mmo
. £NV>RCrtMe.NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC
and Tertitcdcl Sold wostg Management C&c ©5
DC 2::;- .202-6*45828
OCT 2 '984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA/State Relationship in Enforcement Actions for
Sites on the National Priorities List
TO:
EPA Regional Administrators
Directors, State Solid Waste Programs
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) empowers the Environmental
Protection- Agency to take certain enforcement actions to obtain
responsible party cleanup of sites on the National Priorities
List (NPL). CERCLA does not, however, address the enforcement
authority or role of States. The result is that EPA and States
have, to this point, proceeded essentially independently, despite
common, purposes. Needed site coordination has been lacking in
many instances, and there have been occasional conflicts regard-
ing policies and specific site results. The cause has not been
disagreement over broad goals, but rather the absence of a basic
framework for the relationship.
The attached EPA policy statement creates such a framework.
It has been developed over the past year in close consultation
with EPA's Regions, and with the States through the Association
of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials and
the National Association of Attorneys General. Based on the
recognition that EPA and the States share common interests, the
policy stresses increased coordination and cooperation in en-
forcement actions, beginning with site planning and continuing
through to selection and implementation of site remedy. It also
resolves several operational issues in the current relationship:
criteria are established for determining lead responsibility for
enforcement sites; EPA's intent to begin providing funding assist-
ance for remedial investigations and feasibility studies at State-
lead enforcement sites is stated; the nature and scope of EPA
and State involvement in the other's site activities are defined;
-------
» 9831.
2-
and provision is made for EPA/State site agreements through which
EPA and State roles and responsibilities at enforcement sites
can be agreed and documented to prevent later misunderstandings
or misapprehensions.
Taken together, the actions described in the policy provide
a solid foundation for an effective EPA/State relationship in
pursuing enforcement actions at NPL sites. The absence of a
statutory structure for the relationship has presented some
problems in the past, and issues will continue to arise, but a
mechanism has been created to allow EPA and States to deal with
those issues in a way that can minimize conflict and improve the
chances for acceptable solutions.
Lee-M. Tho-as
Ass-, stan t Administrator
fcr Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Environmental Protection
Agency
LaarchiK
President, Association
of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management
Officials
-------
?831 -3
OCf 2 '384
$OUO WASTE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA/State Relationship in Enforcement Actions for
the National Priorities List
FROM:
Assistant Administrator
TO: Regional Administrators
PURPOSE
One of the major goals of EPA enforcement activities under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), and of State enforcement activities upder
State authorities, is to obtain maximum possible and timely respon-
sible party cleanup of sites on the National Priorities List 1NPL) ,
The purpose of .this policy statement is to establish a base on
which an effective EPA/State relationship can be constructed.
>
GENERAL GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The actions to be taken to establish a more effective rela-
tionship between EPA and the States in NPL site enforcement
activities are guided by certain general principles. In brief,
they are:
0 Aggressive enforcement efforts on a 'broad scale are
essential if EPA and the States are to make substantial
progress toward dealing effectively with sites on the
National Priorities List.
• State contributions to NPL site enforcement have been
and will continue to be significant.
• Close cooperation and coordination between EPA and the
States in planning and carrying out enforcement activi-
ties is necessary to obtain maximum effect and to avoid
possible conflicts and duplication.
-------
9831,3
0 States and EPA can maximize the number of enforcerr.er.t
actions by operating independently, conducting joint
actions only where such action will best serve EPA and
State interests.
9 EPA and State enforcement policies *nd procedures need
not be identical, but results of enforcement actions
should be mutually acceptable.
0 To the extent that State and EPA enforcement programs
parallel each other in substantive respects, such as in
the process for determining the appropriate extent of
remedy, the need for oversight of, and direct involvement
in, the other's activities will be minimized.
• Sharing of information between EPA and the States is key
to developing a more effective relationship.
• State experience in hazardous waste enforcement must be
recognized and accommodated in formulating- agency policies.
0 EPA will provide financial and technical support for
State enforcement actions to the extent practicable and
allowed by law.
0 EPA remains ultimately responsible for cleanup at NPL
sites, and retains the authority to take enforcement or
response' actions where needed.
