.STATE PARTICIPATION' l¥ THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
CERCLA SECTION 301(a)(l)(E) STUDY
Fina.l vReport
,0f.fice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
December 1984
-------
Substantial portions of this report were prepared by IGF Incorporated for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract Number 68-01-6872.
-------
PREFACE
This report, required by Section 301(a)(l)(E) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA, or
Superfund), provides both descriptive and quantitative information on state
participation in the Superfund program, in light of state resources and EPA
policies over time.
Information included in this analysis was obtained from several sources.
Interviews were conducted with EPA headquarters and regional staff. Relevant
quantitative information was extracted from such EPA data bases as the
Emergency and Remedial Response Information System and the National Response
Center. The most comprehensive, and currently the only available, source of
data on state hazardous substance cleanup programs is a report based on a
survey conducted by the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials. State Cleanup Programs for Hazardous Substance Sites
and Spills, a report to the Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials,
December 21, 1983. The survey is referred to as the ASTSWMO study throughout
this 301(a)(l)(E) report. Data from this report are relied upon to provide
staff, budgetary, and activity (e.g., state enforcement activities) data as
reported by state officials.
Although the preceding sources provide the best available information,
they are limited by the following factors:
• The ASTSWMO survey was conducted during July-October
1983; therefore, the report does not contain up-to-date
program data. However, for many areas the survey did
ask for projections for fiscal years 1984 and 1985.
Although responses do not represent actual resource/
activity levels of expenditures on hazardous substance
cleanup, they are useful for assessing the states' ••
participation in the Superfund program.
• Almost every state's fiscal year begins July 1 and
ends June 30. Therefore, fiscal year comparisons
between state and EPA data do not cover concurrent time
periods. EPA's fiscal year runs from October 1 through
September 30.
• Because CERCLA does not govern state enforcement
authorities, the states are not required to report their
enforcement activities to EPA and few data are available
to compare EPA and state action in this area. Some
enforcement data were included in the ASTSWMO report,
but do not distinguish state enforcement actions taken
at NPL sites from those taken at non-NPL sites.
The analysis in this report takes into account these data limitations.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. CERCLA REQUIREMENTS AND EPA POLICIES AFFECTING STATE
PARTICIPATION 1-1
1.1 Statutory Authority and Requirements 1-1
1.2 EPA Policies on State Role and Requirements 1-4
2. STATE HAZARDOUS RELEASE RESPONSE ACTIVITIES 2-1
2.1 Remedial Program 2-1
2.2 Response to Sudden Releases and Short-Term Cleanups 2-22
2. 3 Enforcement 2-33
3. STATE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE CLEANUP PROGRAMS 3-1
3.1 State Funds 3-1
3 .2 State Needs 3-8
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA) establishes a clearly defined role for states in the
Superfund program. The Act requires that states participate in any remedial
cleanup actions within their boundaries, either cooperating with EPA on
Federal lead projects or taking the lead on the projects themselves. States
must provide at least ten percent of the costs of remedial action (if the site
is publicly owned, the state must pay 50 percent), plus all operation and
maintenance costs after the first year.
In addition, states must follow certain notification requirements in
CERCLA, and states are authorized to submit site names for the National
Priorities List (NPL). In fact, among the 100 highest priority sites on the
NPL, there must generally be one for each state designated by the state as its
highest priority.
EPA initially was responsible for almost all actions during the site
discovery and investigation phase of the program. However, during the last
two years, the role of states has expanded significantly in this area. States
first received grants for site discovery and investigation work under the RCRA
section 3012 program. EPA has continued to follow up with assistance through
cooperative agreements.
Although new sites continue to be identified, it appears that the more
serious and the more obvious hazardous waste sites have been identified.
Therefore, the primary emphasis currently is on site investigation, and most
preliminary assessment activity to identify potential problems at individual.
sites is conducted by the states.
A comparison of EPA's figures for total sites identified in each state
with estimates provided by states in the ASTSWMO survey indicates that both
EPA and the state estimates are similar. EPA currently has approximately
19,000 potential sites listed in the Emergency and Remedial Response
Information System, and the states have identified approximately 18,000
potential sites. However, on a state-by-state basis, the EPA and state
estimates vary widely.
EPA has started 290 remedial investigation/feasibility studies at NPL
sites, and at least 66 of these are state lead sites. As these projects move
into the construction phase over the next several years, states will be
required to provide their cost share for construction and will be required to
take over operation and maintenance after the first year. This is likely to
place a significant burden on states.
States have also undertaken some long term cleanups (i.e., cleanup actions
that cost more than $1 million) on their own. Since 1981, 25 percent of
-------
ES-2
the 133 long term cleanups' initiated by states have been completed. Both
state funds and staff resources allocated to remedial or long term cleanup
activities have expanded over the past several years. Total state projections
for 1984 remedial funding levels show an increase of more than 100 percent
from the 1983 funding total of §126 million. For both years, states indicated
that CERCLA funds constitute the most important source for their remedial
response activities. Staff devoted to remedial activities were expected to
increase by 65 percent -- from 259 person years in 1983 to 428 person years in
1984. The major source of funding for state remedial staff was expected to
come from state revenues.
State remedial resources and activities have remained concentrated in a
small number of states. EPA's remedial activities have been more widely
distributed across states.
State enforcement action is classified as the lead activity at 136 of the
538 NPL sites, and 34 of the 248 proposed sites.- There are, however, no state
enforcement authorities under CERCLA. States derive their enforcement
authority from a variety of state laws, which differ from state to state and
are not likely to contain the comprehensive authorities in CERCLA. Because
EPA does not monitor state enforcement activities, there is little data
available on the status of these actions.
States have reported over 2,000 sites subject to state enforcement actions
from 1981 through mid-1983. Many of these actions resulted in private party
cleanup. State resources devoted to enforcement totaled $4 million in 1983
and $6 million in 1984. Enforcement funding and staff, however, are highly
concentrated in a handfull of states.
Data indicate that state sources account for the vast majority of sudden
release and removal funds available to the states. The number of removals or
short term cleanups conducted by both EPA and the states increased each year
between fiscal years 1981-1983. The states have conducted more short term
cleanups than the federal government, but the scope of state cleanup actions
is unknown. States participate informally in Superfund removal actions.
An evaluation of the sources and amounts of state funds for hazardous
substance cleanup in fiscal years 1983-1985 indicates that in 33
jurisdictions, $293 million was budgeted over this three year period. Amounts
may vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; however, those that
reported the greatest expenditures and projected expenditures tend to contain
numerous National Priorities List sites. Data also show that approximately 66
percent of the states' funds are available for cost sharing.
With respect to legal and institutional constraints that have affected
states' capabilities to respond to hazardous substance releases, the data
support the need for states to obtain additional funding for personnel and
equipment. To achieve optimal staff levels, states' FY 1983 staff would need
to increase by 84 percent. In addition to the need for more funds,
.administrative and institutional changes could benefit state programs. Hiring
freezes and salary limitations for technical personnel in conjunction with
procurement restrictions have impeded the progress of many state cleanup
programs.
-------
-1. CERCLA REQUIREMENTS AND EPA POLICIES
AFFECTING STATE PARTICIPATION
This chapter reviews both the various statutory and regulatory provisions
that govern state participation in the Superfund program and EPA policies that
provide guidance for state participation. Sources of authority and guidance
include:
• CERCLA;
• The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300);
• EPA policy documents; and
• Superfund po.licy changes as of May 1983.
1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS
This section describes the Congressional intent for state participation
and the specific provisions of CERCLA authorizing their participation.
1.1.1 Congressional Intent for State Participation in CERCLA
In its approach to the problem of hazardous substances, Congress has
clearly evidenced its intention that states participate in the cleanup of
hazardous substances. Because of the magnitude and immediacy of the hazardous
substance problem, however, Congress included in CERCLA provisions that
authorize the federal government to direct and coordinate response activities,
as necessary.
In establishing Superfund, Congress recognized that many states lacked the
capability to undertake remedial activities themselves or were unwilling to
address what they considered to be a national problem. Superfund was intended
to provide the financial resources and program leadership necessary to achieve
the national goals. At the same time, state participation was made an
integral part of the Superfund program.
States have specific responsibilities in the national program established
by CERCLA for responding to releases of hazardous substances. It is extremely
important to consider state responsibilities in assessing state capabilities,
because a state's inability to provide necessary assurances or to perform
necessary activities may limit initiation of Superfund responses.
The CERCLA requirements for state participation and cost-sharing were
intended to serve four purposes. First, Congress determined that equity would
be best served if the costs of remedial actions were financed by contributions
from industry, the federal government, and state or local governments. The
-------
1-2
requirements for government contributions recognized that while most hazardous
substance releases result from industrial activities and practices, some occur
as a direct result of public sector actions.
Second, the requirement that states contribute funds to each remedial
action undertaken within their borders ensured that the states that benefit
most from expenditures from the federal trust fund will make the largest
contributions from their own funds. Congress believed that this apportionment
of the financing burdens would promote greater equity.
Third, Congress intended that the .requirement for state cost-sharing help
the states and the federal government to establish priorities for funding.
Because of the limits on funds available for cleanup, Congress believed that
cleanup efforts at sites that pose the greatest risk should receive the . .
highest priority.. By giving the states funding responsibilities, Congress
sought to give them a stake in setting priorities.
