provisions for its State superfund law.
States  without specific  superfund  enforcement  provisions must  rely on RCRA-type
authorities, or on enforcement authorities found in water quality or solid waste statutes and
regulations.
      Who is Liable?

      A key issue for State programs is whether State enforcement provisions can reach all
potentially responsible parties to the same extent that CERCLA can. Owners and operators
of disposal sites can be enforced against under virtually any of the existing State programs.
A more difficult issue is whether enforceable cleanup orders can be issued to generators and
transporters. The ten States that rely on  non-superfund enforcement authorities cannot
always reach such potential RPs. For  the most part, State cleanup orders issued under
RCRA-type laws require proof of a RCRA violation or, at the least, RCRA jurisdiction over
the facility or  entity at the time the disposal occurred. Under these authorities the mere
release of hazardous substances at a site does not support enforcement against former lawful
disposers at that site. Some State solid waste laws or "imminent danger" provisions have a
potentially longer reach. State water quality laws may also provide a basis for enforcement
action against generators and transporters. Most State  water quality laws have a strict
liability provision prohibiting discharges of any pollutant into  "the waters of the State"
without a permit. Most States define "waters of the State" to include groundwater. (See
Novick, Environmental Law Institute, The  Law  of Environmental Protection,  section
6.03[l][a] (Clark Boardman, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990)). Because generators or transporters
placed the material when it pollutes or threatens to pollute surface or groundwater they may
be held liable, even though the original placement of the material was lawful.  Thus, a
State's most useful enforcement authority,  absent a superfund-type enforcement provision,
may well be found in its water quality law.
       Liability Standards

       Apart from the issue of who may be held liable, there is also the question of the
standard of liability. There are two aspects to the question of liability. First, is the state
standard one of strict liability-that is,  based solely on the  occurrence  of  a release or
potential release~or is liability based on proof of fault?  Second, is liability "joint and
several" with each RP responsible for the entire cleanup regardless of its contribution to the
problem, or is it proportional, with each liable only to the extent of its contribution?  Under
CERCLA the Federal standard is strict, joint and several liability. This is not the case with
many of the State programs.
                                         32

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

       Thirty-six States have some form of strict liability standard (see Table V-10). In other
States, however, the standard of liability is not clear. Proof of fault or causation may be
required in order to sustain enforcement orders or to recover costs. At common law, strict
liability is not favored, so courts may interpret legislative silence or statutory ambiguity as
requiring the agency to show causation and fault. For example, statutes that attach liability
to  "any person responsible for a release  or  threatened release" may require  proof of
causation and fault not required by a strict liability standard.

       How liability should be divided  among  responsible parties who have contributed to
hazardous conditions at a site is another important issue. Under a "joint and several" liability
standard, each RP is liable for all  cleanup costs at a site regardless of its actual contribution
to hazardous conditions there. Eighteen States have enacted (or asserted) a strict, joint and
several liability standard.   Michigan joined this group in 1990 with  new enforcement
legislation. Eight additional States have a strict, joint  and several liability standard but have
added a further provision that allows an RP to prove its "proportional" contribution to the
site and thus limit its liability.

       Several States (Hawaii, Missouri, Nevada, and South Dakota) have adopted a strict
liability standard, but do not prescribe whether liability is joint and several or proportional.

       Six States (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Maryland, Tennessee, and Utah) provide
expressly for a "proportional" liability scheme. (Arkansas does use joint and several liability
for administrative enforcement purposes, but  must  use proportional liability in judicial
actions and in cost recoveries). Under proportional liability schemes, each RP is responsible
for no more than its proportional share. In general, the proportional liability statutes do not
prescribe the basis for the apportionment, only that it be made. An exception is Arkansas,
which bases proportionality  on the volume of waste contributed to the site. Proportional
liability increases the probability that there may be "orphan" shares of cleanup costs with no
corresponding RPs which must ultimately be borne by the State. Also, to the extent that
proportional liability is applied to enforcement-based actions (orders to conduct studies or
remedial action, as opposed to cost recovery), it may make such enforcement more difficult.

       Several other standards of liability exist, including those that leave the matter to
common law or other defenses, as in New York.
                                         33

-------
      Order Authorities

      Forty States and the District of Columbia have the power to issue administrative
orders compelling responsible parties to conduct cleanup activities under "superfund"-type
statutes.  (Table V-2). The majority of these States also have administrative order authority
to require responsible parties to provide information and to conduct studies.

      Ten States and Puerto  Rico rely on RCRA-type, solid  waste, or water quality
enforcement authorities to order cleanups. These authorities, as noted above, do not apply
in all circumstances or to all potentially responsible parties.

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

      The standard of review is also important, whether it be pre-enforcement or in the
context of agency enforcement of an order or a cost recovery action. Several of the States
expressly apply a deferential standard of review. For example, in Pennsylvania (under one
of the two Pennsylvania order types) the agency action must be upheld unless it is "arbitrary
and capricious." In Texas, the State must prove  on appeal that there is an imminent and
substantial endangerment and that  the  recipient of the order is liable. However, if the
"appropriateness" of the remedy is contested on appeal, the remedy must be upheld unless
the court finds it to be "arbitrary and capricious." In most States,  however,  no standard of
review is spelled out by statute.
      Injunction Authorities

      All of the States with order authorities also have authority to bring civil injunction
actions, either to obtain a direct injunction, to enforce an administrative order, or both.
                                        34

-------
       Enforcement Sanctions

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

       The effect of the Fund/cost-recovery threat is enhanced in those States that have a
punitive  damages provision.  (Table V-ll). These provisions have become increasingly
common, and now exist in 24 States,  up from 23 States in 1990 and 22  States in  1989.
Nineteen of these States provide for the award of treble damages, as under CERCLA. Other
States  provide  for damages of  one-and-a-half times or twice the response costs. Maine
simply provides for punitive damages without specifying an amount.

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

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

       Criminal penalties are not really a factor in most State cleanup programs. Virtually
all of the programs contain provisions making the submission of false information or failure
to pay fees (in States where Funds are derived from fees) criminal offenses. In general, the
failure to comply with a State cleanup order is not a  criminal offense. A wide range of
criminal offenses does exist for unlawful disposal and other types of conduct. Some of these
crimes may have relevance to State superfund sites. (See McElfish, "State Hazardous Waste
Crimes," 17 Envtl. Law Rep. 10465 (1987) for a list of these crimes and sanctions.)
                                        35

-------
      Victim Compensation Provisions

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

      A few States have made explicit provisions in their laws for the recovery of natural
resource damages. These provisions apply in addition to the CERCLA natural resource
damage provisions. Few States have litigated such actions under State provisions. Colorado
has the  most experience in litigating natural resource damage cases under CERCLA, and
has achieved substantial settlements at three sites. One difficult issue in recovery of natural
resource damages is the proper method of calculation. The Pennsylvania statute contains a
provision that makes the State's calculation of such damages presumptively valid as a matter
of law, subject to the responsible parties having the opportunity to offer a rebuttal. Table
V-12 shows the current status of natural resource damage enforcement work in the States.
A majority of States  have had no activity in this area, but a substantial number have
undertaken  assessments (NRDAs), recovered damages, or commenced development of
natural  resource damage enforcement policies.
      Other Enforcement Provisions

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

      A number of States foster or mandate cleanups through property transfer programs.
These programs  are discussed in detail in Chapter IV.
      Evaluating Enforceability of Programs

      It is difficult to evaluate the enforcement component of any State program. Both
strong and weak programs can produce a significant number of "Voluntary" settlements and
consent orders. The only difference will be in the quality of the remedial action agreed to-a
difficult thing to assess except on a detailed site-by-site basis. The best surrogate for that
sort of detailed review is to ascertain whether each State has available to it sufficient tools
for enforcement that allow it to exert significant and credible leverage.

                                        36

-------
       State programs are weaker if they have numerous procedural "hoops" to pass through
before effective enforcement~for example, mandatory negotiating periods during which
there is a moratorium on  enforcement actions or State expenditures. Likewise, rules of
decision that encourage RP litigation or delay are counterproductive, such as provisions that
allow the RP to conduct a  trial on the selection of remedy, or that afford  no deference to
the action selected by the  State agency based on the administrative record. The stronger
programs appear to make significant use  of the credible threat of Fund-lead actions  if
negotiating deadlines are  not met by RPs. If this is backed up by a punitive damages
provision, the  program may achieve  greater success. State programs  with  sufficient
enforcement options, the ability to reach generators and transporters as well as site owners
and operators, a strict liability standard, and the ability to resort credibly to the State fund
appear to have the greatest potential for enforcement success.

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

G.     Cleanup Policies and Criteria

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

       Determining the appropriate and feasible level of cleanup for a hazardous waste site
involves  technical,  administrative, and economic considerations  that  are  necessarily
evaluated on a site-by-site basis.  States commonly look to Federal guidelines and standards
as they decide upon cleanup levels. Beyond such guidelines, several States have established
procedures to determine the particular cleanup standards that are necessary for individual
sites, and many have requirements that exceed Federal standards. Overall the States vary
widely in the extensiveness and formality of procedures used to set cleanup standards.
                                         37

-------
      Table V-13 indicates a number of criteria that are used by States to determine
cleanup standards at hazardous waste sites.  Only one State (West Virginia) did not report
specific policy guidelines for determining cleanup levels. Two states (Louisiana and Idaho)
reported that they used only EPA guidelines. Rhode Island uses only risk assessment; and
Oregon reported only one standard, cleanup to background. The remaining States use at
least two of the listed criteria.

      Seven States report having promulgated specific hazardous waste remedial standards
(Alaska, District of Columbia, Michigan, Montana, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin). Two
States  (Oregon, Delaware) have  such standards  in  draft form and three  States are
developing them  (Connecticut, Maryland,  and New  York).   In addition,  three States
(Vermont, New Jersey, Montana) are in the process of developing  cleanup standards for
soil, and three States expect soil  standards to be  final in the near future (Oregon,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin).

      Several States cited general statutory instructions that parallel  CERCLA's  original
guidance on cleanup standards, calling for cost-effective measures that protect public health
and welfare and the environment.  Massachusetts' standards call for permanent solutions
whenever feasible, and include consideration of both technical and economic practicability.
Texas looks for the lowest cost alternative that is technically feasible and reliable and
effectively mitigates and minimizes damage to and provides adequate  protection of public
health and safety or the environment.
      Federal Standards

      Thirty-seven States use  EPA guidelines either as their sole source of cleanup
standards or in conjunction with other standards. In 1990, thirty States reported that they
used EPA guidelines.  Standards found in RCRA and CERCLA were specifically cited as
relevant, and several States follow NCP procedures. In determining minimum standards for
surface  and groundwater mediation, thirty-six States  reference Maximum  Containment
Levels (MCLs) set by the Safe Drinking Water Act for public water supplies. This is an
increase of eight States since 1990. No States use MCLs as their sole criterion.
      Risk Standards and Assessments

      Thirty-eight States, six more than 1990, either reference risk levels or conduct a risk
assessment in determining cleanup standards. Only one State (Rhode Island) uses a risk
assessment as its sole criterion. Where States mention numerical risk standards, they all fall
within the range of 10"4 to 10"7 for carcinogens.

      Some States invoke risk standards only in the absence of applicable standards. In
Indiana, for example, cancer risk assessment is used where MCLs and applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARARs) are not established, or where multiple carcinogens
are present. Other States have risk standards that apply generally.  In addition to a risk
standard for carcinogens,  North Carolina prohibits any chemical  intake  exceeding the

                                        38

-------
amount known to cause non-carcinogenic health effects.  Kentucky requires that there be
no long term detrimental effect for non-carcinogens.  North Dakota uses narrative rather
than numerical risk levels.