BACKGROUND
From the survey of EPA Regional and headcuarters officials
conducted to assess the nature and extent of the current EPA/State
relationship, and as a result of meetings for the same purpose with
State representatives under the auspices of the Association of
State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMQ)
and the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), it is
clear that EPA and the States generally agree on broad goals in
hazardous waste enforcement activities. It is clear also that
frequently there are differences between EPA and States* and among
States, in capabilities and in legal and technical approaches
toward achieving these goals. These differences -- whether based
in provisions of law, policy decisions, or resource constraints —
can lead to situations where a responsible party cleanup or settle-
ment agreement obtained by EPA 'or a State does not satisfy the
requirements or needs of the other.
Problems created in such situations are particularly acute
when they arise in connection with NPL sites. First, EPA and the
State each may be. called on to explain or justify site results,
-------
9831.3
regardless of which had the lead enforcement responsibility.
Second, EPA potentially could be put in the position of denying a
State request to delete from the NPL a State-lead site, or of seek-
ing to delete an agency-lead site in the face of State objections.
Uniformity of EPA a.-.d State legal and technical approaches
is not e»s«rtial to prevent these situations, nor is uniformity
practicable. CERCLA is unusual among Federal environmental laws
in that it does not create a mechanism for authorizing State
enforcement programs on the basis of certain minimum legal and
resource requirements that States must meet. Accordingly, there
is no requirement that State legal provisions and technical pro-
cedures be consistent with Federal standards, nor are there the
usual mechanisms for required State reporting and Federal over-
sight. This means that EPA and the States must establish a
cooperative relationship in order to prevent, or at least minimize,
those instances where differences in capability or approach result
in a responsible party cleanup or settlement which is not mutually
acceptable.
The purpose of this policy, therefore, is to seek to create
an effective EPA/State relationship by taking certain actions to
increase cooperation and coordination, and by establishing a
mechanism for ongoing EPA/State efforts to address issues tha|
may later arise.
SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THE CURPEKT EPA/STATE RELATIONSHIP
To establish the context for a discussion of the specific
actions that EPA and the States can take to build an effective
relationship, it is important first to describe briefly the issues
in the current relationship that have been identified through the
survey of EPA personnel and the meetings with State representatives
These issues are divided among Coordination, State Enforcement
Authorities and Procedures, and Resources.
Coordination. The absence of a comprehensive policy regard-
ing EPA/State relations has left the Regional Offices and States
essentially in the position of determining for themselves the
nature and extent of their relationship. As a result, the level
of coordination and) cooperation varies among the Regions, and
even from State-to-State within the same Region.
Furthe/r, limited guidance from EPA to the States on specific
issues haw contributed to the differences in policies and proce-
dures that often exist among States and between States and EPA.
-------
9831.3
Problems created by the lack of a comprehensive EPA/State
policy and by limited issue-specific guidance have been compounded
by the absence of systematic information sharing between EPA ar.d
the States on the status of enforcement actions. Combined with
the lack of procedures for coordinating case management, EPA and
States therefore have had limited knowledge of the status of the
other's activities. Thass factors have led to occasional delays
and conflicts in administrative enforcement and litigation, and to
the discovery of problems — if discovered at all -- often late in
the enforcement process.
State Enforcement Authorities and Procedures* Most States
must rely either on broad State environmental or general statutes,
or on State hazardous waste legislation enacted prior to CERCLA.
As a consequence/ few States have the full range of authorities
available to EPA. while this has not prevented State enforcement
actions against responsible parties, it has meant that in some
instances actions have been limited in scope or coercive potential.
For example, few States have provisions analogous either to
Section 106 of the Act which provides for ^ines of. up to $5,000
per day against any responsible party who willfully violates or
fails or refuses to comply with an administrative order issued
under the section, or to Section 107 of CERCLA which enables EPA"
to seek -treble damaaes from any responsible party who fails %tith-
out sufficient cause to comply with a Section 106 administrative
order.
With regard to enforcement procedures, two particular issues
have arisen. First, some States work informally with responsible
parties, which can lead to arrangements that are difficult to
enforce successfully. Second, State negotiations with responsible
parties often are conducted without a time limit, and in some
instances involve one round led by the administrative agency and
a second round led by the attorney general's office. In either
instance, negotiations easily can become protracted.*/ In these
circumstances, it is often difficult to assess the eTfectiveness
or the likelihood of success of State enforcement efforts or
negotiations. This uncertainty makes it difficult for EPA to
define, or to plan for implementation of, its role at the site
in a manner that is sensitive both to State concerns and to public
concerns about achieving response objectives at the site. Further,
this type of situation can create EPA/State conflicts if site or
programmatic concerns cause EPA to conclude that effective enforce-
ment action is required on an expedited or more certain schedule.