Finally, the requirement for state cost-sharing provides, the states with a
check on the federal selection of Fund-financed remedial measures by enabling
states to postpone a response action (by withholding funding assurances) until
state and federal authorities resolve any serious disagreements over the
proposed remedial action. This check assures the public that adequate .
arrangements have been made to accomplish the remedy and to maintain its
effectiveness over time.
Congress recognized that several states had already begun to address the
problems of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and hazardous substance
releases. To encourage these states, to maintain their programs, CERCLA
authorizes the federal government to arrange for states to assume the lead in
remedial programs and provides a cost-share credit for some expenditures.
Congress also recognized, however, that federal resources are limited.
Federal assistance, therefore, is focused on the hazardous substance releases
that present the greatest threat -to public health and welfare and the
environment. Many problem s-ites. and release incidents that pose less serious
dangers are considered state responsibilities. Consequently, an assessment of
state capabilities and efforts to upgrade those capabilities must take account
of the ability of states to respond to releases that will be left either
wholly or partially untouched by the federal government. . In many instances,
sites may initially be addressed exclusively under state authorities.
Subsequently, both federal and state resources and authorities may be
required. In other instances, federal resources may not be committed at all.
For all these reasons, it is important that states retain authority to
establish funds, raise revenues to support such funds, set limits on
liability, and help finance remedial activities or pay third party damages.
1.1.2 Statutory Authority and Requirements for State Participation
In CERCLA • ..
CERCLA1s requirements concerning state assurances and state administration
of remedial response actions provide evidence of Congress' intent that state
-------
1-3
governments assume a role in the implementation of the Act. CERCLA Section
104(d)(l) provides:
Where the President determines that a State or political
subdivision thereof has the capability to carry out any or
all of the actions authorized in this section, the President
may, in his discretion, enter into a contract or cooperative
agreement with such State or political subdivision to take
such actions in accordance with criteria and priorities
established pursuant to section 105(8) of this title and to
be reimbursed for the reasonable response costs thereof from
the Fund....
Before remedial action can proceed at a given site, the state must assure
through a letter that at a minimum it will pay 10 percent of remedial action
costs. If the site was owned by the state or a political subdivision at the
time of disposal, the state must assure coverage of at least 50 percent or
more of response costs. Section 104(c) also provides that state expenditures
on priority sites from 1978 to 1980 may be credited against the state's share
of the costs. States must also assume responsibility for all operation and
maintenance of the response measures and provide for off-site disposal
facilities where necessary (CERCLA section 104(c)(3)).
Other sections in CERCLA that pertain to state involvement are:
• Section 103(a) -- States generally must notify the
National Response Center if a hazardous substance is
released from a facility or vessel it owns or operates
in a quantity equal to or greater than a reportable
quantity.
• Section 103(c) -- Within one hundred and eighty days
after the enactment of CERCLA, states were required to
notify EPA of all state-owned or operated hazardous
substance facilities, specifying the types of substances
they contained and describing any known, likely, or
suspected releases.
• Section 104(c)(2) --The President is required to
consult with the affected state or states before
determining any appropriate remedial action to be taken
pursuant to the response authority granted under Section
104(a).
• Section 105:
Requires EPA to specify the states' roles and
responsibilities as part of the national contingency
plan (Section 105(4)); and
-------
1-4
Authorizes states to submit lists of sites for
inclusion on a National Priorities List and requires
that states' priorities be considered in the
formulation of the List (Section 105(9)(B)).
• Sections 107(f). lll(b), lll(h)(l) -- States may act
as trustees for natural resources within their borders
for the purposes of recovering damages.
1.2 EPA POLICIES ON STATE ROLE AND REQUIREMENTS
In addition to the requirements intended by Congress and mandated by
CERCLA, EPA has issued a number of important policy documents that address and
clarify the states' role in the area of hazardous substance site response and
management.
1.2.1 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
The primary policy document for CERCLA is the National Contingency Plan.
The Plan was originally authorized by Section 311 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. Section 105 of CERCLA required that the Plan be
revised to establish guidelines for EPA's authority under the Act and to
establish standards for the Superfund program. The revised Plan, published
July 6, 1982 (47 FR 31180), provides direction for federal responses to
releases of hazardous substances consistent with the authority granted under
CERCLA.
Two sections of the Plan directly address the states' role and
responsibilities under CERCLA: 40 CFR 300.24, which concerns "State and local
participation;" and 40 CFR 300.62, which delineates the "State role." These
sections advance the goals set forth in the provisions of CERCLA by
encouraging state-led response actions and providing procedures for developing
contracts and cooperative agreements for response actions.
The role of the states is further defined by the requirement that states
be represented on each Regional Response Team (40 CFR 300.32(b)), -as well as
assist in developing the Team's regional plans (40 CFR 300.42(a)). The Plan
also encourages states to designate individuals to serve as contacts for
coordinating response actions with local governments and to assist in the
development of regional, federal, and local contingency plans (40 CFR
300.32(b)(2) and (b)(5)). v
Other National Contingency Plan sections that outline state involvement
include: EPA and state joint efforts for response and enforcement actions (40
CFR 300.33(b)(3) and 300.66(c)(1)) ; requirements related to notification of
releases (40 CFR 300.36(c) and 300.63(b); procedures for state submittal of
sites for the National Priorities List (40 CFR 300.66(d)); and authorization
for states to act as trustees for natural resources within their boundaries
(40 CFR 300.73).
-------
1-5
1.2.2 Remedial Program Policies Over Time
Site Discovery and Investigation
Although the goal of site discovery -- to identify all hazardous substance
releases and ensure that they are brought to the attention of the appropriate
authorities -- has remained the same throughout the first three years of the
Superfund program, the emphasis on different phases in the process has changed
significantly. These changes reflect EPA's belief that many of the sites
posing more serious problems have been identified and that EPA resources
should increasingly focus on further assessment and inspection of these sites.
The first site discovery efforts involved merging federal and state
inventories and creating a national data base to identify hazardous substance
sites. This initial identification process mainly involved federal
resources. In late 1982, EPA received a one-time appropriation to allocate
$10 million under RCRA Section 3012 to states to conduct site identification
activities. Whereas EPA had been responsible for conducting most of the
preliminary assessments prior to mid-1983, the states are now responsible for
these activities with RCRA Section 3012 awards and funding provided in
cooperative agreements. EPA will conduct approximately 75 percent of the site
inspections, with states conducting the remainder.
EPA's targets, set in May 1983, are to (1) complete preliminary
assessments for all sites in the Emergency and Remedial Response Information
System by the end of fiscal year 1986; and (2) complete site inspections for
sites that warrant inspection after the preliminary assessment by the end of
fiscal year 1987. In 1983, EPA requested from the states annual targets for
the number of preliminary assessments each state expects to complete.
Although states initially fell short of their targets (largely because of
planning inexperience in this area), EPA is providing assistance in helping
states establish new objectives.
There have been no major policy changes related to the Hazard Ranking
System. The primary criterion in the National Contingency Plan for listing
sites on the National Priorities List is a sufficiently high hazard ranking
score. In the proposed first update to the National Priorities List, EPA
proposed the addition of the Quail Run Mobile Manor site, Gray Summitt,
Missouri, to the List, although the site's total score was below the 28.5
cutoff. In adding the Quail Run site to the List, EPA stated its intent to
"amend the National Contingency Plan to authorize consideration of limited
criteria other than the total hazard ranking score for purposes of including
sites on the National Priorities List." In amending the National Contingency
Plan, EPA will consider using health assessments or advisories issued by other
federal agencies.
Expansion of the National Priorities List has occurred in several
significant steps. On September 8, 1983, EPA promulgated a list of 406 sites
for the final National Priorities List and proposed 133 additional sites, plus
seven sites that were listed as pending. On May 8, 1984, 4 of the sites
proposed in September were also placed on the final List. In September 1984,
-------
1-6
128 of the previously proposed sites were added to the list, bringing the
total National Priorities List sites to 538. In October 1984, EPA proposed an
additional 244 sites for inclusion on the list. The expanded National
Priorities List will facilitate an increase in the number of sites that could
be candidates for remedial action.
Remedial Activities
The category of "remedial activities" encompasses a broad range of
response efforts serving various ends and guided by various policies. It is
therefore useful to structure the discussion of policies governing remedial
activities around rhree subcategories of actions:
• Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study;
• Remedial Design and Construction; and
• Initial Remedial Measures.
The remedial investigation/feasibility study and design and construction
classifications form a two-step sequence for the selection and implementation
of long term remedies. Initial remedial measures, which involve short-term,
temporary measures intended to reduce risks to health and the environment
while work on permanent corrective measures progresses, generally include
abbreviated versions of both the remedial investigation/feasibility study and
design and construction phases.
Remedial investigations/feasibility studies follow a seven-stage
process. These stages may be summarized as follows:
• Development of a Superfund Comprehensive Management
Plan, which sets forth a rough timetable for cleanup
activities at a particular site, and of quarterly and
annual Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishment Plans for
each EPA region, which set forth schedules for all
Superfund activities in each region.
• Development of a community relations plan. Prior to
the initiation of the remedial investigation, either EPA
or the state must develop a community relations plan to
keep the public informed and incorporate community
concerns into response decisions.
• Initiation of intergovernmental review procedures,
including notifying affected state and local governments
and providing a 60-day comment period. (The procedures
are also conducted after the Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishments Plan is prepared.)