       Other States use a combination of risk standards and other standards.  Minnesota
applies a non-degradation policy to its cleaner sites. Michigan uses a three-tiered clean up
standard:   Type A is background; Type B is risk based; Type  C is low priority and less
stringent than Type B.

       Site-by-site risk assessments are  performed by at least twelve States to determine
cleanup levels. Like risk standards, risk assessments may be used either in the absence of
other standards,  or  as supplements  to other  standards.   For example,  Massachusetts
undertakes risk assessments only when an appropriate  standard does not exist  for a
particular situation. In contrast, Florida and Kentucky weigh the results of site-specific risk
assessments along with other applicable  standards to determine  cleanup levels at each site.

       Water Quality Criteria

       Forty-two States, an increase of fourteen States since 1990, reference existing surface
water or groundwater quality criteria in determining cleanup standards.  Groundwater is
generally  a growing concern and is of particular concern in a number of States.   For
example, in New Mexico all cleanup actions must satisfy groundwater protection standards
of the Water Quality Control Commission. Iowa's regulations  provide cleanup goals for
groundwater. Wyoming's cleanups are site specific with criteria  based on protection of
groundwater.

       Ambient Quality

       Twenty four States, an increase  of four States since 1990, reference ambient, or
background, water quality in determining cleanup standards.  While some States  have
background quality as their cleanup goal, they recognize that it may not be feasible for all
cleanups to meet this standard; in practice they may use ambient quality as a starting point
for assessing cleanup levels and negotiating with  responsible parties.  In Oregon, for
example, if cleanup to background is infeasible, the State will select a remedy that attains
the lowest concentration level that satisfies specified feasibility criteria, which include cost-
effectiveness. In other States, ambient quality is simply one factor  that must be considered
before a  cleanup standard is  determined.   Finally, some States require cleanup  to
background for some, but not all, sites based upon preselected criteria such as groundwater
classification.
                                         39

-------
                           STATE CLEANUP CRITERIA
      Hazardous Waste Remedial Standards                     7
      MCLs                                                   36
      Water Quality Criteria                                    42
      EPA Guidelines                                          37
      Background                                              24
      Risk Assessment                                         38
H.    Public Participation

      The degree of public participation solicited in decisions about hazardous waste sites
varies widely among States. Public participation activity may be required under State statute
or regulation, pursued as agency policy, or taken up in response to expressed public concern.
Table V-14 describes required, and routine or ad hoc public participation procedures in
each State.

      Forty-three States report some type of public participation procedure ~ an increase
of five States over 1990. Twenty-two States have specific public participation requirements
mandated by statute or regulation (some also have additional  procedures  established as
agency policy). Another twenty-one States seek community involvement strictly as a matter
of policy or in an ad hoc manner.  Four States (Hawaii, Kansas, Ohio and Virginia) are in
the process of formulating a policy for public participation, with Kansas also following NCP
guidelines on an ad hoc basis during this process. The remaining six States did not describe
the public participation component of their programs.

      Six States (Alaska, Colorado, Utah, Kansas, Indiana, Tennessee) reported that they
follow NCP public participation guidelines as a matter of policy.

      Public Notice Requirements

      Eighteen  States  require public notice at  one or more points in the site handling
process.  The types of actions for  which notice is required and the number of States
requiring notice  are as  follows.
                                        40

-------
                       PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

      Type of action                               Number of States

      Site investigation or listing                           6
      Proposed remedial plan                             14
      Administrative/enforcement orders                   2
      Program to identify releases                          1
      Proposed settlement agreement                       1
      Notice of violation                                   1
      Closure plans                                       1
       Public Comments

       Eighteen States solicit public comments on site listing or remedial plans; sixteen of
these States solicit comments pursuant to statutory requirements; and two of these States
do so as a matter of policy. Seven States have a designated comment period ranging from
30 to 60 days; the others did not report a specific time period.

       Pennsylvania requires the opportunity for public comment and at least one public
hearing on the administrative record and  requires the agency to respond to all significant
comments. In Montana the public participates in risk assessment design at select sites.
      Public meetings/Hearings

      Twenty-five States report that they have provisions for public meetings or hearings.
They are required by statute or regulation in eleven States.  In addition, two States (Oregon
and Wisconsin) require that a public meeting be held upon petition or request.  In two
States (Michigan and Missouri) only an annual meeting is required, either to update a site
list or to review the State program.

      While not required by statute or regulation, in another twelve States  meetings may
be held  at the discretion of program officials.   In Puerto Rico, public  meetings are
conducted for emergency sites where EPA is the lead agency.
                                        41

-------
      Indiana holds two or three public meeting per site, followed by a mailing to affected
parties.  It often polls the public regarding possible remedies. Minnesota assigns a public
relations officer to each site and conducts a public meeting at the completion of the RI/FS
to explain the proposed plan. Louisiana implements a community relations program at
complex sites and holds  regular public meetings.   Before concluding any settlement
agreement Louisiana  holds public meetings and makes  copies of the draft agreements
available to the public.
      Community Relations

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

      Community relations programs are a growing feature of State public participation
program activities.  Nine States (up from four in 1990) reported engaging in  extensive
community relations efforts with regard to hazardous waste sites.

      Upon petition of 10  or more local residents, or on its own initiative Massachusetts
develops a plan for community involvement regarding response actions.  The State may
provide technical assistance grants and must permit public site inspections by community
representatives.  Petitions for public involvement in the assessment and cleanup process
have been filed for 69 sites in Massachusetts.

      New York's  State Superfund Management Board, which oversees remedial programs,
includes environmental group and citizen representatives and its DEC has 10 full time staff
members assigned  to citizen participation.

      Washington has established regional citizens' advisory committees and provides public
participation grants to individuals and non-profit public interest groups.  Alaska  forms
citizen advisory panels for major cleanups. Colorado's local advisory groups meet with the
Department of Health bi-monthly.
                                        42

-------
                                  CHAPTER IV

                STATE PROPERTY TRANSFER PROVISIONS
       Many States have  enacted laws linking the discovery  or  cleanup of hazardous
materials to private transactions affecting real property. As part of this year's update the
States were asked  to identify any "law, regulation,  or policy that  links the discovery,
identification, investigation, cleanup or disclosure of hazardous substance contamination to
transfers of real property, or to transfers of ownership or control of such property." In
response to this question eighteen states identified laws and regulations linking superfund
responsibilities to real property transactions.  Those laws generally  required the owner, or
the state, to disclose that the property was contaminated by hazardous materials either by
recording such notice with the deed, or by disclosing the  information at the time of the
property transaction. Thirty four States1 reported that they have no laws linking superfund
responsibilities to property transfers.

       While States were not asked specifically about liens, five States2 reported that they
have enacted "superlien" laws giving the State a first-priority lien against property subject
to a cleanup. Such superliens have priority over security interests filed prior to the state's
lien.
      Recording statutes

      Eight States3 reported that State laws require information disclosing that property
that has been or is being used for disposal or storage of hazardous substances be recorded
with the recorder of deeds.4  In three States5 the recording statute is triggered  by a
    1  Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia,  Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii,  Idaho,  Kansas, Kentucky,  Louisiana,  Maine, Maryland,  Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

    2  Arkansas, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Jersey.

    3  Indiana,  Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan,  Minnesota, Missouri, New York, and North
Carolina.

    4  RCRA regulations  require the owner of property  used as a Hazardous Waste
Disposal Facility to record that information in the deed. 40 C.F.R. § 264.119(b)(l)(1989).

                                       43

-------
proposed transfer of the property, and in five States6 recording is triggered by the presence
of hazardous materials or the listing of the property as a hazardous material site.

      Indiana's Responsible Property Transfer Law requires completion and submission of
a disclosure document prior to transfers of property that (1) contains one or more facilities
that are subject to reporting under section 312 of the Federal Emergency Planning and
Community  Right-to-Know Act, (SARA TITLE HI)  (2)  is the site of one or more
underground storage tanks for which notification is required under Subtitle I of RCRA, or
(3)  is listed on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Information  System (CERCLJS).  Property transfers include any conveyance of an interest
in property by deed; lease (whose term, if options were exercised, would be more than 40
years); assignment of more than 25 percent interest in a land trust; a mortgage or collateral
assignment of a beneficial interest in a land trust; or contract for the sale of property.  The
transfer document must be recorded in the office of the recorder for the county in which
the property is located and with the Indiana  Department of Environmental Management.

      In Iowa any transferor of real property is required to provide the recorder of deeds
with a statement regarding the existence of wells, disposal sites, underground storage tanks
and hazardous wastes on the property. The recorder is required to forward the statement
to the transferee and, if the statement reveals  that there is a well, disposal site, underground
storage tank or hazardous waste on the property, to the Department of Natural Resources.

      Louisiana requires recordation of notices that a site either (1)  has been used for
disposal of hazardous waste or for a solid waste landfill, and such wastes remain; or (2) is
an inactive or abandoned hazardous waste site or solid waste landfill.

      In Michigan, a seller who knows  that hazardous substances were released  in a
quantity requiring notice to EPA under CERCLA must provide written notice of the release
to any purchaser.   The written  notice is recorded with  the  register of deeds.   Upon
completion of cleanup the owner  records a certificate of completion of  an approved
remedial action.

      In Minnesota, before any transfer of ownership of  any property which the owner
knew or should have known was used as the  site of a hazardous waste disposal facility, or
was subject to extensive contamination by release of a hazardous substance, the owner must
record with the recorder of deeds an affidavit disclosing that the land was used to  dispose
of hazardous waste or was contaminated by  a release and that the use may be restricted.
The affidavit must contain a description of the property which discloses the identity,
   5  Indiana, Iowa and West Virginia.

   6  Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New York, and North Carolina.

                                       44

-------
quantity, location, condition and circumstances of the disposal or contamination to the full
extent known or reasonably ascertainable.

      In Missouri, notice that a site has been placed on or removed from the state registry
is sent to the recorder of deeds and the information is filed so that any purchaser will be
given notice.

      New York requires  its county clerks to index in the land records by July 1, 1993,
present owners of inactive hazardous waste sites listed in the Registry of Inactive Hazardous
Waste Sites.

      In North Carolina property owners have 180 days from receiving a determination that
property is the site of an inactive hazardous substance or waste disposal site to prepare a
notice identifying the location and dimensions of the site and the type, location and quantity
of hazardous  materials disposed.  After the  Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources approves the notice, it is recorded with the recorder of deeds. When the
hazards have been eliminated from the site, the Department sends a statement that the
hazards have been eliminated and requests that the recorded notice be canceled.  That
statement and request are  then recorded and a marginal entry made noting the date of
cancellation.

      West Virginia requires the transferor by deed, lease or other instrument to disclose
in the deed, lease, or other instrument the fact that the property was used for the storage,
treatment or disposal of hazardous waste.  A grantee or lessee of real estate or substrata
who intends to  use the property  for the  purpose of storing, treating or disposing of
hazardous  waste must provide the grantor  or lessor written notice at the time of the
conveyance or within thirty days prior.  The notice must describe the proposed location of
the site to be used for the storage, treatment, or disposal of waste, the identity of the waste,
and the proposed method of storage, treatment or disposal.

      Disclosure statement at time of property transfer

      Ten  States7  require the seller to disclose  information  about the presence  of
hazardous  materials on the property or the use of the property for activities  involving
hazardous materials.