I/ EPA's experience with negotiations without time limits resulted
Tn the agency developing a policy which targets negotiations fcr
completion within 60 to 120 days, unless more time is needed to
resolve complex issues with responsible parties who in the agency's
view are negotiating in good faith.
-------
9831*3
Resources. Funding for State hazardous waste enforcement
programs, whether from appropriations or in some instances from
fees and taxes/ ranges from negligible to substantial. The norm,
however, ia less than adequate. A survey conducted by ASTSWMC in
mid-1983 showed that anticipated FY 1984 increases in fundi-c an»nc
the responding 47 States still would leave these States, in the
aggregate* with staffing levels some 40 percent short of optiiruot.
The survey did not categorize technical and administrative person-
nel resources as either program- or enforcement-specific, but this
distinction is not significant, because enforcement activities
depend extensively on technical resources, and the survey indicates
overall conditions.
Limited funding has had a particularly negative effect with
respect to the availability of certain necessary disciplines. The
ASTSWMO survey indicates that the number of State-employed engi-
neers (civil, sanitary, and environmental), chemists, geolooists/
hydrologists, and soil scientists is less than half the number
needed. No similar data exist with respect to legal resources
available to State administrative agencies and attorney general
offices, but discussions with State officials indicate that more
resources are necessary, particularly with regard to para-legal
personnel, investigators, and administrative support.
^
Limitations in State funding also have been felt with regard
to laboratory and analytical capabilities, training opportunities,
and the adequacy of case preparation and documentation.
The net effect of these resource limitations is to constrain
the scope of State enforcement activities, particularly with
respect to the number of actions that can be taken, but also in
part with respect to the detail of field investigation and site
analys is.
ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN
As is clear fron the summary discussion of issues confronting
EPA and the States in the current relationship, some issues cannot
be resolved through this statement oi policy. For example, funding
assistance for additional personnel resources needed by the States
is beyond the current ability of EPA to provide, and any inade-
quacies that may exist in State legal authorities is a matter for
States to resolve on an individual basis. However, most of the
issues can be resolved by EPA and the States through the actions
described in the remaining sections of this document.
-------
9831 ,3
These actions are based not only on the aeneral guiding
principles stated earlier, but also on a specific operating con-
sideration. EPA is responsible for listing sites on the National
Priorities List and for deleting sites that have been cleaned up
appropriately. This means that EPA has a responsibility to assur,
to the extent possible thac human and environmental risks at N?L
sites ace eliminated or at least reduced to acceptable levels.
Sites cannot be deleted without such assurances.
The actions to be taken, described in the remainder of this
document, address:
0 funding assistance to States,
0 criteria for determining lead responsibility for enforce-
ment sites,
0 enforcement planning activities,
0 extent of EPA and State involvement in the. other's activi-
ties where the other has the enforcement lead,
0 development of EPA/State Enforcement Site Agreements to
-clearly delineate the EPA/State relationship at each
enforcement site,
0 -mechanisms .for sharing enforcement information,
0 State involvement in the development of EPA enforcement
policies and guidance for NPL sites, and
0 ongoing cooperation with States through ASTSWMO and NAAG
to deal with issues that arise in the future.
Funding to Assist State Enforcement Activities* It is clear
from the ASTSWMO survey that States require a broad range of
assistance to support needed qualitative and quantitative increases
in State enforcement activity. Consequently, the issue of enforce-
ment funding assistance from EPA was a major focus of an agency
work group that was formed to consider ways in which the scope of
multi-site cooperative agreements might be expanded. ASTSWMO and
NAAG were represented on the work group.
The EPA Office of General Counsel (OGC) concluded that CERCLA
authorizes the agency to fund remedial investigations and feasi-
bility studies at State-lead enforcement sites. Accordingly, the
work group developed guidance to incorporate these activities in
multi-site and individual site cooperative agreements. This guid-
ance will be issued as part of an addendum to the manual State
Participation in the Superfund Remedial Program. Funding of RI/FSs
at selected State-lead enforcement sites will begin in FY 1985.
-------
>«:>! ,.5
However, the Off ice-of GeneraT'Counsel also concluded that
CERCLA does not authorize funding of other State enforcement costs.
In its opinion dated July 20, 1984, OGC stated that "the Superfund
eligibility of State enforcement costs is limited to those activi-
ties authorized by section 104(b). Section 104(b) authority dees
not extentf to litigation or other efforts to compel priv«ts party
cleanups, or to monitoring or community relations activities asso-
ciated with such cleanups. Payment of these State enforcement-
related costs will require more explicit statutory authority than
exists in section 104."