•. Negotiation of remedial planning agreements. Before
CERCLA funds can be used for on-site remedial
investigation/feasibility study activities, EPA and the
relevant state must execute an agreement (cooperative
-------
1-7
agreements or state letter of request) delineating the
responsibilities and obligations of EPA and the state agency.
• Performance of site-related activities. On-site work includes
the sampling and analysis that are needed to develop and assess
remedial alternatives. Off-site work involves evaluating various
alternatives on the basis of factors such as cost, environmental
effects, and feasibility of the cleanup action.
• A three-week public comment period must be provided. (This also
ensures "functional equivalency" with the public participation
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.)
• Preparation and review of a decision document. The decision
document serves primarily to document that the recommended
remedial measures are consistent with CERCLA and the National
Contingency Plan.
The design and construction phase of a remedial action involves the
formulation and implementation of detailed engineering plans (including
timetables for completion) and safety procedures. The relationship between
EPA and the state in the design and construction phases depends upon whether
the state government assumes the lead role or leaves this role to EPA.
Activities at sites where EPA assumes primary responsibility are governed by
Superfund state contracts. Each Superfund state contract sets out EPA's
responsibility for project management and records the state's assurance that
it will meet the cost share, operation and maintenance, and off-site disposal
requirements specified in CERCLA Section 104(c)(3). EPA relies on the Army
Corps of Engineers for the technical expertise needed to select contractors
for design and construction and to oversee contractors' performance. In
addition to supervising the work of the Corps of Engineers, EPA's
responsibilities at federal-lead projects include working with the state to
obtain site access, maintaining community relations activities begun during
the remedial investigation/feasibility study phase, and pursuing any available
opportunities for cost recovery.
Remedial design and construction at sites where states have assumed lead
responsibility are governed by cooperative agreements. Agreements negotiated
by EPA and the states for state-lead remedial investigation/feasibility study
activities are amended to include the assurances required by CERCLA Section
104(c)(3) and descriptions of steps involved in the design and construction
phase. The states' role in state-lead remedial actions includes the selection
and oversight of competent contractors. However, EPA reviews all major design
decisions and retains authority over enforcement matters.
Initial remedial measures include certain functions that are similar to
those covered by both the remedial investigation/feasibility study and design
and construction phases. The decision concerning whether to implement an
-------
1-8
initial remedial measure is made by EPA at each National Priorities List site
during the initial appraisal, or "scoping." Under the National Contingency
Plan, initial remedial measures are considered appropriate if they are found
to be feasible, cost effective, and necessary to limit exposure or the threat
of exposure to a significant health or environmental hazard. Once the
decision to implement an initial remedial measure has been made, the intended
measures must be included in the quarterly and annual Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishment Plans for the relevant EPA regions.
After an initial remedial measure is listed on the Accomplishment Plan, a
number of additional preliminary steps must still precede implementation. The
level of detail required in the planning and approval process is determined by
the complexity of the initial remedial measure.
Significant Changes in EPA Policies and Procedures
The goals of response actions have changed little since the inception of
the Superfund program. However, as the program has developed and EPA has
refined its understanding of the demands of cleanup activities, policies and
priorities have been revised to increase the speed and effectiveness of
remedial activities. The discussion that follows describes the policy and
procedural changes that have significantly affected the role of the states in
each area of remedial activity.
Since the beginning of the Superfund program, the remedial investigation/
feasibility study stage of remedial action has been intended (i) to identify
the most efficient remedial alternative as quickly as possible, (ii) to
promote state involvement in the selection of remedial alternatives, and (iii)
to ensure public participation in remedial planning. Changes in EPA policy
and procedures concerning the remedial investigation/feasibility study process
include:
Policy Changes
• State Cost-Share for Planning and Timing of
Assurances. In May 1983, EPA waived the regulatory
requirement for cost-sharing for remedial planning
activities (including remedial investigation,
feasibility study, and remedial design activities) at
privately-owned sites (40 CFR 30.720(a)).
• Duration of Federal Contribution to Operation and
Maintenance Costs. Before a remedial action can be
initiated, CERCLA requires the state in which the
hazardous substance release occurs to enter into an
agreement with EPA to provide that the state will assure
all future maintenance of whatever removal and remedial
actions are agreed upon. Under current EPA policy,
disbursements from the Fund may cover state operation
and maintenance costs for up to one year at the same
rate of cost-share as for the remedial action, after the
-------
1-9
contractor has certified that the remedy is operational.
After that period, states are required to pay all
operation and maintenance costs. Initially, coverage
for state operation and maintenance costs extended to
only six months.
Procedural Changes
Means of Obtaining Assurances. CERCLA requires that
states provide assurances for all remedial actions
(e.g., cost-sharing, operation and maintenance, off-site
disposal). Since early 1984, EPA has strongly
encouraged states to develop multi-site agreements.
These multi-site agreements must be supplemented by
site-specific provisions as necessary. Incorporating
all assurances in multi-site agreements enables EPA to
eliminate delays. A multi-site agreement has already
been approved for Pennsylvania. Other states with
numerous National Priorities List sites (e.g., New
Jersey, Michigan, New York, Florida, Ohio) are likely to
find multi-site agreements an efficient means of making
necessary assurances. An EPA work group established in
February 1984 is analyzing ways of expanding the concept
of the multi-site agreement.
Coordination of Remedial Activities. To improve
coordination between EPA headquarters and the regions
and facilitate long-term planning and management of the
Superfund program, EPA requires that a comprehensive
management plan be developed for every Superfund site.
This plan, known as the Superfund Comprehensive
Management Plan, provides: (1) a process for the states
and regions to reach agreement on the approximate
timetable for initiating action on each site; (2) an
approximate multi-year timetable for the accomplishment
of major steps in the site cleanup; and (3) an
approximate picture of current and planned activities
for the Superfund program as a whole. To ensure that
resources are available and allocated effectively, the
EPA regions and the states coordinate in scheduling and
planning remedial activities. When remedial
investigation and feasibility study activities are
completed, results are summarized in a decision
document. This presents supporting material to EPA
headquarters to demonstrate that the remedial activities
are consistent with CERCLA and the National Contingency
Plan. Remedial actions do not proceed until EPA
headquarters reviews and approves the decision document.
Delegation of Authority to the Regions. In the
Spring of 1983, EPA delegated authority to the regions
-------
1-10
for negotiating and signing cooperative agreements and
state Superfund contracts. In addition, in the Spring
of 1984, authority for initiating and conducting
remedial investigation, feasibility study, and remedial
design and construction activities was delegated to the
regions. Previously, such documents and activities
required approval by the Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
Delegation of these and other authorities is intended to
decentralize decision making to ensure more timely and
effective responses.
The purposes of remedial design and construction activities, like the
purpose of remedial investigations/feasibility studies, have remained constant
since the Superfund program began. Remedial design and construction efforts
have been guided by the goals of achieving effective, efficient, timely
remedies and promoting state and community involvement.
Because remedial design and construction cannot proceed until a site has
been investigated and a remedial alternative selected, EPA has less experience
with design and construction than with remedial investigation/feasibility
study activities. As of August 1, 1984, design and construction efforts had
been initiated at fifty-three sites and completed at six. Still, EPA has been
able to identify policies that tend to impede the progress of remedial design
and construction and to adjust its policies accordingly.
Several policy and procedural changes affect design and construction
activities conducted under cooperative agreements, i.e., activities at state
lead sites. The changes are summarized below:
t
• Amendment of contracting restrictions. In November
1983, EPA eliminated its prohibition on states
noncompetitively selecting the same contractor for the
remedial investigation/feasibility study and design and
construction. The change was intended to expedite
design and construction by streamlining the contracting
process.
• May 1983 Policy Changes. Policy changes that were
adopted to remove obstacles to remedial
investigation/feasibility study activities (described
above) also speed the progress of design and
construction. Waiving the regulatory requirement that
states pay a share of the costs of remedial
investigation/feasibility study activities at privately
owned sites, for example, reduces delays in design and
construction by expediting the completion of remedial
investigation/feasibility study activities and by
lessening demands on scarce state funds.
-------
1-11
• Regional Authority. In the Spring of 1984, regional
administrators were delegated authority to initiate and
conduct not only the remedial investigation/feasibility
study, but also the design and construction phases.
The purpose of initial remedial measures, since the beginning of the
Superfund program, has been to stabilize imminent hazards at National
Priorities List sites pending initiation of full-scale remedial actions. The
policy and guidance documents that govern the implementation of initial
remedial measures, however, have undergone revision and continue to change as
EPA identifies and removes impediments to timely, effective action. The
principal areas of past and projected change are identified below:
• Community Relations Guidance. EPA's initial guidance
concerning community relations, issued in November 1981,
did not specifically refer to community relations for
initial remedial measures. Current policy set forth in
the Agency's May 1983 community relations guidance and
in a November 1983 memorandum to regional personnel
requires that the community be given advance notice of
the actions to be taken and an opportunity to submit
comments.
• National Contingency Plan procedures. The National
Contingency Plan first identified the category of
initial remedial measures and established criteria for
implementing these measures. EPA is currently consider-
ing elimination of initial remedial measures as a
separate category under the National Contingency Plan
and including those activities in a broader range of
removal actions.