      In California any owner of a nonresidential real estate property interest who knows
or has reason to believe that a hazardous substance is located on or beneath the property,
is required to notify, in writing, each buyer of the condition of the property prior to the sale
of the property.  Lessees of residential and non residential property are required to give
    7  California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New
Jersey, and West Virginia.

                                        45

-------
notice to the property's owner of any release of a hazardous substance on or beneath the
property.  Failure to give notice can subject the  seller to liability for damages and civil
penalties.  Sellers of real property  or residential stock cooperatives improved with or
consisting of one  to four  dwelling units must disclose whether they are  aware of the
presence of any substances, materials, or products  which may be an environmental hazard.
Counties and cities may add disclosure requirements to the California disclosure form after
July 1, 1990.

      Connecticut requires anyone transferring ownership in a business  or other concern
that generates more than 100 kg of hazardous waste per month or which recycles, reclaims
reuses, stores, handles, treats, transports, or disposes of hazardous wastes generated by
another to certify  to the transferee and the DEP that wastes  on site are being properly
managed or that the waste will be cleaned up in accordance with a DEP approved schedule.
The requirements also apply to all dry cleaners, auto body repair shops, painting shops, and
furniture stripping facilities operating after May 1967.

      The Illinois Responsible Property Transfer  Act of 1988 requires that the transferor
provide the transferee and lender an environmental disclosure document for all transfers of
real property that  contains a  facility that either manufactures,  imports, or uses hazardous
chemicals on site in an amount above a statutory threshold, or contains an underground
storage tank  that requires registration with the State Fire Marshall.  The  Act does not
require that cleanup occur prior to transfer.  Parties to the transaction may void a transfer
based on the information contained in the disclosure document  if the transfer has not been
closed or finalized.

      Indiana's Responsible Property Transfer Law requires completion and submission of
a disclosure document prior to transfers of property meeting the conditions described under
"Recording Statutes" above. If the disclosure document reveals environmental defects in the
property that were previously unknown to the other party, the party is relieved of any
obligation to  accept the transfer of property or to  finance the transfer of the property.

      In Iowa a transferor of real property is required to provide the recorder of deeds with
a statement regarding the existence of wells, disposal sites, underground storage tanks and
hazardous wastes on property.  The recorder is required to forward the  statement to the
transferee and, if  the statement reveals that there is a well,  disposal site, underground
storage tank or hazardous waste on the property, to the Department of Natural Resources.

      In Michigan a seller who knows that hazardous substances were released in a quantity
requiring notice to EPA under CERCLA must provide written notice of the release to any
purchaser.

      In Minnesota, before any transfer of ownership of any property  which the owner
knew or should have known was used as the site of a hazardous waste disposal facility, or
was subject to extensive contamination by release of a hazardous substance the owner must


                                        46

-------
record with the recorder of deeds an affidavit disclosing that the land was used to dispose
of hazardous waste or was contaminated by a release and that the use may be restricted.
The affidavit must contain a  description of the property which discloses the identity,
quantity, location, condition and circumstances of the disposal or contamination, to the full
extent known or reasonably ascertainable.  Minnesota has established a Property Transfer
Technical Assistance  Program  to assist people in determining whether real property has
been the site of a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance, pollutant or
contaminant.  The program may also assist in or supervise the response actions.

       Missouri  law provides  that no  person may sell, convey or transfer  title  to  an
abandoned  or uncontrolled hazardous waste disposal site which is  on the state registry
without disclosing to the buyer early in the negotiation process that the site is on the
registry, specifying applicable use restrictions and providing all registry information for the
site.  The seller must also notify the buyer that he may be assuming  liability for any
remedial action  at the site.  The seller must notify the Department of Natural Resources
of the transfer in ownership within 30 days after the transfer.

       New Jersey's 1983 Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act (ECRA), requires the
transferor of industrial property to file with the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy (NJDEPE) 60 days prior  to transfer of property,  either (1)  a site
cleanup  plan or (2)  a negative declaration certifying  that the  property  is free  of
environmental impairment. If the declaration proves false, or any other noncompliance with
ECRA is found, the  transferee or NJDEPE may void the transfer, and the transferor
becomes strictly liable for cleanup costs and is subject to $25,000 per day in fines. Transfers
include (1) sale of stock, (2) sale of a controlling share of the assets, (3) conveyance of real
property by deed or mortgage foreclosure, (4) dissolution of corporate identity, (5) financial
reorganization, or (6) initiation of bankruptcy.  Prior to consummation of the transfer the
NJDEPE must approve the negative declaration, approve that cleanup has  been completed,
or approve an Administrative Consent Order providing for cleanup.

       West Virginia requires the transferor by  deed, lease or other instrument to disclose
in the document the fact that the property was used for the storage, treatment  or disposal
of hazardous waste. A grantee or lessee of real estate or substrata who intends to use the
property for the  purpose of storing, treating or disposing of hazardous waste must provide
the grantor or lessor written notice at the time of the conveyance or within  thirty days prior.
The notice must describe the proposed location of site to be used for the storage, treatment,
disposal of waste, the identity of the waste, and the proposed method of storage, treatment
or disposal.

      Duty to investigate prior to property transfer

      New  Jersey requires the seller  of industrial property to investigate and disclose
information about the presence of hazardous materials on the property or the use of the
property for activities involving hazardous material.  Connecticut requires the owner to


                                         47

-------
certify that there has been no discharge or that any discharge has been or is being cleaned
up. California requires disclosure when an owner has reasonable cause to believe that a site
is contaminated and Minnesota requires disclosure when an owner knew or should have
known of contamination.

      Duty to clean up prior to property transfer

      Two States, Connecticut and New Jersey, require the seller to either clean up the site
prior to transfer of real property or to obtain an approved cleanup plan prior to transfer of
real property.  Connecticut requires the owner to certify that there has been "no discharge,
spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of hazardous waste on-site, or that any such
discharge... has been cleaned up in accordance with procedures approved" by the State and
that "any hazardous waste which remains on-site is being managed in accordance" with the
law. If the owner is unable to submit a negative declaration, the transferee or any other
party to the transaction must certify that the property will be cleaned up to the  extent
necessary to protect human health or the environment pursuant to  an order, stipulated
judgment or consent agreement approved by the State.

      New Jersey requires any industrial establishment closing, selling,  or  transferring
operations to submit either a negative declaration or  a cleanup plan for the site prior to
completing the transaction. The State must approve the negative declaration or the cleanup
plan before the transaction may  be completed and the owner or operator must  supply
financial security sufficient to guarantee  performance of any cleanup plan.  In the event of
a false negative declaration, or completion of the transaction without  prior state approval,
the transaction may be voided by the State or the transferee.

      Computerized data base

      Seven States reported that they maintain a database of known or listed sites which
is available to the public. Connecticut maintains a database from filings made by parties
to property transfers. Kansas reports that listing of a site on its database stops transfers of
listed property. Minnesota maintains a Property Transfer Project Identification List which
provides data on 170 sites for which a person has requested property transfer assistance and
a Property Transfer Notifiers List which contains information about sites where the state was
notified about contamination but no request  for technical  assistance has been  made.
Montana is in the process of compiling a data base of  the locations of all hazardous waste
sites, which is expected to be completed in the winter of 1992. In the interim, its list and
map of hazardous waste sites are available to the public. New Jersey maintains a database
containing site information on sites that were the subject of an ECRA application. New
York maintains a Registry of Inactive Hazardous  Waste Sites.  Washington  maintains a
database of suspected  contaminated  sites and all UST facilities regulated under state law,
which is commonly used by consultants conducting site assessments.
                                         48

-------
               PROPERTY TRANSFER PROVISIONS
No Law                                        34 States
Super Lien                                      5 States
Record on Deed                                  8 States
Disclose before transfer                           10 States
Examine before transfer                           2 States
Clean up before transfer                           2 States
Data Base                                       7 States
                               49

-------
                       CHAPTER V
                    SO-STATE TABLES
                        TABLE V-l

OVERVIEW OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES AND CAPABILITIES
                        SUMMARY
         29 States have Fund and enforcement capabilities with active cleanup
         programs.

         12  States  have  Fund and enforcement capabilities with limited
         activities.

         11 States have partial programs, lack Funds applicable to non-NPL
         cleanups, or lack enforcement authorities.
             STATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS

Full Fund and Enforcement/
Active Program
Full Fund and Enforcement/
Limited Activities
Partial Programs
1989
25
14
11
1990
27
14
9
1991
29
12
11
                            51

-------
                                                        TABLE V-l
                 OVERVIEW OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES AND CAPABILITIES
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities contained in two statutes - fund for cleanup and oversight limited.
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Limited fund and enforcement authority.	
REGION III
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Fund and enforcement capabilities - program under development following enactment of cleanup statute.
Enforcement capabilities - fund limited to underground storage tank cleanup.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - first allocations from fund recently approved.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - fund is limited.
Limited fund capabilities - enforcement only under RCRA-type hazardous waste law.
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia

Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina

South Carolina
Tennessee
Fund and enforcement capabilities - limited fund.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capability - limited fund and enforcement capabilities under Hazardous Waste
Management Act.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - must use enforcement provisions in other statutes or regulations, however.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - two funds available to program, which is concentrating on voluntary
compliance.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
                                                              52

-------
                                                  TABLE V-l (Cont'd)
                 OVERVIEW OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES AND CAPABILITIES
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities under several statutes - active cleanup and oversight
program.
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Fund and enforcement capabilities - limited program activities.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Some fund and enforcement capabilities - fund and program activities limited.
Some fund and enforcement capabilities - fund and program activities limited.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Fund and enforcement capabilities - fund for cleanup limited.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
No fund and limited program activity - limited enforcement authority.
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
No fund for State cleanup - enforcement under other statutes or Federal authority.
Enforcement capability and limited fund - fund and program activities limited to date.
Limited fund and program activity - some enforcement authority in a separate statute.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - program activity and fund are limited.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - program activity is limited.
Limited enforcement authority and fund - limited program activity.
REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii

Nevada
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement authority - program activity limited. In the process of developing
administrative rules.
Limited fund and enforcement authority - program activity limited.  In the process of developing
administrative rules.
                                                              53

-------
                                           TABLE V-l (Cont'd)

               OVERVIEW OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES AND CAPABILITIES

REGION X	
Alaska                       Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Idaho                        Limited fund - no enforcement authority specifically for cleanup of hazardous waste sites.
                            Program activity limited.
Oregon                       Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
Washington                    Fund and enforcement capabilities - active cleanup and oversight program.
                                                     54

-------
                                   TABLE V-2

                 STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND PROVISIONS

                                   SUMMARY



•     44 States have full Fund capabilities.

•     41 States have enforcement capabilities under "superfund" laws.

•     39 States have statutes providing full Fund and enforcement capabilities.

•     2 States have no fund.

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

•     11 States have enforcement authorities only in statutes other than their "superfund"
      laws.

•     24 States report statutory provision for a priority list.

•     17 States report some type of citizen suit provision.

•     14 States provide some kind of victim compensation.
                                       55

-------
  S
  i
  04
>
s I
s i


        e
       §
      O.
       '
       1

             X
             XX
              XX
                      x
    X
X
XXXXX
    XXXXX
                  ***
             111

       11 I

                                  3
XXX
              X
                                     6*
                                    II
    XXX
                      i 4
                      r-C tf
              ?l S 1
              115*
              p  1!
              I
                     I
                        §
                        I
                                               '•

n n
s>

                                                £
                                                O
                       56

-------
s
O
53
2  1

9  I
   ^

   §2

t

 i
 5
 £
 9

 i

               X
       X    XX
       XX  X  X X O
            X  X X X
       §•
            i
            •s
            ^
                    I
                    n

                      i
       8 5



                                  X
                                       X
                               x"x  xox  oxx  xx
                                          XXX  XX
                                  -s

                           i
                                       tt
                               B-
                                          a


                                          1
                                              •M    ^

                                              1  ? ?