Site Classification. Current interim guidance for classify-
ing sites as Fund- or enforcement-lead establishes criteria for
making classification determinations. It does not, however, pro-
vide specifically for State involvement in the process. While
some Regions may consult with States in making classification
decisions, there has been no consistent effort in this regard.
The result is that there have been occasions where sites that have
been classified as fund-lead might properly have been classified
instead as an enforcement site, based on information and .data
available to the State, with the State assuming the lead responsi-
bility. Accordingly, Regions should consult with States in classi-
fying si^es to ensure that fuller information is considered b«for«
decisions are made. The final site classification guidance vJiXI
incorporate appropriate provisions. r
The Regions and States should jointly make determination* as
to whether an enforcement site .is to be EPA- or State-lead, or
"shared-lead" where both the Region and the State will pursue site
enforcement. A site should be classified as EPA-lead or State-
lead where direct participation in enforcement actions on the part
of the other is not anticipated or is expected to be minimal. A
site should be classified as shared-lead where the Region and State
determine that joint enforcement action can best achieve effective
site cleanup. Regardless of a site's classification, the Regions
and States should adhere to the provisions described later in this
document regarding 'consultation and cooperation in the course of
enforcement activities.
In determining lead responsibility for enforcement sites, the
Regions and States should apply the following considerations:
(1) past site history, i.e., whether there has been EPA or
State enforcement activity at the site;
(2) the effectiveness of enforcement actions to date;
(3) the strength of legal evidence to support EPA or State
action;
-------
9831 ,3
(4) the severity of problems at the site;
(5) the national significance of legal or technical issues
presented by -the site; and
(5) tft« availability of EPA and State legal authorities ar.cj
p«fsonriel and funding resources adequate to enable
•ffective action.
A site initially classified as. State-lead on the basis of the
above considerations will be classified finally as State-lead if
the State assures that it will:
(1) prepare, or have the responsible party prepare, an RI/FS
(or equivalent as agreed by the Region and the State), £/
and provide for public comment, in accordance with EPA
guidance;
(2) conduct negotiations with responsible parties formally
(e.g., culminating in the issuance of an enforceable
order, decree, or equivalent) and, to the extent practic-
able, within agreed time limits;
(3)~provide for public comment on settlements, voluntary and
negotiated cleanups, and consent orders and decrees in
accordance with EPA guidance;
(4) pursue and ensure implementation of a remedy that is at
'least as protective of public health, welfare and the
environment as a cost-effective remedy as that term is
defined in the National Contingency Plan; and
(5) keep EPA informed of its activities, including consulting
with the Regional Office when issues arise that do net
have clear-cut solutions.
These assurances should be incorporated in the EPA/State
Enforcement Site Agreement (described later in this document).
j2/ In accordance with agency guidance issued on March 27, 1984,
regarding procedures for deleting sites from the NPL, documenta-
tion to support deleting a State-lead enforcement site "should
include th« State feasibility study (if one has been prepared),
. . . or * copy of an EPA or State study, or an EPA or State review
of a responsible party study or documents, used by the Region to
determine that ... no further cleanup is appropriate." To the
extent that a State or responsible party conducts an RI/FS in
accordance with agency guidance, the deletion process for State-
lead enforcement sites will be simplified.
-------
9831,3
Where a State is unable to provide the above assurances in
connection with a site that initially has been classified as
State-lead, the site cannot finally be designated as State-lead.
In such instances, consideration should be given to classifymc
the site asv shared-lead so .that State enforcement interests can
.be directly represented in site actions.
Finally, all current EPA- and State-lead enforcement site
designations should be reviewed by the Regions and States in
light of these criteria and modified as necessary.
Planning* In accordance with recent agency guidance, site
management plans are to be developed for all sites on the National
Priorities List. As indicated in the guidance, site management
plans are intended principally to be dynamic planning tools for
allocating resources and estimating the timing of technical and
legal actions. For EPA-lead enforcement sites, the Region should
develop the plan in consultation with both the State administrative
agency and the State attorney general's off ice.£/ Such consultation
is necessary to ensure early that interested Sta"te officials are
aware of the general scheme and timing of EPA's intended actions.
For ctate-lead enforcement sites, the State should develop the
plan in consultation with the Region, and obtain the concurrence
of the State attorney general's office before the plan is adopted7.