1.2.3 Removal Policies Over Time
EPA removal policies have evolved since the beginning of the Superfund
program. The most significant policy change is the delegation of removal
response authority to regional offices. This section briefly discusses
delegation and other major changes in EPA's removal policies, including
notification and site monitoring policy changes. Because states do not cost-
share, but participate informally in Superfund immediate removal actions, it
is difficult to draw any cause and effect relationship between changes in EPA
policy and the incidence of state responses to sudden releases and short-term
cleanups.
Notification Policies
Notification of sudden releases of hazardous substances alerts the federal
government that a rapid response to protect public health and welfare and the
environment may be necessary. EPA, however, has placed relatively greater
emphasis on performing removal actions than on enforcing notification
requirements. EPA staff in the Emergency Response Division of the Office of
-------
1-12
Emergency and Remedial Response believe that noncompliance with CERCLA
notification requirements has not seriously impeded the Superfund removal
action program. All serious hazardous substance releases seem to have been
reported to some government authority that provided an appropriate response or
that contacted the appropriate response agency.
Monitoring Policies
Monitoring activities can result in the meeting of health and
environmental goals almost entirely without the use of Superfund monies,
thereby conserving fund monies for sites where federal response is more
critical. Monitoring activities also help ensure that removals performed by
private parties or states are adequate to protect the public and the
environment from the dangers of hazardous substance releases. Monitoring
activities are either off-site (by telephone) or on-site.
Removal Policies
EPA removal policies have undergone significant change since the beginning
of the Superfund program. Major changes have occurred in the following policy
areas:
• The criteria for taking an immediate removal action;
• The creation of the category of planned removals;
• The restriction on performing removals at sites on the
National Priorities List;
• The delegation of authority outside the Office of the
Assistant Administrator; and
• The requirement to conduct a community relations
program for. immediate removal sites.
The most significant of these changes is the delegation of removal
response authority to regional offices. Executive Order 12316 delegated to
the EPA Administrator the authority to fund and respond to the release of
hazardous substances. This authority has been delegated to the Assistant
Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (who can
authorize removal actions exceeding the statutory limit of §1 million) and
gradually to the regional administrators (who can authorize removal actions up
to $1 million and exceeding the six month statutory limitation).
1.2.4 Enforcement Policies Over Time
After CERCLA's passage, EPA initially sought to negotiate settlements with
potentially responsible parties before resorting to formal enforcement
authorities or to Fund-financed cleanups. As a consequence of this policy,
cleanup actions at sites were delayed while EPA attempted to negotiate each
individual segment of the response. In an attempt to speed up action at a
-------
1-13
site, EPA briefly instituted a "dual-track" system, which allowed
Fund-financed remedial investigations and feasibility studies to be conducted
at the same time enforcement staff negotiated with potentially responsible
parties for the remedy. The dual-track system had two drawbacks, however.
First, the potentially responsible parties were reluctant to agree to conduct
a cleanup before the scope of the required remedy had been determined.
Second, concurrent site actions by program and enforcement personnel often
resulted in duplicated efforts and inefficient management of site responses.
As public and Congressional pressure for increased cleanup activity
mounted, EPA developed a Site Classification System in 1983 to allocate
responsibility for sites more efficiently. Under the Site Classification
System, sites on the National Priorities List are assigned to one of four
categories:
• Category I sites generally involve only Fund-financed
response.
• Category II sites are enforcement-lead sites.
• Category III sites are sites where there is only
limited .time available for negotiations. In some
situations, a responsible party may be compelled to
clean up the site; or EPA may proceed with a
Fund-financed remedial action and seek to recover costs '
and damages, if appropriate.
• Category IV sites are state-lead enforcement sites.
As of September 1984, 136 sites are categorized as state-lead enforcement
sites, although EPA has not developed explicit criteria for determining when a
site should be classified as state-lead enforcement. EPA may influence state
enforcement at National Priorities List sites through the Agency's delisting
procedures and.criteria. States wishing to have state-lead enforcement sites
in the state remedied and removed from the National Priorities List must use
their enforcement authorities to secure a remedy that meets EPA standards for
delisting.
1.2.5- EPA Policy Documents
Because of the complexity of the Superfund program, several guidance
documents have been developed to clarify EPA policy and procedures. Among the
most relevant of these are:
(1) State Participation in the Superfund Remedial Program,
February 1984. This document was developed for state
officials, EPA regional site officers, and EPA headquarters
zone managers. It provides a detailed statement of EPA
policies and procedures governing federal-state cooperative
agreements at remedial sites under CERCLA. The guidance
describes the initial steps in selecting and planning
-------
1-14
remedial actions at sites on the National Priorities List.
It also outlines the procedures for negotiating cooperative
agreements and state Superfund contracts, the two types of
documents used to delineate state and federal
responsibilities at individual sites.
(2) Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook, Interim
Version, September 1983. This interim handbook, an updated
version of materials first developed in 1981, establishes a
plan of action to assist EPA regional offices and states in
implementing cost-effective cleanups by keeping the public
well-informed and involved in the decision-making process
during all phases of response actions. The Handbook
concentrates on the distinctive community relations problems
that pertain to removal and remedial hazardous substance
responses and on describing techniques to handle issues that
develop from these actions. The Handbook also discusses the
advantages and disadvantages of suggested activities and
explains the administrative requirements for the program.
(3) Interim Standard Operating Safety Guide, January 1983.
This guide was initially published as the Interim Standard
Operating Procedures on May 1, 1981. It was revised in 1982
and again in January 1983. The safety standards for
incident responses set out in this guide supplement existing
regional safety criteria.
(4) Superfund Removal Guidance, Revision #1, December 1982.
This document provides EPA response officials with uniform,
agency-wide guidance on immediate and planned removal
actions. Areas covered include: notification, initiation,
and investigation procedures; eligible costs; reporting and
documentation requirements (draft and sample forms are
included); technical assistance and training projects; and
community relations planning.
(5) Interim Emergency Procurement Procedures. This manual
establishes procedures for the procurement of services to
respond to emergencies where a release or potential release
of a hazardous substance presents an imminent, substantial
threat to public health or welfare.
(6) National Enforcement Investigations Center Policies and
Procedures, May 1978, revised December 1981. The Center
provides the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
with technical information and evidence in support of EPA
legal actions. The Center's standard operating procedures
ensure that information and evidence it develops will be
legally admissible in enforcement actions. Topics covered
by the procedures include: employee responsibility and
authority; conflict of interest and public relations
-------
1-15
relating to Center duties; sampling and document control;
evidence audits; and data quality assurance.
Exhibit 1-1 lists other Superfund policy documents that bear directly or
indirectly on the role and responsibilities of states in the Superfund program.
-------
1-16
EXHIBIT 1-1
SUPERFUND POLICY DOCUMENTS THAT PROVIDE
GUIDANCE ON STATE PARTICIPATION IN CERCLA
Cost Control Manual for Superfund Removals, July 1982.
Requirement to Use Formal Advertising Procurement Method for
Subagreements Under Superfund Remedial Action Cooperative Agreements.
Guide for Establishing the National Priorities List, (Superfund
Program Guidance 82-12), June 28, 1983.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Model Statement of Work.
Requirements for Selecting an Off-Site Option on a Superfund
Response Action (Memorandum from William N. Hedeman, Jr. to regional
administrators), January 28, 1983.
Remedial Action Master Plans Memorandum, from William N. Hedeman,
Jr. to Regional Superfund Coordinators, (Superfund Program Guidance
82-9), June 22, 1982).
Guideline for Using Imminent Hazard, Enforcement, and Emergency
Response Authorities of Superfund and Other Statutes, (47 FR 20664,
May 13, 1982).
Procedures for Identifying Responsible Parties at Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites, National Enforcement Investigations Center,
April 1980.
Enforcement Considerations for Evaluations of Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites by Contractors, National Enforcement
Investigations Center, April 1980.
On-Scene Coordinator User Guide - Interim Procedures for the
Financial Management System, July 1981.
Guidance on Exemption to March 11, 1982 Policy on Operation and
Maintenance Costs, (Superfund Program Guidance 82-8), June 15, 1982.
Guidance on Exemption to March 11, 1982 Policy on Operations and
Maintenance Costs, (Superfund Program Guidance, June 15, 1982.
Hazardous Waste Compliance and Enforcement Program Guidance,
February 23, 1982.
Coordination of Superfund Enforcement and Fund-Financed Cleanup
Activities.
-------
2. STATE HAZARDOUS RELEASE RESPONSE ACTIVITIES
The states have responsibilities in the national hazardous substances
cleanup program established by CERCLA and the National Contingency Plan.
States have become more aware of the extent of the hazardous waste problems
under their respective jurisdictions, but have been limited in responding
adequately because of staff and funding limitations. In addition to this lack
of resources, a number of federal and state regulatory constraints have
impeded the states' ability to proceed with spill and site cleanups.
(State-imposed constraints are discussed in Chapter 3.) As noted in the
preface, most data in this chapter are derived from a 1983 survey conducted by
the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
(ASTSWMO).
2.1 REMEDIAL PROGRAM1
.2.1.1 Discovery and Investigation
This section describes site identification activities including site
discovery, preliminary assessment, site inspection, and hazard ranking of
sites for the National Priorities List.
Site Discovery
Site discovery actions, which can be taken by federal, state, or local
governments, are required by CERCLA Section 105(1) and the National
Contingency Plan. Section 300.63 of the Plan lists methods that may be used
to discover sites. Site discoveries are reported to EPA and entered into the
Emergency and Remedial Response Information System data base.