                                            >  >
                                   is lit! ]*h
                                   .  . I is


                     57

-------
s
en

I

3   S
1
         JS i
        I
        OS
        3
        CO
               S5
               o
   >

   23
XXX
                  X X
        X
                  XX   X  X  X  X
XX   X X  X ""X
                           i
                              1

                              ;o
                                 ill
                                 II
a  (3  9>  • • •
                  .
                  s ^
                           i  •!
               o
               3
                                                  X
                                              X
X
                                              xxx

                                           l
                                           < g.
                                               I
                                                               X
                  XXXXX     OO   X
                                    w  x
                            j s
                            S B5
                                                            I
                                   11
                                   12
                                   11
                                                           • •
                                       S
                                   O   &
                u S 3


                III

                " « n

                ^ S >
                                                                    .52
                                                                    1
                                                                     1 *•
                                 58

-------





o
i
a.

1 *
B w
M
2 s
s g
1 1
52
|








£b s
v *s 2
a, a w
l££
|
||
ul
9_
"C ^*
£ 3

i s

§ s
u -1
0,
ll





i

























M
i
s


Tt -Z


X *X


X X




x x x *b


XXX
* * I I
f ii I I
0 «i | 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 l i

1 i
I i i i






















1
i
s
   X
   X     O   X   X   O
   X     X   X
    as
X   M
   1

     S   o
   s£  3



                  I   f

                                   X  *X   X
                                   XXX
                X   X   X   X
                                                (3
                                   X   X   X   M


                     £

                     3
                                                               £•



                                                               3
59

-------
33
«d
a
        I
       o S
        I.
        si
       s
       1
            X
            I
   X
              O • •
                      X
                    X X
XX  O X X
                  U X X

                    HI
            IpuJifiili
                               I fi 2
                I*t*
                rt ** +5 *5 «p4 O
                      60

-------
                                   TABLE V-3

                           HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES

                                   SUMMARY
•     34 States have an inventory/registry or a priority list of hazardous waste sites.

•     Total known and suspected hazardous waste sites in a State range from 0 (the
      District of Columbia) to 26,000 (California).

•     Sites identified as needing attention in States range from 1 to 2512 (Massachusetts).

•     Each State establishes its own criteria for placing sites on an inventory/registry,
      priority list, or list of sites needing attention.
                                       61

-------
   en
9  >

11
^
Cfl

i
                Is
                IS
                li

          1
             !
II
               8
                             Sr-
                           js a
                        rl  «0 V»
                          i S.B,
                        a  °> a  s  a
                        O  O O   rl  »-l
                        a  o> a  s  s
                                          62
                                              £   S

                                                  j
                                   8
                                 oo is
                                                            *
                       §
                                                 s
                                                 8 °
                          s
                          •s

                                   a «^
                                 a s «
                                   li

-------

;B
I
Cfl

   •2
    =
   HOJ

Pro
CO
          8
          P
              I §
        r< rH O N O O O
                           S I
                                S I 8
                        8 P S?
                      <^ 
                     §
                           s o
                   63

-------
      C/3
 a
a
      00
               CO

               i

                         co
                       £9

                      "
                      HW
               CO
               J
                      1
                                                                  a
                                                                  •a
                                      «n   S  S  S   6
o  «-i  o   o
                            s  s  a
                                      O   O  O  O  O
                                      s  a  s  s  a
                                s   a
                                 §
                                          3
                                                            55  P   a
                                                                                          O   O   O  —I  •->   O
                                                                 i
                                                                      64

-------
B
              I
                            s  P
                                                         s   a  s
                                         8
2   8
                                                     o   o  o
                                                     VO   Ov  00
                                                 X
                                                 §
                                                        65

-------
                           TABLE V-4

                   PROGRAM ORGANIZATION

                           SUMMARY



Program staff levels range from one staff member to approximately 800 positions
(New Jersey).

40 States rely on the State AG's office for legal support.

30 States report increases in staff levels from 1990; seven States report decreases.
                STATE STAFFING DEVELOPMENTS

10 or less Staff
11 to 50 Staff
51 to 100 Staff
Over 100 Staff
1989
16
25
3
6
1990
11
27
4
8
1991
11
28
3
10
                               66

-------
                                                        TABLE V-4

                                            PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
                     Agency
                                             Program
                                             (Number of Staff)
                                   Legal Support
                                   (Number of Staff)
REGION I
Connecticut           Department of Environmental Protection


Maine                Department of Environmental Protection


Massachusetts         Department of Environmental Protection


New Hampshire        Department of Environmental Services




Rhode bland          Department of Environmental Management


Vermont              Agency of Natural Resources
                                             Site Remediation and Closure
                                             Division (48)

                                             Site Investigation and Remediation
                                             Division (27)

                                             Waste Site Cleanup Program (460
                                             authorized, 208 funded)

                                             • Waste Management Division
                                               (several)
                                             • Water Supply and Pollution
                                               Control Division (3)

                                             Environmental Response Section (12)
                                             Hazardous Sites Management
                                             Section1 (11)	
                                   AG's Office (2-3 FTE)


                                   AG's Office (1-1/2)
                                   • DEP(12)
                                   • AG's Office (8)

                                   AG's Office (legal support)
                                   • DEM
                                   • AG's Office (2)

                                   AG's Office (3, half-time)
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Department of Environmental Protection and
Energy
Department of Environmental Conservation
Environmental Quality Board
•  Division of Publicly Funded
   Site Remediation (400)
•  Division of Responsible Party Site
   Remediation (over 390)

•  Division of Hazardous Waste
   Remediation (321)
•  Department of Health (82)

•  Hazardous Waste Site Inventory
   Program (6)
•  Superfund Core Division (7)
•  Emergency Response Team (3)
•  AG's Office, Hazardous
   Waste Litigation Section
   (30)
•  NYDEC(20)
•  AG's Office (7)
EQB legal department (1)
REGION III
Delaware


District of Columbia    Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Maryland             Department of the Environment
Pennsylvania           Department of Environmental Resources
Virginia               Department of Waste Management

West Virginia          Department of Commerce, Labor, and Natural
                     Resources
Division of Air and Waste
Management, Superfund Branch (20)

Environmental Regulation
Administration Pesticides, Hazardous
Waste and Underground Storage
Tank Division (5)

CERCLA Program: Preremedial (14)
   Response (13)
   CORE (7)

•  Emergency Response (13)
•  Hazardous Sites Cleanup Program
   (127)

Division of Special Programs (22)

Site Investigation and Response
Office (11)
AG's Office (1)
                                                                               None
                                                                               AG's Office (2, 75% of their
                                                                               time)
                                                                               DER Chief Counsel's Office
                                                                               (18)


                                                                               AG's Office (1)

                                                                               AG's Office (1)
       1.  Certain percentage of staff dedicated to federal and State Superfund work.
                                                             67

-------
                                                  TABLE V-4 (Cont'd)

                                            PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
                     Agency
                                              Program
                                              (Number of Staff)
                                      Legal Support
                                      (Number of Staff)
REGION IV
Alabama              Department of Environmental Management
Florida               Department of Environmental Regulation
Georgia              Department of Natural Resources
Kentucky             Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
                     Cabinet

Mississippi            Department of Environmental Quality
North Carolina        Department of Environment, Health & Natural
                     Resources

South Carolina        Department of Health and Environmental Control
Tennessee            Department of Environment and Conservation
                                              Special Projects Office (12)
                                              • Remedial Unit (3)
                                              • Site Assessment/State Superfund Unit
                                                (91)

                                              • Bureau of Waste Cleanup (60)
                                              • Emergency Response (12)

                                              Environmental Protection Division (3),
                                              11 additional positions authorized

                                              Uncontrolled Sites Branch (26)
                                              Hazardous Waste Division, CERCLA
                                              Section (IS positions)

                                              Superfund Section (25)
                                              Site Engineering and Screening Division
                                              (16)
                                              • Site Screening Section (9)
                                              • Site Engineering Section (7)
                                      DEM (6)
                                      DER's Office General
                                      Counsel (2)

                                      Department of Law
                                      Department of Law,
                                      Waste Legal Branch (2)

                                      AG's Office (2)
                                      AG's Office (2)
                                      DHEC (81)
                                              Division of Superfund (S3 authorized, 39    • DHEC (2)
                                              filled)                                 • AG's Office
REGION V
Illinois



Indiana


Michigan


Minnesota



Ohio


Wisconsin
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Environmental Management
Department of Natural Resources
Pollution Control Agency
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Land Pollution Control (263)
•  dean Illinois (48)
Project Management Branch (40)


Environmental Response Division (227
authorized, at least 163 filled)

•  Site Response Section (65)
•  Program Development Section (IS)
•  Solid Waste Section (18)

Division of Emergency and Remedial
Response (154)

Emergency and Remedial Response (96)
Environmental Repair (State) (14)
•  AG's Office

•  lEPA's Office of Legal
   Counsel (7)

•  DEM (6)
•  AG's Office (3)

AG's Office (7.5)
•  AG's Office (3)
•  OEPA(7)
•  AG's Office (3)

•  DNR(3)
•  AG's Office (4)
       1. Certain percentage of staff dedicated to federal and State Superfund work.
                                                              68

-------
                                                   TABLE V-4 (Cont'd)

                                             PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
                      Agency
                                                                   Program
                                                                   (Number of Staff)
                                                                                Legal Support
                                                                                (Number of Staff)
  REGION VI
  Arkansas



  Louisiana


  New Mexico
Kansas


Missouri




Nebraska
                     Department of Pollution Control and Ecology



                     Department of Environmental Quality


                     Environment Department
                                              Hazardous Waste Division:
                                              Superfund Branch (1) (10 staff
                                              authorized for FY92-93)

                                              Inactive and Abandoned Sites
                                              Division (46 authorized, 38 filled)

                                              • Toxic Sites Bureau, Superfund
                                                Section (10)
                                              • Toxic Sites Bureau, Remediation
                                                Section (6)
                                              • Other NMED staff (IS)
                                                                                                     DPCE (8)
                                                                                                     DEQ(l)


                                                                                                     NMED General Counsel
                                                                                                     (10)
Oklahoma
Texas
Oklahoma State Department of Health
Texas Water Commission
Solid Waste Management Service (7)
Hazardous and Solid Waste Division
(38)
OSDH (1)
AC'S Office (3) and
Commission Legal Staff
REGION VII
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources
Solid Waste Section (9.75 F.T.E.)
• DNR Legal Services (1,
Department of Health and Environment


Department of Natural Resources




Department of Environmental Control
                                                                   Bureau of Environmental
                                                                   Remediation (35)

                                                                   • Hazardous Waste Program,
                                                                     Superfund Section (21)
                                                                   • Environmental Services Program
                                                                     (10)

                                                                   Hazardous Waste Section (8)
                                                                                                         less than half-time)
                                                                                                       • AG's Office

                                                                                                       DHE(2)
                                                                                                       • DNR(1/2PTE)
                                                                                                       • AG's Office (1 PTE)
                                                                                                       • DEC(51)
                                                                                                       • AG's Office (21)
  REGION VIII
Colorado