Site management plans for shared-lead sites should be developed
.jointly.
Extent of EPA Involvement in State-lead Enforcement
Actions. There aretwo aspects to EPA involvement in State-lead
actions. The first concerns the type of assistance and support
that the Region agrees to provide. The second concerns actions
that the Region subsequently determines to be necessary in the
course of State enforcement activity.
Among the types of assistance and support that Regions can
provide are review of technical and legal documents, making con-
tractor assistance available, providing direct technical assistance
through Regional personnel, and providing expert witness testimony
through EPA or contractor personnel. Regions should plan to
review technical and legal documents associated with State-lead
enforcement sites; other assistance and support should be provided
to the extent that resources allow. Appropriate provisions should
be incorporated in the EPA/State Enforcement Site Agreement.
2/ In son* States, the attorneys who prosecute enforcement actions
are assigned directly to the program offices. In this situation,
involvement of the attorney general's office may be unnecessary.
Therefore, statements made at various places in this document
referring to consultation with or concurrence of the attorney
general's office should be read in this context..
-------
9831,3
• Where a State does net Wsnt EPA assistance in its site acti-
vities, particularly with regard to review of technical and legal
documents, the Region should advise the St»;e that it must accept
the risk that cleanup may Ister prove to be inappropriate. In
such an instance, the site Could net Se removed from the KPL, an£
subsequent:. EPA enforcement action might be necessary.
Regions should continually monitor State-lead enforcement
activities. Where the Region determines that the terms of the EPA/
State Enforcement Site Agreement are not being followed or that the
State is not making effective or timely progress, the Region should
consider involving the agency in site activities to a greater degree
than previously agreed. Potential actions include taking enforcener.i
action in lieu of State action, and assuming lead responsibility
for the site.
Determinations regarding whether greater EPA involvement is
necessary, and the nature of response, will be made jointly by the
Region and the Office of Waste'Programs Enforcement in accordance
with the following considerations:
(1) the State's willingness and ability to correct the
_ problem;
(2) the availability of EPA resources;
(3) the likely efficacy of EPA action; and
(4) the significance of agency inaction.
Where Federal enforcement action is contemplated, the decision
to pursue such action will be made also in conjunction with the
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitorino - Waste.
Extent of State Involvement in EPA-lead Enforcement
Actions.State interest in the conduct and outcome of EPA enforce-
ment actions must be recognized, and State experience and expertise
accommodated in EPA's site activities to the extent possible.
While mechanisms are created in various sections of this policy for
coordinating the planning and execution of enforcement actions, and
for keeping States informed of the status of EPA actions, specific
provision also needs to be made to consider State interests, exper-
ience, and expertise in the course of EPA enforcement activities.
Accordingly, Regions should consult and, wherever practicable,
seek agreement with the States in the design and conclusions of
RI/FSs, in the identification of the recommended remedy to be
pursued with responsible parties, and in the determination of the
final remedy. There may be occasions where time or litigative
constraints preclude efforts to consult or seek agreement with a
State. In such cases, the Region should proceed with its actions,
-------
9831,3
but also should inform the State of the circumstances as soon as
possible. Situations also may arise where a State is unable to
agree with a particular action. In these instances, to the extent
that time and other considerations permit, the Region should seek
to resolv« the issues which prevent State agreement. However,
absence of State agreement initially, or inability subsequently
to resolve any outstanding: issues, is not a bar to necessary arrj
timely action by the Region or to determination by EPA of appro-
priate action to be taken. EPA recoanizes that a State may seek
additional remedy through its own'authorities if the State dis-
agrees with an EPA action.
EPA/State Enforcement Site Agreements. Once lead responsi-
bility for an enforcement site has been-finally determined, a
site management plan has been prepared, and the extant of antici-
pated CPA and State involvement in the sit* determined, the Region
and State should develop an EPA/State Enforcement Site Agreement.
The Agreement will delineate the roles and responsibilities of
EPA and the State, lead officials or contacts-, mechanisms for
coordination and communication, and any other arrangements or
understandings, including the applicability of State standards.^/
The purpose of the Agreement is to ensure that the extent of
the EPA/State relationship at each site is fully thought -out amd
documented to prevent later misapprehensions or misunderstandings.
(Detailed guidance for preparing the Agreements will be developed
in consultation with ASTSWKO and NAAG and issued separately. In
developing the guidance, cons ide rat i'on will be given-to ma kino pro-
vision for multiple sites to be incorporated in a single Agreement.)