Preliminary Assessments
After site discovery, a preliminary assessment is conducted by EPA or the
state to determine what future actions, are necessary at a site -- e.g., no
further action, emergency action, or a site inspection. Regional EPA
personnel establish the order in which sites receive preliminary assessments
based upon the sites' apparent hazard potential. As discussed in Section
300.64 of the National Contingency Plan, preliminary assessments are designed
to determine what hazardous substances are at the site, how exposure to the
substances could occur, who might be exposed, how the hazardous substances
have been handled at the site, and who may be responsible for the site. The
majority of preliminary assessments are now conducted by the states.
1A detailed discussion of the remedial program is contained in Chapter 2,
of the CERCLA Section 301(a)(l)(A) Study.
-------
2-2
Site Inspections
The purpose of a site inspection is to further define the problem posed by
a waste site, or to reduce the uncertainty associated with a site. The site
inspection supplements information collected during the preliminary
assessment. Site inspections are more extensive than preliminary assessments
and require on-site and off-site samplings to identify particular hazardous
substances and determine whether they have migrated. A site inspection
usually provides data that are sufficiently detailed to be used in the EPA
Hazard Ranking System, the next step in determining whether a major
environmental hazard exists.
Hazard Ranking System and the National Priorities List
In addition to covering site inspections, Section 300.66 of the National
Contingency Plan requires candidate sites for the National Priorities List to
be ranked by the Hazard Ranking System. States and EPA use the Hazard Ranking
System to rank releases or threatened releases on the basis of potential
hazard.
The Hazard Ranking System attempts to establish the relative severity of a
site and the probability and magnitude of human and sensitive environmental
exposure to hazardous substances. . .
CERCLA Section 105(b) requires the National Priorities List to include "at
least four hundred of the highest priority facilities." Section 105(b) of
CERCLA also requires "to the greatest extent practicable" that the List
include within the 100 highest priorities at least one facility designated by
each state.
Training Resources for Discovery and Investigation
Approximately one-half of the states indicated in the ASTSWMO survey that
between 1981-1983 their staff attended training that was related to site
identification. Most of the training took place in 1982 and 1983 and was
sponsored by EPA. In some instances states, contractors, or a combination of
the three sponsored the session.
As displayed in Exhibit 2-1, the states' responses have been categorized
into (1) training related to sampling and/or monitoring and (2) training
related to environmental assessment and evaluation. The figures show that
slightly more people attended the assessment/evaluation training, but an equal
amount of time (approximately 70 hours) was spent on each kind of training.
The average state trained 6.6 people in sampling/monitoring and 9.4 people in
assessment/evaluation.
Analysis of Discovery and Investigation Data
This analysis examines the overall discovery and investigation progress
that has been made by EPA and the states throughout the Superfund program. In
addition, site identification activities broken out by state are discussed.
-------
2-3
EXHIBIT 2-1
STATE STAFF DISCOVERY AND INVESTIGATION TRAINING a/
Fiscal Years 1981-1983
State
Alabama 15
Arizona 1
Colorado 2
Delaware 2
District of
Columbia 2
Florida 22
Georgia 20
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky 5
Maryland
Massachusetts 2
Mississippi 9
Nevada 4
New Hampshire 2
New York 11
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania 8
South Carolina 43
South Dakota 3
Texas 6
Vermont
Washington 8
TOTALS 165
Sampling and/or Monitoring
Number of Days of
Staff Trained Training
Environmental Assessment & Evaluation
2
5
3
4
5
5
2
5
3
.25
1
5
5
7
5
6
70.25
Number of
Staff Trained
6
30
1
2
1
3
12
5
160
1
4
235
Days of
Training
5
2
5
15
3
3
5
3
2
7
9
5
2
68
NUMBER OF
RESPONDENTS
25
a/ More than one training session may be included in a particular
state's figures. For example, 80 Pennsylvania staff attended one 5-day
assessment-related session and 80 attended another 4 day assessment-related
session.
Source: ASTSWMO survey.
-------
2-4
Finally, EPA and state estimates of the number of hazardous substance sites
are compared for their perspectives of the extent of the problem.
Exhibit 2-2 charts site discovery, preliminary assessment, and site
inspection activities for each quarter of the Superfund program (fiscal years
1981 through 1984). These data were submitted by the states and EPA regional
offices and entered into headquarters' Emergency and Remedial Response
Information System. The large peak in site discoveries in the third quarter
of 1981 reflects the start-up of the Information System; most sites included
in the third quarter data were previously identified and recorded in other
data systems.
Exhibit 2-2 shows that the greatest level of activity has been in the area
of site discovery and that most sites were identified early in the Superfund
program. Over the past 2-1/2 years, preliminary assessments have fluctuated
quarterly, but have generally exceeded the levels of other discovery and
investigation activities. The number of site inspections conducted each
quarter has remained fairly constant.
Discovery and Investigation Activities by State
Each discovery and investigation activity serves as a screen to categorize
a site as requiring immediate attention, additional evaluation, or no action.
Exhibit 2-3 contains information on the progress that has been made by both
EPA and the states in this screening process. Major findings drawn from the
exhibit are as follows:
• Over 18,800 sites have been identified nationwide, but
their distribution among the states varies
considerably. The number of sites per state averages
331, although the range is from 1 to 1,132.
• Seven states rank among the top ten states with
respect both to the number of sites identified and the
number of National Priorities List sites.
• Site assessment activities conducted by EPA and the
states also vary from state to state. One state in
particular, Texas, is noteworthy for being ranked second
highest in total sites identified and completing
preliminary assessments at 90 percent of these sites.
Over one-half of all identified sites (57 percent)
nationwide received preliminary assessments; site
inspections were completed at 19 percent of all
identified sites.
• Nine percent of all identified sites received a hazard
ranking score and approximately 3 percent have been
listed on the National Priorities List. Each state on
average has 30 scored sites and 10 sites listed on the
National Priorities List.
-------
>
o
a:
ui
m
3,5 -
3 -
2.5 -
2 -
1 .5 -
1 -
0.5 -
EXHIBIT 2-2
QUARTERLY BREAKDOWN OF SITE DISCOVERIES, PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTS
AND SITE INSPECTIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1981-198U
to
i
YEAR/QUARTER
Legend: f> Sites Discovered Note: Sites discovered are only those sites for which a date or discovery was available.
•f Preliminary Assessments
O Site Inspections
Source: U.S. EPA, Emergency and Remedial Response Information System.
-------
2-6
EXHIBIT 2-3
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Commonwealth of
the Marianas
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
..Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
SITE DISCOVERY
AND INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES
THROUGH FISCAL YEAR
Total
.Sites a/
Identified
417
96
2
225
248
976
242
4
234
69
5
375
593
13
77
120
900
695
280
260
314
318
78
168
489
965
222
273
606
81
174
118
75
1,042
166
1,132
647
31
Completed
Preliminary
Assessments
187
46
2
161
222
525
119
4
140
65
3
199
283
2
56
67
364
273
143
172
215
263
72
105
331
308
139
237
514
60
137
34
50
403
153
460
211
15
1984
Completed
Site
Inspections
25
21
1
63
125
141
10
1
14
32
2
58
36
1
22
39
100
62
75
39
37
115
21
26
60
130
29
36
190
8
31
8
21
171
62
232
57
2
Sites with
Hazard
Ranking
Score b/
16
1
1
12
16
109
32
1
13
15
1
65
13
1
13
7
87
53
22
15
22
8
26
19
31
174
40
15
82
13
9
4
21
144
6
146
19
3
NPL
Sites c>
7
0
1
6
6
19
9
1
6
9
0
29
5
1
0
4
11
17
'3
4
7
5
5
3
16
48
23
1
7
5
0
0
10
85
4
29
3
1
-------
2-7
EXHIBIT 2-3 (continued)
SITE DISCOVERY AND INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES
State
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Trust Territories
of Pacific
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTALS
NUMBER OF
JURISDICTIONS
THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 1984
Sites with
Total
Sites a/
Identified
860
449
167
1,031
139
78
206
38
622
1,112
2
110
22
284
1
501
214
242
74
Completed
Preliminary
Assessments
348
390
113
675
14
50
112
27
453
1,001
2
50
6
203
0
212
136
177
58
Completed
Site
Inspections
75
206
54
223
6
23
20
1
321
344
1
1
2
34
0
80
63
42
2
Hazard
Ranking
Score b/
77
14
11
95
10
15
18
1
26
36
1
15
2
13
0
51
18
51
3
NPL
Sites
22
4
3
39
8
6
10
1
6
10
1
1
2
4
0
14
4
20
1
18,884
57
10,767
3,601
1,732
538
c/
a/ The number of total sites exceeds the number of sites discovered
(Exhibit 2-2) because the latter represents only those sites for which the date
of discovery was available. Two sites located on Wake Island and Midway Island
are not included in this exhibit, but are included in the total.
b/ Obtained from MITRE Data Base, September 30, 1984.
c/ 48 FR 40658, September 8, 1983, 49 FR 19480, May 8, 1984, and 49 FR
37070, September 21, 1984.
Source: U.S. EPA Emergency and Remedial Response Information System.