Montana


North Dakota


South Dakota


Utah




Wyoming
                      Department of Health
                                              • Remedial Programs Section (15)
                                              • Hazardous Waste Control (2)
                                              • Solid Waste and Incident
                                                Management (2)
                      Department of Health and Environmental Sciences    Superfund Program (25)
                      Department of Health and Consolidated
                      Laboratories
                                                                  Division of Waste Management
                                                                  Hazardous Waste Program (5)
                      Department of Environment and Natural Resources   Division of Environmental Regulation
                                                                    (2FTEs)
                      Department of Environmental Quality
                      Department of Environmental Quality
                                                                  Division of Environmental Response
                                                                  and Remediation, Superfund Branch
                                                                  (20)
                                                                  •  Water Quality Division (one full-
                                                                     time staff)
                                                                  •  Solid Waste Management Division
                                                                     (no full-time)
                                                                  •  Air Quality Division (no full-time)
                                                                                                     AG's Office (14)
                                                                                Special Assistant Attorney
                                                                                General (3)

                                                                                AG's Office (1)
                                                                                                     AG's Office
                                                                                •  Division of
                                                                                   Environmental Response
                                                                                   and Remediation (1)
                                                                                •  AG's Office (3)

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

                                                              69

-------
                                                TABLE V-4 (Cont'd)

                                           PROGRAM ORGANIZATION

Agency
Program
(Number of Staff)
Legal Support
(Number of Staff)
REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Department of Health
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
• Office of Waste Programs (141)
• Office of Water Quality (7)
Site Mitigation Program (233)
Remedial Response Program (20)
Waste Management Bureau:
Superfund Branch (31)
AG's Office (2)
• DHS(4-5)
• AG's Office (9)
AG's Office
AG's Office (2, part-time)
REGION X
Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Soil, Prevention &
AG's Office (3)
 Idaho
 Oregon

 Washington
Department of Health and Welfare
Department of Environmental Quality

Department of Ecology
Response, Contaminated Sites Section
(44)

Division of Environmental Quality      AG's Office (4)
•  Division of Planning and
   Education
•  Division of Community Programs
   (25 authorized, 17 filled for the 2
   divisions)

Environmental Cleanup Division (66)    AG's Office (1 FTE)
Toxics (148)
AG's Office (3-4 FTEs)
1. Certain percentage of staff dedicated to federal and State Superfund work.
                                                            70

-------
                          TABLE V-5

  PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF:  FUNDING SOURCES

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

33 States receive administration funds from their hazardous waste cleanup fund.

49 States receive federal funding for program administration and staff.
          STATE PROGRAM FUNDING DEVELOPMENTS

Support from General Fund
Support from Cleanup Fund
1989
30
23
1990
32
29
1991
33
33
                              71

-------
            TABLE V-S

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF:
        FUNDING SOURCES

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


X
X
X
X
X
X

X X (property transfer fees)
X X (Dedicated revenues from Solid Waste Fund and
Landfill Closure Bond Account)
X X (unspecified)
X
X
X
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico

X
X
X
X
X
X X (cost recovery)
X
X
REGION III
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
X

X
X
X

X


X

X
X

X X (cost recovery funds)
X
X
X
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


X





X
X
X
X
X
X CA with RPs
X
X
X
               72

-------
         TABLE V-5 (Cont'd)

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF:
         FUNDING SOURCES

State General Cleanup
Fund Fund
Federal Other
Grants
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X RP reimbursement and penalties.
X Solid waste disposal fees
X Various funds authorized by state statutes
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
X
X
X X

X
X
X UST and Motor Fuels Trust Funds
X
X
X
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
X
X
X X

X Oil Overcharge Fund
X RP reimbursement
X
X
                73

-------
         TABLE V-5 (Cont'd)

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF:
         FUNDING SOURCES

State General Fund Cleanup Fund
Federal Grants
Other
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
X
X X
X
X
X X
X (1/2)
X
X

X
X
X(l/2)

X (3 RP-funded positions)
X (Federal RCRA grants)

X (voluntary contributions)

REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
X
X
X X


X
X
X
X (taxes, fees, penalties)
X (Bond Fund)

X (Hazardous Waste Fees)
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X




                74

-------
                                TABLE V-6




                      STATE/FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP




                                SUMMARY
•     50 States have some type of Cooperative Agreement with EPA.



•     22 States have Site-Specific Cooperative Agreements with EPA.




•     38 States have Multi-Site Cooperative Agreements with EPA.



•     30 States have Support Agency Cooperative Agreements from EPA.




•     45 States have Core Program Cooperative Agreements from EPA.



•     18 States have signed a Superfund Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA).




•     9 States have a draft or are in negotiations for a SMOA.
              STATE/FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENTS

CAs
MSCAs
SACAs
CPCAs
SMOAs
1989
44
19
34
41
10
1990
44
22
31
41
17
1991
50
38
30
45
18
                                   75

-------
        TABLE V-6
STATE/FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP
SSCAs
MSCAs
SACAs
CPCAs
SMOAs
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts X
New Hampshire X
Rhode Island X
Vermont
X
X
X
X
X
X



X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X





X
REGION II
New Jersey X
New York X
Puerto Rico
X
X


X
X
X
X
X

D
N
REGION III
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia X
West Virginia
X

X
X
X
X
X



X

X
X
X

X
X
X
N
N

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




X
D


X

X


X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X


N
X

X

REGION V
Illinois X
Indiana X
Michigan X
Minnesota X
Ohio
Wisconsin X
D « Draft
N » In negotiation
X
X
X

X

76

X

X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
D
X
X
X
N


-------
     TABLE V-6 (Cont'd)




STATE/FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP



        SUMMARY

SSCAs
MSCAs SACAs
CPCAs
SMOAs
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana X
New Mexico X
Oklahoma
Texas
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X

X
X
X

X
X
N
X
REGION VII
Iowa X
Kansas X
Missouri X
Nebraska X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X


D

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

X X
X

X
X

X
X

X



X

REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
X
X X
X X
X

X

X




REGION X
Alaska
Idaho X
Oregon
Washington X
D - Draft
N « In negotiation
X X
X X
X X
X
77
X
X
X
X



X
X


-------
                                  TABLE V-7

               FUNDING OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES

                                  SUMMARY


•      50 States have cleanup funds, 2 States have no fund.

•      18 States have more than one fund or Account.

•      Total State superfund balance for all States is S603.7M (unobligated) with an additional
       $1,614.8M authorized in bonds in 6 States.

•      On average, States  have fund balances of $11.6M available for cleanup  activities
       (excluding bond authorizations above).

•      The median State fund balance is $3.75M (excluding bond authorizations).

•      The 15 States with fund balances over $10M (excluding bond authorizations) contain
       S527.8M, 87% of the total State superfund balance.

•      Including bond authorizations, fund balances are distributed as follows:

            2 States have no fund (NE and DC)
            13 States have less than $1M
            14 States have between $1M and $5M
            5 States have between $5M and $10M
            14 States have between $10M and $50M
            4 States have more than $50M

       For the 34 States providing information, total  annual additions to  State funds  are
       estimated to be $381.6M/year (a 13% increase from 1990).

       Sources of funds comprising more than 20% of  fund additions are:

            Fees (25 funds  in 22 States)
            Appropriations (19 funds in 17  States)
            Bonds (15 funds in 13 States)
            Penalties and fines (15  funds in 14 States)
            Taxes (13 funds in 12 States)
            Cost recoveries (11 funds in 10 States)
                                       78

-------
 a
 8
1
0}
"O
I
            P.
H         o..-
ft,         ._ BA     tt.   ft.
U      u   boU   ~   o ft.  B.

-------
I
t^
a  I
P^  ub
g

     1
     '•3
     •a
     3
1

§
     •a
     £
                H o.


                O.O

                .-CO


                «<
             £s  8
             • •
                  8
                     .s
             P-
             5B c  ^ ^
             111!
             • •  •
            I     I
                             I
                             3
                         H

                         e.
Q.


u


CO
H


e.





•« a.


u u



-------
    G
I
£
    1
I
           !

                 2
  H
  o,

a, «.
                                 oi  *  o.    a.  o.
                                 a,  cu  <«    ._  ._
                                    U  ^3  flU
                        •  •
(9/91
            £  I
•

•
                              I  I I  I I  I  I
                                           I  i
                                81
                                                                  •s
                                                          i8»
                                                       I  jij,
                                                       Illill

-------
np

I
 I
ual Additions
 
-------













i
|
ts 5
I 1
1 1
1 g
O
g
M
Q
§
fa







a
3
b
•s
'S?
If
3
O
CO

o
S
•o
22
1

^
I
1






1






























£
o
O
§
a.

—
bo ft. h O.
u. u o, o. — a.
o ._ u B. ft, O
• u CO o o <

1 1
a f
}g,
>•
|
1 ill if.
* ^ ^ • •

a S E c s S §
• • 8 S S • •



'S ^O O
E "2 ^ § ' —
.S S §• ^ £ §
jlj | | If I
• • 2 s o • •


a 1 a
1 -1^1-
1 Jill

























£
O
S

H

0.
u
0. M M
^b u tt.
0 ft, < ft, u

9 • • • «t




„ ill z
w» • • • A
/^,
^
e:
S ^><->
|5S
» |MM G>
I 283 |
S ^
8 « • • 8
1
jj
•|
I 1 ^1
"e S (2 "5 ? S Sg
£ f 8 1 i£ § S'*
1 S 1 1 1 1 -lsg §1
! ls^ ! i 1 ! t!». |i
a ... 1 * h*,lMl> i1
SoiSiivsuSS "-S3

-------
fl
"=
§

5
                       I

                       I
                       <*H
                       O
                       i
!
 3
                       i
                       I
                                   fc
                         o.   o.


                   ._    u    «


                    M>   «    <


                   b    •    •
                                                                       <    A.
                                                •    •
                                                                  S   ^    I
                                                .    .

                                                                  84


-------
r*

£
              I
              b
              •8
              3
              8
              o
              CO
             ]
             "3
                     fc
                     O
H


a.
u

<
H


a.
u


•
O


•
u

<
                  a.

                  ft.
                              3  8

                              •  •

-    Ill
                              •  •
                                                                                •5

                                                                                g
                                                                                .1
                                                                                Si
                                       85

-------









3
^
^<
r i
STATE <
GCK
0
0
g
s
p
fa









•3
1
*ft
o
'««*
¥
l
I
i
T3
<
TS
w
3

^-~\
§
•o
1
1
CQ
•a
£









•o
b





























X
X
0
I


bO flu
-^
£? sr ^^ ^^
s * s s
i fe 1 1
§5 ^ ^
^18 S
S S S
• • • •



8s fr
i 1 If 1
o li a _ a
•E 9 a ^ a
ill ^ - ^

ill i ^^
• • • •



1 ^
     H


     Cu
     ••
      f
I    II
     ••


              §


              I


              1
              I
 S
 m

J
                    ** "   -
                     S

                   ^8 &
                   Si 3


               »^i i
               ill]
              «-4«*)Tri/$>dr>:

                                        "
                                        .s
                        !§
                        8 £

                        11
                        "c -S
                        i. 8
                        S i
                        2|
                        3 s
                        i?
                        <3£
    86

-------
                           TABLE V-8

                     FUND EXPENDITURES

                           SUMMARY
A total of $427.7M was spent or encumbered from States' Funds (2 States not
reporting)

Amounts spent or encumbered by States are distributed as follows:

      23 States spent or encumbered less than $1M
      11 States spent or encumbered between $1M and $5M
      5 States spent or encumbered between $5M and $10M
      10 States spent or encumbered between $10M and $50M
      1 State spent or encumbered greater than $50M
      2 States provided no information

The median amount spent or encumbered by States was $1.2M.