Sharing Enforcement Information. As stated previously in
this policy, the absence of a system for sharing enforcement status
information often has left EPA and the States with little knowledge
of the actions of the other.
. Development of site management plans ca-n be an effective
starting point. Since a site management plan is to be prepared
through consultation between the Region and the State, and since
it must be updated periodically, a mechanism has been created for
beginning and continuing site-specific discussion and information
sharing. This applies equally to EPA-lead and State-lead enforce-
ment sites.
4/ EPA will endeavor to incorporate State standards in the selectee
"remedy where the State standards are consistent with a cost-effective
remedy as defined in the NCP. Accordingly, Regions and States should
explore the applicability of State standards and incorporate the out-
come in the Site Agreement. Where the Region and State are unable
to agree, the State may choose to pursue independent action under
its own authorities. '
-------
9831.3
In addition to EPA contacts with States to keep site manage-
ment plans current, the Region and State officials, including
representatives of the State's attorney general, should meet
periodically to review the status of EPA and State actions. The
review should concentrate on NPL sites/ including the status of
enforcement and responsible party RI/FS activities, but pcter.tial
NPL siteo racy be addressed as well. Frequency of these meeti'nas
is a matter for Regional and State discretion, but should be no
less often than twice a year. Further, the Regions should contact
appropriate State agencies regularly to advise them of impending
actions and keep them abreast of developments, and States similarly
should inform the Region of impending actions and developments in '
State enforcement activities. Arrangements regarding these contacts
and meetings should be incorporated in EPA/State Enforcement Site
Agreements.
Finally, agency guidance in two areas creates additional
mechanisms to keep States informed of EPA's enforcement activities
and to allow State comment. The pending community relations gui-
dance provides for a public comment period both on.administrative
orders on consent and on remedial investigations and foooibility
studies, including those prepared by EPA or responsible parties
for Federal enforcement-lead sites. (Both provisions arc among
changes to be proposed in the National Contingency Plan.) Further,
guidance implementing agency rules regarding intergovernmental
review of certain agency actions provides up to 60 doyo for S&atos
to comment on the agency's intent to initiate RI/FS activities.
While responsible p-arty RI/FS activities are not included in the
intergovernmental review process because they do not constitute
Federal actions, they nonetheless will be subject to State review
in accordance with the impending community relations guidance.
In implementing the community relations review procedures,
the Region should assure effective opportunity for State comment
on consent orders and decrees (the latter subject to public comment
by Department of Justice regulations), and agency and responsible
party RI/FSs, by providing copies of the documents directly to
interested State administrative agencies and to the State attorney
general's office. These activities, however, should not be re- •
garded as a substitute for the extensive consultation and coordi-
nation with States described earlier in this policy. .State
interests are to be considered, and accommodated to the extent
practicable* prior to public comment periods for agency actions.
Dovoloproent of Policies and Guidance. The agency is pro-
ceeding to develop enforcement policies and guidance on a broad
range of NPL site issues, and will continue to do so for some
time into the future. The value of increased State involvement
is clear, as is the need for timely distribution of policy and
Guidance documents to the States.
-------
9831 ,3
Wherever practicable, EPA will provide opportunity to cornent
on draft NPL site enforcement policies and guidance documents that
are of interest to States. The opportunity will be made available
•ither to all States through the Regions when time permits or, when
time constraints are particularly acute, tc representative States
through the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials and the National Association of Attorneys
General. Further, for those issues which will require substantial
•ffort to study and resolve, EPA will seek to increase State parti-
cipation through early consultation and, where appropriate, by
including State representatives on any study or work groups that
may be formed.
Once policy and guidance documents have been made final, the
Regions should, upon receipt, provide copies to State administra-
tive agencies and attorney general offices, and make arrangements
for briefing State officials where appropriate.
EPA has an interest also in State hazardous waste enforcement
policies and guidance, and encourages States to consult with the
Regional Offices in their development and to provide to the Regions
copies of final documents.
FUTURE fFFORTS
EPA intends to continue to work directly with States, arid
through the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waster-
Management Officials and the National Association of Attorneys
General, to allow frequent and regular meetings of State represen-
tatives and agency officials. Through these arrangements, EPA
and the States will be able to continue the dialogue, begun in
the course of developing this policy document, to find solutions
to issues that arise in the course of CERCLA and related State
enforcement programs.
------- |