-------
2-8
The Extent of the Problem
Because EPA believes that the majority of the sites posing the more
serious problems have been discovered,2 it is important to examine state
perceptions on the number of sites in existence. The ASTSWMO survey asked the
states to estimate total sites for their state and to estimate how many of
these sites will require response. The results are presented in Exhibit 2-4
along with EPA's state figures for total sites as identified in the Emergency
and Remedial Response Information System.3
The data reveal that nationwide, the EPA data base reported 1,261 more
sites than did the states in the ASTSWMO survey. On a state-by-state basis,
however, discrepancies between EPA and state estimates are greater. For
example, California state officials reported that they have 4,750 sites, 2,000
of which need response. The Emergency and Remedial Response Information
System lists 976 sites for California. On the other hand, EPA estimates 860
sites for Ohio, while state officials responded that 40 sites exist in their
state. In most states (70 percent), however, EPA figures are larger, whereas
only 27 percent of states reported more sites than did EPA.
The most important observation from the exhibit is that states' estimate
that over 7,000 sites require response, although the scope of response for
these sites is likely to be less than for sites listed on the National
Priorities List. States perceive the extent of the problem to be considerably
broader than what can be addressed by the Superfund program, which is expected
to place 1,800 sites on the National Priorities List. There may also be
certain sites that the states are aware of, yet have not submitted to the
Information System for political and institutional reasons, or because they
planned to initiate enforcement actions at the site(s).
Effect of EPA Policies on State Participation in Discovery and
Investigation
Two EPA activities seem especially relevant to the extent of state
involvement in identifying and evaluating sites:
(1) EPA's attempt to increase the pace of the Superfund
program by increasing the number of sites listed on the
National Priorities List; and
(2) EPA's disbursement of funds to the states under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Section 3012
program and under Superfund cooperative agreements.
2EPA believes that the number of sites submitted to the Emergency and
Remedial Response Information System will grow to approximately 22,000. Thus,
according to this estimate, over 85 percent of potential hazardous sites have
been discovered.
'State estimates are from July-October 1983, and EPA data are as of
September 30, 1984.
-------
2-9
EXHIBIT 2-4
ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SITES
BY EPA AND THE STATES
a/
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Commonwealth of
the Marianas
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
a/
Number
of Sites
in State by
States'
Estimates
400
10
200
300
4,750
20
•
200
80
3
237
300
t
50
.
550
200
.
150
150
f
,
100
350
1,200
125
250
100
79
150
4
95
1,500
200
Sites
Needing
Response by
States'
Number
100
2
.
50
20
2,000
8
•
200
8
0
90
150
t
5
8
100
200
.
100
75
r
f
11
53
700
90
25
65
20
15
2
50
800
100
Estimates
Percent
of Total
Estimated
25
20
.
25
7
42
40
•
100
10
0
38
50
10
.
18
100
,
66
50
f
,
11
15
58
72
10
65
25
10
50
53
53
50
b/
Number
of ERRIS
Sites
as of
9/30/84
417
96
2
225
248
976
242
4
234
69
5
375
593
13
77
120
900
695
280
260
314
318
78
168
489
965
222
273
606
81
174
118
75
1,042
166
Difference
Between
States'
Estimate
and ERRIS
-17
-86
.
-25
52
3,774
-222
•
-34
11
-2
-138
-293
,
-27
.
-350
-495
-110
-164
.
.
-68
-139
235
-97
-23
-506
-2
-24
-114
20
458
34
-------
2-10
EXHIBIT 2-4 (continued)
ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SITES
BY EPA AND THE STATES
State
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Trust Territories of
the Pacific
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTALS
NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Number
of Sites
in State by
States'
Estimates
750
15
40
50
45
1,200
30
50
650
1,300
12
275
1
500
200
750
17,621
44
a/
Sites Needing
Response by
States' Estimates
Percent
of Total
Estimated
Number
200
0
40
15
8
600
30
2
500
150
6
15
0
500
7,113
43
27
0
100
30
18
50
100
4
77
12
50
5
0
67
40
V
Number
of ERRIS
Sites
as of
9/30/84
1,132
647
31
860
449
167
1,031
139
78
206
38
622
1,112
2
110
22
284
1
501
214
242
74
18,884 b/
57
Difference
Between
States'
Estimate
and ERRIS
-382
-16
-820
-399
-122
169
-176
12
28
188
-10
-9
0
-1
-14
508
1,261 c/
44
a/ ASTSWMO survey.
b/ U.S. EPA, Emergency and Remedial Response Information System. Two
sites located on Wake Island and Midway Island are not included in this
exhibit, but are included in the total.
c/ Cumulative differences between states' estimate and ERRIS equaled
5,489 where the state estimate was the larger, and 4,885 where the ERRIS
number was the larger, or a total discrepancy of 10,374.
-------
2-11
As a result of these efforts, EPA and the states expect to increase
significantly the number of assessment activities and to complete all
preliminary assessments by the end of fiscal year 1986 and site inspections by
the end of fiscal year 1987.
The effects of EPA's policy changes on the performance of hazard
assessment activities are not yet fully known, but EPA expects that the
incidence of preliminary assessments and site inspections will increase
because of the greater emphasis on these activities and the states' additional
resources under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Section 3012
program and under Superfund cooperative agreements. Experience thus far
suggests that states .may need assistance in establishing site identification
targets or require assistance in planning for resource needs to reach their
targets. Such assistance could include, for example, continued training for
state staff.
In summary, states are now taking major responsibility for the conduct of
most preliminary site identification tasks. EPA is providing funding support
and technical assistance to the states under the RCRA Section 3012 program and
Superfund cooperative agreements.
2.1.2 Remedial Activities"
This section focuses on state remedial planning and response activities.
A remedial action is a long-term response, consistent with permanent remedy,
to prevent or mitigate the migration of hazardous substances 'into the
environment. Remedial actions generally cost over $1 million and take from
six months to several years to complete.
The pace of cleanup efforts depends as much on factors over which EPA has •
no influence, as on the procedures EPA establishes and the division of costs
and responsibilities between states and EPA. Such factors may include state
budgetary constraints and the political pressures exerted on state governments
to expedite cleanups. However, a review of changes in the level of remedial
activity over time provides an indication that recent EPA policy changes
(particularly the decision to limit the time allotted to negotiation in favor
of quick action) may have contributed to increases in the level of activity.
Exhibit 2-9 charts the actual number of remedial investigation/feasibility
studies initiated by EPA in each quarter from the first quarter of FY81
through the fourth quarter of FY84. (No investigations/studies were initiated
prior to the third quarter of FY81.) The exhibit reveals a sharp increase in
the number of remedial investigation/feasibility studies initiated in the
third quarter of FY83. Prior to that time, fewer than 24 remedial
investigations/feasibility studies were initiated per quarter. Since the
third quarter of FY83, the average has been close to 40 start-ups per quarter.
Although these improvements cannot be definitively attributed to EPA policies,
the increase did occur when EPA began to implement these policies in May 1983.
fcA detailed discussion of remedial activities is contained in Chapter 2
of the CERCLA Section 301(a)(1)(A) report.
-------
2-12
State Resources for Long-Term Cleanups
The ASTSWMO survey asked a series of questions concerning staffing levels
for states' remedial action programs. States were asked to estimate the total
number of person-years devoted to remedial response -- including both
Superfund cleanups and any independent state efforts -- for fiscal years 1983,
1984, and 1985. ASTSWMO further requested that states disaggregate these
figures by funding source, identifying positions or fractions of positions
funded from state revenues, from federal Superfund allotments, and from other
federal sources.
Exhibit 2-5 presents the survey results concerning state staffing. The
exhibit indicates the total number of full time positions in each state's
remedial response program for fiscal years 1983 and 1984. (Because many
respondents in the ASTSWMO survey did not provide estimates for FY85, the data
for that year have been omitted from the exhibit.) The exhibit also presents
a breakdown of these totals by funding source. Three categories of sources
for the funds to pay remedial response staff are listed: state funds, CERCLA
funds, and other federal government funds. Several important points may be
drawn from the exhibit:
• States predicted a sfiarp increase between 1983 and
1984 in the amount of staff time devoted to remedial
responses. For FY83, 41 states listed a total of 258.8
person-years. For FY84, 40 states projected a total of
427.9 person-years -- a 65 percent increase in absolute
terms and a 70 percent increase in the average for
responding states.
• Funding for the majority of positions, in both 1983
and 1984, was expected to come from state revenues. In
FY83, states reported that 189.9 of.258.8 remedial
response positions (or 73 percent) were financed from
state resources. In projections for FY84, states
anticipated funding 317.6 of 427.9 projected positions
(or 74 percent) from state revenues. Superfund
financing represents the next>most important funding
source, supporting 45.3 (or 18 percent) of remedial
response positions in 1983 and 64.6 (or 15 percent) of
projected 1984 positions. Monies from federal sources
outside of Superfund funded the remaining remedial staff.
• Personnel are concentrated in a few states. The five
states that reported the largest staffs in 1983 (New
Jersey, New York, California, Massachusetts, and
Tennessee) accounted for 145.5 or 56 percent, of all
reported positions. Projections for 1984 suggested the
possibility of even greater concentration. The five
leading states for that year (New Jersey, New York,
Michigan, Massachusetts, and California) accounted for
277 of the person-years projected for that year, or 65
-------
STATE
Alaska
Driioni
Arkansas
California
Color .
-------
2-14
percent. Three of these states -- New Jersey, New York,
and Michigan -- rank among the top five states with the
most National Priorities List sites. California and
Massachusetts also have a large number of National
Priorities List sites.