$356.8M was spent or encumbered by the eleven States that spent or encumbered
more than $10M (83.4%)
                               87

-------
                                            TABLE V-8

                                    FUND EXPENDITURES
                                                               Amount
                                                         Spent/Encumbered
                                                              Last Year
                        Current Balance
REGION I
        Connecticut
                Emergency Spill Response Fund                      W (FY91)
                52(e)(5) of Special Act                              $0 (FY91)
                529 of Special Act                                «3SM (s&e)

        Maine

                Bond Account                                 $2.4M(s) $1.3M(e)
                Uncontrolled Sites Fund                         $100K(s) $lM(e)
                Landfill Qosure/Remediation Bond Account          $5.1M(s) Sl.lM(e)
                Solid Waste Fund                                   	

        Massachusetts
                Massachusetts General Fund (Bond)                 $93M(s) (7/91)
                Environmental Challenge Fund                      »M(s) (7/91)
                          S4.9M (10/90)
                       $3M (11/91) in bonds
                      S12.65M (10/91) in bonds
                           S4.8M (8/91)
                           $2 3M (8/91)
                           $13M (8/91)
                           S600K (8/91)
                           $37M (7/91)
                     Zero (S3.8M to be added in
                             FV92)
        New Hampshire
                Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund
                Bond Fund

        Rhode Island
        Vermont
                Environmental Contingency Fund
                Petroleum Cleanup Fund
$1.22M(s)/$1.35M(e)
      (N/A)

      N/A
  $315K(s) (FY91)
$4M(s)  (1/91-10/91)
  S3.3M (7/91)
 <$100K (7/91)

 S800K (10/91)
  $1M (8/91)
  $3.1M (9/91)
REGION II
New Jersey
Spill Compensation Fund
Hazardous Discharge Site Cleanup Fund
Capital Fund
New York


S37.7M (s&e)
S11.2M (s&e)
$0
S20.2M (FY90/91)


S94.4M (6/91)
$115.7M (9/91)
$0 (6/91)
S3.5M (3/91)
$973M in bonds
        Puerto Rico
                Environmental Response Fund
     $l.lM(s)
  S2.9M (6/91)
'some of which is
  encumbered

-------
                                         TABLE V-8 (Cont'd)

                                       FUND EXPENDITURES
                                                                  Amount
                                                             Spent/Encumbered
                                                                 Last Year
                          Current Balance
  REGION III
          Delaware
                  Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund

          District of Columbia

          Maryland
                  Subaccount of Hazardous Substance Control
                  Fund

          Pennsylvania
      -200K(e)

     No Fund*


   $1.2M(s) (6/91)
          Alabama
                  Alabama Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
          Florida
                  Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund
          Georgia
                  Hazardous Waste Trust Fund

          Kentucky
                  Hazardous Waste Management Fund

          Mississippi
                  Pollution Emergency Response Fund

          North Carolina
                  Inactive Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund
                  Emergency Response Fund

          South Carolina
                  Hazardous Waste Contingency Fund


          Tennessee
                  Hazardous Remedial Action Fund
       $10K(s)
 S8.1M (s&e) (FY91)
         $0
   $100K(s) (6/91)
      $211K(s)
   $165K(s) (10/91)
         SO
 S2.SM (10/91)
S8.25M (11/91)
Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund
Virginia
Solid and Hazardous Waste Contingency Fund
West Virginia
Hazardous Waste Emergency Response Fund
$38M(s) (6/91)
$lllK(s)
$395K(s) (FY91)
S21.8M (6/91)
$73K (6/91)
S1.28M (9/91)
REGION IV
 $147K(9/91)
S13.5M (5/91)
 S2.8M (9/91)
   -SSM
 S200K (6/91)
S180K (10/91)
S487K (10/91)
$lM(s) $2.5M(e) (6/91)        S5.5M obligated
                        $10M unobligated (7/91)
   $1.8M(s) (FY91)
 S4.6M (6/91)
        Currently the District is setting up an Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund for the 1991-92 fiscal year which will be funded
by registration fees and penalties.
                                                    89

-------
                            TABLE V-8 (Cont'd)

                          FUND EXPENDITURES



Amount
Spent/Encumbered
Last Year
Current Balance


REGION V
Illinois
Hazardous Waste Fund
Indiana
Hazardous Substances Response Trust Fund
Michigan
Act 307
Environmental Protection Bond Fund

Minnesota
Environmental, Compensation and Compliance
Fund
Ohio
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund
Hazardous Waste Facility Management Fund
Wisconsin
Environmental Fund



$9.6M(s)

$1.8M(s) (7/89-9/91)

S10.7M (s&e)
$19.2M(s)


$7M(s)


$6.1M(s)
$1.6M(s)

$4M(s&e) (6/30/91)



S7.7M (6/91)

S16.6M (9/91)

S10.7M (9/91)
J387.3M in remaining
bonds authorized (9/91)

S191.M (8/91)


S13.4M (10/91)
S21.2M (10/91)

<$1M (6/91)
(57.5M in bond funding
(7/91))
REGION VI
Arkansas
Hazardous Substance RA.T.F.
Emergency Response Fund
Louisiana
Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Fund


<$lK(s)(7/91)
$155K(s) (7/91)

$1.2M(s) or (e)
as of 11/91

$3.2M (7/91)
$46K (7/91)

S2.2M (11/91)

New Mexico
       HW Emergency Fund

Oklahoma
       Controlled Ind. Waste Fund
Texas
       HW Disposal Fee Fund
       Spill Respnse Fund
$90K(s)/$125K(e) (FY91)
$15K(s) (FY91)/$8-10K(e)
   $31M(s)/$10M(e)
J191K (10/91)


$60K (10/91)
S29.5M (9/91)
S300K (9/91)
                                      90

-------
  TABLE V-8 (Cont'd)




FUND EXPENDITURES



Amount
Spent/Encumbered
Last Year
Current Balance


REGION VII
Iowa
Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund
Kansas
Water Flan Special Revenue
Environmental Response Fund
Hazardous Waste Perpetual Care Trust Fund
Missouri
Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund
Nebraska

S95.7K (FY91) (7/91)

N/A
N/A
N/A

$684K (FY91)
No Fund

S314K (7/91)

$1.8M (9/91)
S600K (9/91)
J122K (9/91)

$5.3M (9/91)

REGION VIII
Colorado
Hazardous Substances Response Fund
Montana
EQ Protection Fund
Hazardous Waste/CERCLA Special Revenue
Account
North Dakota
Environmental Quality Restoration Fund
South Dakota
Regulated Substances Response Fund
Utah
Hazardous Substances Mitigation Fund
Wyoming
DEQ Trust and Agency Account Fund

$10M(s)(e)

$500K(s)/$290K(e)
N/A


$0

$92K (FY91)

$335K(s) (FY91)

$150K(s) (FY91)

SUM (8/91)

$1M (5/91)
No bonds issued yet


$59K (10/91)

$976K (9/91)

S1.5M (9/91)

$1M (10/91)
REGION IX
Arizona
Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund
California
Hazardous Substance Account
Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
Hawaii
Environmental Response Revolving Fund
Nevada
Hazardous Waste Management Fund

-S3.5M (s&e) (FY91)

$50M(e) (FY91)
$7M(e) (FV91)

$117K(s) (6/91)

$800K(s)

S11.6M (6/91)

$55M obligated (8/91)
$3M unobligated (8/91)

$120K (9/91)

$3M (9/91)
        91

-------
                                     TABLE V-8 (Cont'd)

                                   FUND EXPENDITURES
                                                             Amount
                                                        Spent/Encumbered
                                                            Last Year
                       Current Balance
REGION X
        Alaska
        Idaho
                Oil & Hazardous Substance Release Fund
                Separate "Mitigation" Account
                Hazardous Waste Training, Emergency and
                Monitoring Account
                Hazardous Waste Emergency Account
        Oregon
                Hazardous Substance Remediation Action Fund
                Orphan Site Account
$47M (s&e) (FY90)
      N/A
      N/A

     $8K(s)
   J6.5M (s&e)
    $0(FY90)
$27M (12/91)
51.7M (FY91)
$355K (6/91)

$169K (6/91)
$3.9M (7/91)
    $0
        Washington
                State Toxics Control Account
                Local Toxics Control Account
  $21M (FY91)
 <$14.6M (FY91)
 $25.9 (7/91)
   S25.2M
                                                92

-------
                          TABLE V-9
               USES OF STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
                          SUMMARY
States authorized to use Fund for:

     Emergency Response (49 States)
     Removals (47 States)
     Remedial Action (47 States)
     Studies (45 States)
     CERCLA Match (44 States)
     O&M (42 States)
     Victim Compensation (13 States)
               STATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS
Authorization for.
Emergency Response
Removals
Remedial Action
Studies
CERCLA Match
O&M
Victim Compensation
1989
46
42
41
40
36
34
11
1990
48
46
45
43
43
40
12
1991
49
47
47
45
44
42
13
                             93

-------
I

                                    8   s
                                    I   1
                                    •s   4
                                        1
                                       df
  §
ill
           2

           i|*

           III
         hi hi >

         O M hi

         ._._ O


         W u u
          W

                              i
                              l
                 « «  w  u
      O O hi O  O hi

      ••• •« O .«•»•• O  «•   «••  hi


      U O — M  V —  hi   O  —


      U U V U  UU  O O  U  U

      a a a a  a a  do  a  a
                     i  ii
                  ?
                         B

                         I
                  S-
                 .«.
                   i^i
                 ;fl
                   I?  a
                   U  i

?
£
§•
                                     94
Act
                                       £

                                       ^
          O O hi

          .... O
                                                 •ofi
                                                   55

                                              a




                                              "8
                                                         I
                 i
                 E
                 U


                 u
1
£
                 £


              I  I
                                                         I
                                                             I
                                                                       W«M>._Oh>«>

-------
fi
a
a
a
        1
        •s
        I
ON
                           ,1
                            1
                            si
                             i
                                                 I
u


M
                      o

                      60
           O  u


           .^  O
                         U  U


                         OJ  U
                   1



                   0
                                                 i
                         II
                         95

-------
33
+d




1
•«
lecial Conditions on Fu
W



•§
fa
•s
«
i

•«














REGION IV
SS
8
i
.9 »
•C 03
•| -|
i r
x "s
*rt
1 ^
111
^"i 'S
It I
Sites must not be on NPL at
Fund monies may be spent c
imminent threat exists.
Fund may be used to providi
reimbursement.
• • •
CA
t*
O
l>
u
a

> Substance Cleanup Fund
I
                                                               O  i/a

                                                               .M  U

                                                               V  O



                                                               a  o>
                                                                                   5
                                                                                   I
                                                                                   •8
                                                                                   •§
                                                                                   •s
                                                                              i
                                                                              2     s
                                                                              8     -o
                                                                                          "8
      i^     u
b     O     .-     at
U     U     U    O    h    U

0     co     ai    eg    v    eg
                                                                                          •     •
                                       V


                                       U
                                                                                                 *   *
                                                                                                       I
                                                                                 96

-------

 §
•s
I
1
u

a
U

a
                                •   •
                                   97

-------
a
             §
             09
             §
             3

             1
             U
             •a
             e


             *3
             I
                   §
                   3
                   8
                                     It  I
                                     • •
                                        98

-------
g     |
1
•a
 §

 I
of Fund
 •§
           o

           1
                 O    O    U!





                 o    o    o



                 u    u    u

                            00
                 a    a    a  v





                      0    •  0
                                     l-l




                                     O
I
I
                                                99

-------
!
ON
>
           •a



           u
           •s

           I
U



O
                     hi



                     O
   U


   eg
Wl  hi




O  O




• M  O






U  U




«  «
u


u
                                 1

                                                                    I
                                                                    .s
                                                           I  I