The survey results concerning remedial response funds exhibit some of the
same patterns that are evident in the staffing data. These results are set
forth in Exhibit 2-6. This exhibit characterizes states' remedial response
funding for fiscal years 1983 and 1984 in four categories: total funding, and
funding obtained from CERCLA, from state sources, and from federal sources
other than CERCLA. Some of the important generalizations supported by these
data may be summarized as follows:
• Respondents projected that remedial response funding
during FY84 would be substantially higher than in FY83.
For 1983, 37 respondents reported total response funds
of $126.0 million. The 35 jurisdictions that provided
responses for 1984 projected a total funding level of
$263.2 million -- an increase of more than 100 percent.
Because the 1984 figure represents a smaller number of
responses, the average funding level per respondent
increased even more sharply from $3.4 million in 1983 to
$7.5 million in 1984.
• For both years, respondents indicated that the
Superfund would be the most important source of remedial
response funds. In 1983, $103.7 million of $126.0
million in total funds (or 82 percent) were reported to
have come from Superfund. Projections for FY84
indicated that $201.0 million out of $263.2 million in
total funds (or 76 percent) would come from Superfund.
The survey identified state funds as the next most
important source of remedial resources. State revenues
accounted for $20.5 million, or 16 percent, of total
resources in 1983 and $39.3 million, or 15 percent, of
projected resources in 1984. Thus, although state
resources pay the salaries of most remedial response
personnel, they are vastly outweighed by CERCLA funds as
sources of overall response funds.
• Response funds, like response program staff, are
heavily concentrated in a handful of states. For 1983,
the four states that reported the greatest response
funds (Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey)
reported controlling $102.5 million, or 81 percent of
all reported response funds. Projections for 1984
placed $173.1 million, or 66 percent, of remedial
response funds in the hands of the four leading
jurisdictions (Florida, California, New Jersey, and New
York).
-------
EXHIBIT 2-6
REMEDIAL RESPONSE FUNDS
Ill] Fnndl
sine
Mllll
Driiou
*r twin
Cillfornii
Cilorato
COMKtiC«l
ttlnurt
liitrlct of Coliutii
Floriii
Btortli
Knili
Itwt
llllMll
Mluu
(win
(ntntf
NiiMcknttti
fliihiini
Nimtuti
Nittttiitii
RlMOWl
Italtni
Rtkrnti
Rt»4i
UnHuoUirt'
RnJirttr
HM Itnict
UN Itrl
tortk Mot*
Oklt
IklWOM
Ortto.
Fwniflvwii
talk Ctrillu
talk likiti
ICMffMf
Inn
Vtrini
Vir|iii III wit
Viriioli
Inkinflon
Inl liriUli
Riumin
letil
ftnritt
boktr of ItiiMtftflti
Itoriiil Ititonit
lotil
0.0
201.0
.
1,021.0
15.0
,
21.3
2.1
1,107.0
130.0
0.0
0.0
2,300.0
762.0
.
121.7
1,480.5
14,000.0
7(3.0
8.0
.
11.0
12.2
21.0
1,710.0
17,244.1
12.0
11,167.0
.
4,826.3
241.1
11.2
M.130.0
1,120.1
2.0
2,122.0
2,111.0
200.0
.
0.0
260.0
0.0
0.0
123,171.1
1,404.7
17
Inrtill Rttimit
EM - Ftf fu<
0.0
0.0
,
0.0
.
0.0
0.0
1,875.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
300.0
262.0
f
693.0
0.0
16,000.0
443.0
0.0
,
0.0
0.0
0.0
1,500.0
13,316.1
0.0
12,500.0
1,850.0
228.1
0.0
27,000.0
611.1
0.0
172.0
2,1)0.0
.
.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
101,724.3
2,161.6
13
It will il Rfiionst
Othtr - ft*
0.0
11.5
.
0.0
t
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
75.0
t
0.0
15.0
0.0
4.8
,
11.0
8.7
13.1
0.0
0.0
24.0
647.0
.
800.0
0.0
11.2
0.0
0.0
1.0
.
0.0
0.0
t
0
60.0
0.0
0.0
1,718.1
51.1
14
(in thousands of $)
Rttttfiil Itionw
Otktr - Stilt
0.0
188.3
1,821.0
45.0
_
21.5
I.I
32.0
150.0
0.0
2,000.0
405.0
128.7
1,445.3
,
140.0
1.2
j
0.0
1.3
1.2
210.0
1,728.0
1.0
6,000.0
f
176.3
21.0
0.0
1,110.0
411.0
1.0
1,750.0
.
200.0
.
0.0
200.0
0.0
0.0
20,310.3
601.1
14
Rntdiil Rtifonit
Totil
42.0
6,426.0
41,100.0
45.0
1,551.5
2.8
52,500.0
377.0
47.0
.
1,180.0
600.0
t
1,154.6
2,665.0
13,100.0
4,768.6
6.0
22.3
12.2
1.2
7,007.3
42,111.2
12.0
13,140.0
.
2,316.0
234.4
123.1
10,614.0
1,740.1
2.0
172.0
7,116.0
.
150.0
2,120.0
1,000.0
46.0
261,164.6
7,511.0
13
ITB4 Ftmtli
Rmi'itl Rtitonit Ri
EPA - M fond
0.0
5,864.5
f
14,100.0
,
.
1,500.0
0.0
45,000.0
127.0
0.0
1,800.0
0.0
1,418.6
13,390.0
2,106.0
0.0
,
22.3
0.0
0.0
4,000.0
18,077.2
0.0
23,000.0
.
2,316.0
211.1
0.0
27,000.0
WO.O
0.0
172.0
7,118.0
.
.
0.0
2,200.0
,
0.0
201,017.1
6,281.6
12
tttdiil Rtiponit
Othtr - ft4
60.0
0.0
.
21,200.0
0.0
,
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
47.0
t
0.0
73.0
t
126.4
0.0
,
0.0
4.6
t
0.0
8.7
4.6
0.0
0.0
24.0
500.0
t
0.0
0.0
103.0
486.0
66.2
l-o
.
0.0
,
,
150.0
0.0
0.0
22,671.1
713.0
12
Itotdiil Rttponu
Otktr - Stilt
2.0
351.5
,
5,000.0
45.0
t
51.5
1.6
7,500.0
50.0
t
t
180.0
523.0
t
201.4
2,663.0
,
1,640.4
1.2
f
0.0
1.3
4.6
1,007.3
4,2)4.0
8.0
1,640.0
t
0.0
21.1
22.1
1,110.0
732.4
1.0
.
.
.
0.0
720.0
1,000.0
64.0
11,267.3
1,266.7
31
ro
i
-------
2-16
State Resources for Community Relations
States have begun to increase their involvement in the community relations
component of the Superfund program. State staffing and budget resources
devoted to community relations are discussed below.
Community Relations Staff
As Exhibit 2-7 shows, nine states have full-time staff specifically
responsible for community relations. Often, the states rely on EPA regional
staff or EPA Remedial Planning/Field Investigation Team contractors for ,
assistance in developing and implementing community relations plans.
Exhibit 2-7 also shows the expected community relations training needs of
various states. The states anticipated the need to train thirty-four (34)
staff persons in FY84 and thirty-two (32) staff persons in FY85. The number
of staff reported to need community relations training varies substantially
among the states. For example, Michigan reported that 25 staff (74 percent of
the total need reported by the states) are expected to receive community
relations training in FY84, while most states anticipated the need to train
one or two staff for community relations. This large variation is probably a
result of the states' different approaches to implementing community relations
at Superfund sites, or differing emphases placed on these activities. In some
states, the technical staff are responsible for conducting community relations
in addition to performing other activities at specific sites. Because
community relations is only part of their responsibilities, the entire
technical staff may receive general community relations training. Other
states may have one or two staff persons responsible for community relations
at all sites in the state. In this case, community relations training would
be more specialized and extensive.
Some of the states' training needs will be met by the community relations
training program being conducted by EPA. The training program is designed to
give region and state technical, enforcement, and community relations staff
additional guidance on how to implement an effective community relations
program. A staff person from each state is invited to attend the program and
encouraged to share the information from the training program with other state
staff. In addition, videotapes of the workshops will be used by the regions
to train state staff in community relations.
Community Relations Budget
Little information is available on state budgets for community relations
at Superfund sites. Recent conversations with two state Superfund staff
suggest a significant difference between states in the amount of money
budgeted for community relations. For example, New Hampshire allocates
approximately $10,000 to $16,000 per site for community relations.5 In
'Telephone conversation with Kathleen Barlow, Hazardous Waste
Coordinator, New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission (June
1, 1984).
-------
2-17
EXHIBIT 2-7
COMMUNITY RELATIONS TRAINING
State
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
TOTALS
NUMBER OF
JURISDICTIONS
Full-time
Community
Relations staff
Number of Staff Expected
to Receive Training
FY 84
25
1
1
1
4 a/
3-5 b/
3
1
1
16-18
20
3
2
34
FY 85
10
1
2
2
1
1
7
2
1
2
1
1
1
32
a/ In the report by ICF Incorporated, Fostering the State Role in
Superfund, (August 1983), New Jersey indicated that the state had two (2)
employees handling Superfund community relations. However, a telephone
conversation with Grace Singer, Program Manager for Community Relations, New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, indicates that New Jersey now
has four (4) staff persons responsible for community relations at Superfund
sites.
b/ According to the ICF Incorporated report (August 1983), no single New
York state employee works exclusively on Superfund community relations.