                                                         ulii
                                                                I
                                  100

-------
        I
        I
2  u
>  s
3  3
   CO
   p
I
•s
1
              i
              •8
                           i.
              il   !
              J s   55
              i *
       I
       .s
             II
                    i.a
                     ;i:
              I s   5
              i ^c  -2.
                  §•
              • •   •  •
                    o o


                    u u

                    u u
U U

o o
                               X
                               I
                                101
                                      1
                                      .9
                           I.  O
                                           •85
                                    I


                                      212
                                  • • •  •
                                      kP4

                                           M  O
                                              11
                                              co
                                              •8
                                              S
                                             III
                                             in
                                                      a"a
                                                      &2
                                                   ffl'S S
                                                   als.^
                                                          I
                                                      e
                                                      H
                                                      1
                                                      1
                                                      E-
                                      I
                                    CQ  y

                                    !  1
                                    s  "S
                                    £  n
                                 E ° "*
                                 |S §
                                                           «:
                                                           e
 •->?•
 >! . 2

 rH
*ia.i
      £
      I
                                 ^1*8 1
                                 !•§£! |
                                                         !i
                                                 ^ .f-i
                                                         |S jji
                                                         Ssl.e
                                      I
                                      1
                                      1
                                             P
                                             a.j
                                             »*,
                                                   ri K 8
                                                   rifl
                                               r
                                               3"
                                               I,
                                l&Ja* i
                                2 ^< .2 S •£ &
                                «IHl 1
                                1;K{ 1
                                J58^S a
                                                    »-2s?J
                                                  *l«lll
                                            sfa
                                                         3 8 * a
                                                I,

                                      II


-------
                                    TABLE V-10

                              LIABILITY STANDARDS


                                     SUMMARY
•     36 States have a strict liability standard. 14 States and the District of Columbia and
      Puerto Rico do not.
       18 States have strict, joint and several liability.

       8 additional States have strict, joint and several liability but provide provisions to
       prove apportionment.

       6 States specify proportional liability.

       3 States have joint and several liability, but not strict liability.

       4 States have strict liability but  do not prescribe either joint  and several or
       proportional liability.

       13 States have other liability standards or unspecified liability standards.
       52 Total
                                         102

-------
     TABLE V-10
LIABILITY STANDARDS
Joint and
Strict Several Proportional
Not
Other Specified
REGION I
Connecticut X X
Maine X X
Massachusetts X XX1
New Hampshire X X
Rhode Island X2 X
Vermont X XX1






REGION II
New Jersey X X
New York
Puerto Rico

X3
X
REGION III
Delaware X X
District of Columbia
Maryland X X4
Pennsylvania X X5 X6
Virginia
West Virginia

X


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


X
X?
X*



        103

-------
 TABLE V-10 (Cont'd)
LIABILITY STANDARDS

Strict
Joint and
Several Proportional
Not
Other Specified
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
X
X
X
X
xio
X
X1
X
X
X X9
X
X
X11
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
X
X
X
X X16
X X1'4
X12
X X1
X
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
X13
X
X
X
xio
X10

REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
X
X
X
X X9
X
X
X
X
         104

-------
                                            TABLE V-10  (Cont'd)
                                         LIABILITY STANDARDS
                                           Joint and                                           Not
                           Strict         Several     Proportional           Other       Specified


REGION IX	

Arizona                    XXX1
California                  X                             X1'9
Hawaii                     X               X
Nevada                     X15


REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
X

X14
X
X

X
X

X


1.       Where liable party establishes by a preponderance of evidence that he or she is only liable for a portion, then liability is
         "divisible.' (MA, VT, IL, XX, LA, AZ, CA)
2.       "Absolutely* liable - interpreted as strict, joint, and several by agency. (Rl)
3.       Determined by Commission, any statutory or common law defense available. (NY)
4.       Where there is reasonable basis for determining contribution.  (MD, LA)
5.       Legislative history indicates joint and several liability.  (PA)
6.       At multi-party sites, State is required to prepare NRARs and parties may "cashout" with proportional share plus premium. (PA)
7.       "Any person responsible for a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance."  (KY)
8.       "Any person creating, or responsible for creating, an immediate necessity for remedial or clean-up action."  (MS)
9.       Court apportionment.  (MN, MT, CA)
10.       No liability standard specified in Statute - State has argued for strict, joint and several liability. (OH, IA, KS)
11.       Primary cleanup  statute leaves liability up to common law standards.  (WI)
12.       "Persons responsible for hazardous waste cleanup* - interpreted as joint and several.  (MM)
13.       Limited strict liability - $5M for transporters, $50M for facilities. (IA)
14.       Generators and transporters are not strictly liable; State also asserts joint and several. (OR)
15.       Liability is strict for those in possession of hazardous material  involved in spill.  (NV)
16.       Strict, joint and  several liability applies at  the administrative stage,  but proportional  liability is used for cost recovery or
         contribution actions filed in court.  (AR)
                                                        105

-------
                     TABLE V-ll

        PENALTIES AND DAMAGES AVAILABLE
           IN STATE "SUPERFUND" STATUTE

                      SUMMARY
24 States have punitive damages provisions.

•   19 States have punitive damages provisions for treble the
     State's cost.

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

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

•   1 State does not limit the amount for punitive damages.

45 States and Puerto Rico have civil penalty provisions.

•   Most States have civil penalties of up to $10K/day (18 States)
     or $25K/day (16 States).

•   3 States have civil penalties of up to $50K/day.
          STATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS

Punitive Damages Provisions
Civil Penalty Provisions
1989
22
45
1990
23
45
1991
24
46
                         106

-------
                                            TABLE V-ll
                           PENALTIES AND DAMAGES AVAILABLE
                              IN STATE "SUPERFUND" STATUTE
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland

Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
                           Punitive Damages
                             Civil Penalties
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
1 1/2 times (negligence) Up to $25,000/day
AC may seek (no limit)
Treble costs Up to $25,000/violation

Treble Up to $10,000/day or administrative penalties
Treble Up to $50,000/day
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Treble Up to $50,000/day ($10M/day max. for catastrophic discharges
ifoO.OOO gallons)
Up to $25,000/violation plus $25,000/day (Doubles for second
violation)
Up to $25,000/day
REGION III
Treble
Treble
Up to $10,000/day
Up to $25,000 for each violation, not exceeding 100,000 total.
Each day a violation occurs is a separate violation.
Up to $25,000/day (min - $5,000/day).
Up to $25,000/day
Penalty for not paying fee
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina

South Carolina
Tennessee
Treble
11/2 times
$100-23,000 ($250,000 max.)
Up to $25,000/day
Up to $25,000/day
$l,000/day
Up to $25,000/day
$10,000/day for violation involving hazardous waste (Public
Health Law)
Up to $2S,000/day with stipulated penalties of $l,000/day
Up to $10,000/day
                                                  107

-------
        TABLE V-ll (Cont'd)

PENALTIES AND DAMAGES AVAILABLE
  IN STATE "SUPERFUND" STATUTE
 Punitive Damages     Civil Penalties
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Treble $10,000 for violation and $l,000/day
Treble $25.000/day and $SOO/hour of violation of emergency order,
under revision
Treble $25,000/day
$20,000/day or $100,000 for disturbing closed RCRA facility
Up to $10,000/day
$10 to $5,000/day
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Treble Up to $2S,000/day
Treble PHP's share of costs Up to $SO,000/day
$5,000/day or $10,000/day
Up to $10,000/day
Double Up to $10,000/day

REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Treble Up to $l,000/day for failure to notify; up to $10,000/day for air
and water violations
Treble Up to $10,000/day
Judicial only
               108

-------
        TABLE V-ll (Cont'd)

PENALTIES AND DAMAGES AVAILABLE
  IN STATE "SUPERFUND" STATUTE
 Punitive Damages     Civil Penalties
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana Double
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Up to $1,000 administrative penalties or $10,000 per day for
violation of order
Up to $5,000, $10,000 or $25.000 per day for violation of order.
violation of permit, regulation, or standards, or violation of
statute, permit, or orders.
Up to SlO.OOO/day
Up to $10,000/day
Up to $10,000/day for violations of Environmental Quality Act
REGION IX
Arizona Treble
California Treble
Hawaii Treble
Nevada
Civil penalty not to exceed $10,000
Up to $2S,000/day
Up to $25,000/day
Up to $10,000/day
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon Treble
Washington Treble
$500-100,000 -I- $10,000/day
Up to $10,000/day
$10,000/day
Up to $25,000/day
               109

-------
                                TABLE V-12

               NATURAL RESOURCES DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

                                SUMMARY
•     16 States report some activity to assess and/or recover for damages to natural
      resources.

•     36 States report no activity.

•     Policy under development or in place in 9 States.
                                    110

-------
                                             TABLE V-12
                 NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT TABLE
REGION I
        Connecticut
        Maine


        Massachusetts


        New Hampshire
        Rhode Island
        Vermont
No activity.

One natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) being prepared.  Bond Account and
UCS Fund are both available to prepare NRDA and to pay for restoration work. Money
has been recovered from PRPs through penalties in settlement agreements.

Massachusetts General Fund and the Environmental Challenge Fund can both be used
for NRDAs, which are based on lost use and/or restoration costs. MGF has been used
to assess 2 NPL sites but has not yet been used to remediate NRD (as of 10/91).

No activity.

No activity.

No activity.  May be possible to use the state fund to pay for restoration costs.
REGION II
        New Jersey
        New York
        Puerto Rico
All three funds can be used to prepare NRDAs. State follows DOI criteria.  Less than
S500K has been spent to date on NRDAs.

DEC has referred natural resource damage claims to the A.G.; some actions have been
filed. A natural resource damage enforcement guidance memorandum was issued
5/17/89. Various types of evaluation are used.

No activity.  (Natural Resources Department is trustee.)
REGION III
        Delaware



        District of Columbia

        Maryland

        Pennsylvania



        Virginia

        West Virginia
State can use money from the Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund to prepare NRDAs,
and is currently defining the criteria.  State has the authority to restore natural resources,
and can recover the costs from a PRP. Thus far, none of the Fund has been obligated to
pay for NRDAs.

No activity.

No activity.

As of 11/91, the state was preparing their first NRDA, basing it on both lost use value
and restoration. It is expected that this work will be completed over the next two years.
The Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund can also pay for natural resource damage restoration,
and the cost can be recovered from a PRP.

State has recovered restoration costs in one settlement.

No activity.
                                                   Ill

-------
                                        TABLE V-12 (Cont'd)

                 NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT TABLE
REGION IV
        Alabama

        Florida
        Georgia
        Kentucky
        Mississippi

        North Carolina
        South Carolina

        Tennessee
The Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund can be used for NRDAs and restoration. None
conducted to date.

No activity.

No activity.

No activity.

No activity.

No activity.

No activity.

No activity.
REGION V
        Illinois
        Indiana
        Michigan



        Minnesota

        Ohio

        Wisconsin
No activity.

No activity.

Act 307 and other statutes authorize NRDAs and the collection of money. Act 307 has
$50M cap on NRDAs unless PRP engages in gross negligence, in which case there is no
cap. State follows DOI guidelines and uses both lost use value and cost recovery. State
has contractors approved and on board and currently pursuing a few cases.

Environmental Response Compensation and Compliance Fund can be used to prepare
NRDAs and to pay for restoration; State has full cost recovery from RPs.

Both funds can be used for NRDAs.  State is developing a program which will follow
DOI guidelines. State has obtained NRDA damages in some settlements with RPs.

No activity.
REGION VI
        Arkansas
        Louisiana

        New Mexico


        Oklahoma


        Texas
No activity.

No activity. Currently working with NOAA to determine how to calculate the value or
cost.

No activity. Hazardous Waste Emergency Fund money can be used to prepare an NRDA
if site is located on state or public lands. HWEF money can also be paid out for
restoration work and later recovered from PRP.

No activity. Control Industrial Waste Fund can be used to prepare NRDA based on lost
use or restoration costs. State fund money can also be used to pay for restoration work,
and costs can be recovered from PRPs.

No activity. Fund 550 can be used to prepare NRDA and to pay for restoration costs, but
is limited to recovering value of lost use. As trustee for natural resources, the state can
get PRP to pay for restoration.
                                                   112

-------
                                         TABLE V-12  (Cont'd)

                  NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT TABLE
REGION VII
         Iowa

         Kansas

         Missouri


         Nebraska
No activity.

Administered by the Department of Wildlife and Parks and Bureau of Water Quality,
primary for spills.  Replacement costs billed directly to spiller.

Natural resources damages under water pollution and other laws, claims include
opportunity costs.

No activity.
REGION VIII
         Colorado
         Montana
         North Dakota

         South Dakota

         Utah



         Wyoming
Substantial activity using CERCLA.  Major NRD recoveries. Hazardous Substances
Response Fund can be used to prepare NRDAs and to pay for restoration work.  Money
can be recovered later from PRP. Assessments based on both lost-use value and
restoration costs, as well as other types of valuation.

Environmental Quality Protection Fund money can be used to prepare NRDAs based on
lost use value, restoration costs and a past, present and future ratio comparing market
value to non-use value. Can recover damages to resources from a PRP but not cost of
performing assessment.

State of Montana v. ARCO (1983) - Montana sued ARCO for natural resource damage at
the Butte Copper Mining area in Clark Fork River Basin.  State legislature appropriated
$5M from the State Special Fund to cover costs of continuing the suit through 1993, with
an additional S250K as an emergency fund source in 1991.

No activity.

No activity.

No activity.  Hazardous Substances Mitigation Fund money cannot be used for NRDA.
NRDA funds have been obtained in a separate appropriation. Assessments are based on
combination of cost of restoration and market value replacement. Costs are recoverable
through settlement agreement.

No activity.
REGION IX
        Arizona

        California

        Hawaii

        Nevada
State can use Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund for preparing NRDAs, and is
presently formulating criteria.

No activity.

State has the authority to use the Environmental Response Revolving Fund to prepare
NRDAs and restore natural resources.

No activity, although site assessments will look at natural resource damages.  State has
the authority to restore natural resources, as well as to recover the cost from a PRP.
                                                    113

-------
                                  TABLE V-12 (Cont'd)


               NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT TABLE


REGION X	

       Alaska                State has recovered natural resources damages, few assessments have been performed. A
                             process for assessment is under development.

       Idaho                 No activity.

       Oregon                No activity.

       Washington           Doing natural resource damage assessments of NPL sites funded out of state fund.
                             Statute includes natural resource damages.
                                            114

-------
                           TABLE V-13

            STATE CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA

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

•     7 States have promulgated separate hazardous waste remedial
      standards.

•     36 States reference MCLs.

•     42 States reference water quality criteria.

•     37 States reference EPA Guidelines.

•     24 States reference background quality.

•     38 States reference risk levels or conduct a risk assessment.
                STATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS

Hazardous Waste Remedial Standards
MCLs
EPA Guidelines
Water Quality Criteria
Background
Risk Assessment
1990
5
28
30
33
20
32
1991
7
36
37
42
24
38
                               115

-------
sa  a
K«   B
>  u


1
<§
•o
g u
.H B
55 «j
II
O.O
On
O
111
1
Promulgated
Hazardous
Waste
Remedial
Standards














C
i
3
ris due 7/92.
ID"6 to ICT7 for
anup required for
ban sites.
te cleanup standai
and risk range of '
ckground level cle
intamination at ur
a ,2,0 o
jig
!t!S


X X

X
X
X X

,
B 8
                                       X
                                                         X  X
                                                    X
                                       X
                                       X
                                                    X
                                                            X
                                                    I
                                                                      C
                                                                      3
                                                                         XXX
                                                                         X
                                                                                 X
                                                                             X  X
XXX
                                               116

-------
    u
33
**
e
3  g
~  u
W  MM


*£
g  fc

                     !
II
a Sr

"S
OPS
                          I
                                  I  1    s   J
                                  f  1    r   i

                                  ^  !    I  Ti
                                      P    S   SJ
                                                    •s
                                               2-z   s
                              X
                                      X    X
                              X   X   X
                              X   X   X   X   X
                              X
                                      X
                            X
                                  x





                                  •S.J



                                  ll
                                               11
                                             117

-------
U  H
vi-  ^^


^  2
a

H
is

           •a)
                             i  i^l1
                             i  l^j
P  P  I i
53 "3  jfi o  € 5
'? §  SS  *° -i
J.J3  H Q^

II  ii
               s  i
               "8  sol
                      i*  8° .

                      I lit
                         sl =
        *ifi 11 B din ai
        X   X
            X   XX
               X  X
        X   X  X  X
                I  I

                  118
I  jiw

i  km
                                ,
                                     81 i
                                     .§!§
                           fl
                         x  x
                         X
                                     m
                                  X  X
                         XX      XX
                                       XX      XX
                                                X  X
                                  1

-------
3

a
   2
   *•
I

S3J
111
            "8,
                 iC/D
                                          rf  2
                                          lilt  *
                                      cd
                                         to
                                             !§
                                                 i
                          §•
                         X  X
                         X  X
                         X  X
                                          11
           XX       XX
                          X
                                    X
                                    I


                                    I
                                      119
                         XX       XX       X
                                  X   X

-------
'I
*  2
a  £
o
1
£

             II
                    5
                    o
                   %
                      X
                       1,


                             i •«
                            o e

                                     Is
                                     fs

                      XX


                             X
                             x
                                120
   §"»
   I*
S'iH
iff}!
i^lll
K "P 'S S 'P 1.
^111.1^
                                     XX
                                               5:

                                               O
ter,
goals for
for
and other
rds for
Gs and othe
                                                       J
                                                       llfl«
                                                       5»iS
                                                       -^ 11
                                                        P||
                                                       lit I
                                                  XX  X
            XX   X
            XX   X
                                                     XX  X

-------
   o
1
a
T  >J
>  g
S

9
   Cfl
              b.
          WC;

       "8,
          j
            c/3
                §
 i  sir  .1  *
 .Sfiiji  It
                                         1
    fe
Mifiv
iUf!$
                                   1  1  i

                          IJjj
                          "Ili
                   X
                                 I
                                         li  s
                                      I S3

                                      !d
                                • a  • e. »2i •<  •
                           X   X
                                      X
        X   XXX
                           X   XXX
        X   XXX
                                  !  1       I
                                                       i
                                           ig t

 III

ills
LVu«i  "§
ii|i  li
l£ tf*.  5*8  o  ,
  li  l«rt*!
   r»J illfl*  i*


JiJll II
                                                             X
                                                                     X
                                                                    X   X
                                                 X  X
                                                                    X   X
                                     121

-------
g   3
u



I
&
                •§ s
                g o
                2 S
                is
                ON O



                0 «
                o
              a o
          •8
8  -a-8

  al-S
  III

                       §
                           
-------
                            TABLE V-14

           STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES

                             SUMMARY
•     43 States  have public participation procedures; 22 of these
      States  have  statutory  or regulatory  public participation
      requirements.

•     4 States are developing a policy for public participation.

•     18 States have public notice requirements.

•     18 States solicit public comments.

•     27 States hold or may hold public meetings or hearings.

•     6 States follow NCP public participation guidelines.
                                123

-------







3
9
1









W)
Q
8
i
SE
CIPATIO
cu
u
3
i
02



2
eu
1
$
a
A,



•w
i
i
2
1
1
+rf
2
CA
2
.a
£
Q



I
Jl

Jl



tl

M
Si
3
.s
 *
  •8
i»
H
5a
 i  JJ
    1-i
    11
    I'-s
    •w ^
    f'l

    I
      a
    •S
'•K c
tl

if
    r
                      ff
                 1


                 8

                 !
       I +*
       I
                      I
      ••g*
       I
    •si  s|-I
    I?  slg
        •S 8
         ,it  §
         a .fc^O
          f'3 "§
          2 •"
I*'
    I:
                 i»
                 I
g.
             i
                      •s
                      I
                      i
2 |


11


H
                          ff
                                 •s
                                 a
                                 §
.r
I
                                       •B
                                   &
                                 l|




                                 •8 i
                                 **
                                 S 3
                                          1
                                     !   I
                                           I
                                           i
                                           8
                                       V3


                                       I
                              I


                              §
                                                 •s
            124

-------
   I
M   p
a   g
    s
           1
i
en



I
3
i
           CO
           •w
           cn

                    S
                    s
         r
                       e
                       •9
             2
                          8 •
                        I
                        •s
1  i
1  i
II
I!

|J
Si
I 2
                                       I
                                                                     I
                                     •as
                                     I2

                                     II
                                     •a S
                                               i!
                                               g§
                                               EO
                                               8-1
                  82
                                                            2
                                                            I I
                                                 £  I
                           Hi
                                                              1
                                                               — >**


                                                               lit
                                                         t
                                                                     I

                                                                     1
                                                                     •s
                                                                     1
                                       ll
                                                                      i a


                                                                     If
                                                                      I
                                   h
                                   I*
                                   **
                                   «J
                                   i?
                                   rl
                                   II
                                     125

-------
/-N  fc
2  55
a  i
    G
    |
    CU



3
•14
ts
eu
8
x
!
a
o
Cu
en
"S
Q>
s
g
1
!
2
a
**
cs
•«_>
CO


1


























55
O
O
•3
a
1
•8
1

1
1
a
•B
8
3
§
C
















S
                                        •8
                           's
                           K

                           a
                           2
                           .b
                          it-
                          al

l\
l!
Public
                                  •s
                                  a

                                  li
                                  2 |
                                        S
                                        I
                                        2
                                        •3
                                        .

                                        II
                                        o. 2
                                        .a
I
•s
|
1
             1  *  I
             £  O.  O
                     J  -
                   i!  I
                                        •2 •g
                                         "
and
blic
Public no
handling.

Public m
                                                    AS
                                                           s
                                                        t  !
                                                        
-------







^^^
33
^£
I
^
s
1














c2
g
1
i
PL,
2
|
U
i
Ok
i
a-
i
H







8
1
£
8
A
t
|
o<





»
i
•g
I
^
o
2
E?
2
3
i
i
|!   Il

i|   j!

•8 «>   a u
>!   31 i
ll   ig
a '   » S

Is
I.S
2
  I  8


8,H
 ** ..
           3

           &
 £ §*  a 2.a S
 I
I
8
1
•s
 i
      a?
Is-
5. u
a o


I!
go

 -
                •
              P

              S

              I
             1
                      r
                       I

                       1
•i 1
                             •81   "

                             ol   1
                             s 1   I
                             s"
                             •a .£
                         "i |f
                                  |
          127

-------
„    £
^O     ^^f
**     f-*
 5     O


*    I

S     §
«     P
3     S
5g     8

H     S
       I
                     1
§
                     8
                                 ff

                                                                       1 "    S  g {
                                                                       1 §    £81
                                                            128
                                                                        as
                                                                        o
                                                                        o

                                                                        3
                                                                                      X
                                                                                                     
-------


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

-------