However, two full-time professionals handle "public participation" and nine
(9) people in the state spend approximately thirty percent (30%) of their time
on Superfund community relations. The three to five staff reported above
represent full-time staff equivalencies.
Source: ASTSWMO survey (unless otherwise noted).
-------
2-18
contrast, New Jersey, which has initiated work at 49 sites in FY84, has a
total community relations budget of $226,000 (an average of less than $5,000
per site).6 In addition, part of New Jersey's community relations budget is
used for non-site specific tasks such as funding development of its management
plan.
Analysis of State Long-Term Cleanup Data
State involvement in efforts to address the problems caused by hazardous
substance releases can also be assessed through a review of the numbers of
remedial responses initiated and completed in each state. Exhibit 2-8 sets
out the numbers of long term remedial responses initiated and completed by
state. "State long-term cleanups" are remedial responses that do not involve
Superfund monies and that require more than six months and $1 million to
complete. (Figures in this category may include actions at National
Priorities List sites that are financed by private responsible parties.)
"CERCLA-funded cleanups" are CERCLA remedial actions financed through
Superfund disbursements and the state cost shares required by CERCLA Section
104(c)(3). This category includes Superfund remedial actions that are
governed by cooperative agreements (i.e., state-lead actions) as well as by
Superfund state contracts (i.e., EPA-lead activities).
Because there can be no assurance that states who responded to the survey
construed the term "long-term cleanup" to be synonymous with remedial
activities at Superfund sites, the figures presented in the exhibit may not be
strictly comparable. With this qualification in mind, it is useful to examine
the following observations concerning the progress of remedial activities:
• State cleanups are less evenly distributed than EPA
cleanups. For example, the three states that have
initiated the most cleanups among survey respondents
since 1981 (Wisconsin, Michigan, and Tennessee) account
for 98 of the 133 state cleanups, or 74 percent. In
contrast, the three states in which the most EPA
cleanups have been initiated (New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
and Michigan) contain 84 of 290 cleanup sites, or 29
percent.
• The proportion of projects that have been completed is
substantially higher for state long-term cleanups
initiated since 1981 than for EPA cleanups begun during
the same period. States reported having completed 33 of
133 or 25 percent of their cleanup actions, while
Superfund program data shows 6 completions out of 290
projects or 2.1 percent. Available information fails to
identify the source of this disparity. State cleanups
6Telephone conversation with Grace Singer, Program Manager for Community
Relations, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (June 15, 1984).
-------
2-19
EXHIBIT 2-8
LONG-TERM CLEANUPS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES SINCE 1981
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Commonweal
Marianas
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
State Long-Term Cleanups
Initiated
Since
1/1/81
1
0
moa
0
0
0
1
h of the
0
0
Columbia 1
1
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
_
-
0
ts 9
38
0
0
-
0
0
1
.re 0
4
0
8
Completed
Since
1/1/81
1
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
1
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
_
-
0
8
8
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
a/ CERCLA-Funded
Initiated
Since
1/1/81
1
0
1
4
5
13
7
1
3
4
0
16
0
1
0
0
11
9
3
2
7
6
3
3
10
18
9
0
5
4
0
0
6
43
2
14
Cleanups b/
Completed
Since
1/1/81
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
2-20
EXHIBIT 2-8 (continued)
LONG-TERM CLEANUPS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES SINCE 1981
State
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Trust Territories
of the Pacific
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTALS
State Long-Term Cleanups a/ CERCLA-Funded Cleanups b/
Initiated Completed Initiated Completed
Since Since Since Since
1/1/81 1/1/81 1/1/81 1/1/81
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
7
40
133
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
6
5
33
0
1
13
4
1
23
2
2
4
0
3
12
1
0
1
0
3
6
2
1
0
290
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NUMBER OF JURISDIC-
TIONS
42
42
57
57
(footnotes on next page).
-------
2-21
FOOTNOTES TO EXHIBIT 2-8
a/ State long-term cleanups include remedial responses that do not draw
upon Superfund monies and that require more than six months and $1 million to
complete. Although no breakdown is available, activities in this category may
include both long-term cleanups undertaken at sites that are not listed on the
National Priorities List and cleanups at listed sites that are financed by
responsible parties. Apart from these privately financed cleanups at sites
ranked by the Superfund program, it is uncertain whether states'
interpretation of the phrase "long-term cleanup" is consistent with the
definition EPA attaches to the term. Also, some states may have included
state-lead, CERCLA-financed cleanups in their responses to this question.
Thus, the figures presented in this exhibit cannot be interpreted to provide
the definitive comparison of CERCLA and state cleanup actions.
b/ Data on CERCLA-funded cleanups initiated since January 1, 1981,
include RI/FS's initiated through September 30, 1984. Data on completions
include sites at which all currently scheduled remedial construction was
completed by September 12, 1984. These data do not include 25 cleanups by
private responsible parties.
Source: ASTSWMO survey (state cleanup data) and U.S. EPA, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (CERCLA cleanup data).
-------
Ul
u.
o
m
EXHIBIT 2-9
QUARTERLY BREAKDOWN OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS/
FEASIBILITY STUDIES FOR FISCAL YEARS 1981-1984
0 --
ro
YEAR/QUARTER
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
-------
2-23
may have been initiated earlier, on average, than EPA
cleanups. State cleanups may generally be less complex
or narrower in scope. Alternatively, the difference
could reflect differences in the activities states and
EPA use to mark the beginning,or end of a long-term
cleanup. Data concerning EPA cleanups includes all
sites at which remedial investigation/ feasibility
studies have commenced. It is not known whether survey
responses from states uniformly included state cleanups
that are only at the planning stage.
• Certain states, such as New York and Michigan, rank
among the leaders in both state cleanups and EPA
cleanups. These two states are also among the five
states having the greatest number of National Priorities
List sites. Some states, such as Wisconsin and
Tennessee, rank far higher in their number of state (as
opposed to EPA) cleanups, while others, such as
Pennsylvania, have a high number of EPA cleanups
relative to state cleanups.
2.2 RESPONSES TO SUDDEN RELEASES AND SHORT-TERM CLEANUPS7
This section analyzes state responses to sudden releases or spills and
short-term cleanup activities. In the ASTSWMO survey a spill response meant
that the state sent a staff person to investigate a spill; the state may or
may not have cleaned up the spill. States responded to over 8,000 spills
annually in fiscal years 1981 and 1982. The survey also asked states to
report their short-term cleanups, exclusive of Superfund cleanups. These
cleanups were defined as costing less than $1 million and taking less than six
months to complete. The definition of a short-term cleanup in the survey is
comparable to EPA's definition of a removal action under CERCLA.
State Resources for Sudden Releases and Short-Term Cleanups
To conduct sudden release and short-term cleanup activities, three types
of resources are essential to the development and operation of a response
program: (1) staff resources; (2) adequate funds; and (3) access to necessary
technical expertise and resources. There is a close relationship among these
three resources in that technical staff resources are dependent on funding
availability. Similarly, cleanup funds are significant only to the extent
that a state has. the technical expertise and staff resources to carry out
cleanup activities effectively. Adequacy in one resource area may be of
limited utility without access to either of the other resource areas. State
data are presented below for each of these three resources.
7A detailed discussion of EPA's removal program is presented in Chapter
3 of the CERCLA Section 301(a)(1)(A) Study.
-------
2-24
The staffing and funding section of the ASTSWMO survey asked states to
provide data on their "spill response" resources. Staffing and funding
figures, therefore, may represent responses to sudden releases and short-term
cleanups. The following discussion utilizes the term "spill response" in
referring to state staff and funds for these activities.
Staff Resources.8 One measure of a state's ability to respond to
hazardous substance spills is the number of staff that it commits solely to
hazardous spill response activities. Having greater staff committed to spill
response activities at the state level implies an enhanced state capability to
respond expeditiously to spills and a decreased likelihood of having to rely
upon EPA or federal assistance for implementation of its spill response
activities. The commitment of state staff resources for spill response
activities for fiscal years 1983 and 1984 is presented in Exhibit 2-10. The
40 states responding for both fiscal years 1983 and 1984 reported a total of
155 person-years, or approximately 4 person-years per state committed to spill
response activity in fiscal year 1983.9 In fiscal year 1984, staff
available for spill response for these same 40 states increased by
approximately 12 percent to 174 total staff persons, or an average of 4.4
person-years per state. Four states -- Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
and Tennessee -- have each committed 17 or more person-years in both fiscal
years 1983 and 1984 for work on spill response activities. Ten states have
either less than one or no full time staff committed to spill response in
fiscal year 1984.
Spill Response Funding. A second measure of a state's capacity to
respond to spills of hazardous substances within the state's boundaries is the
level of program funding that is committed to spill response activities. As
shown in Exhibit 2-11, for the 29 states that responded with data for both
fiscal years 1983 and 1984, total state spill response funds remains roughly
the same for fiscal years 1983 and 1984 -- approximately $6.7 million.10
Sources of these funds are as follows:
• Except for Florida, which reported receiving $2
million of CERCLA funds in fiscal year 1983, no CERCLA
funds have been provided for state spill response.
(Florida may have included CERCLA monies used for a
planned removal.)
• For both fiscal years, approximately 8 percent of the
funds available for spill response in the 29 states
reporting data for those years came from other federal
sources.
'Staff represent person-years reported by the states.
'Pennsylvania did not report a number of spill response staff for fiscal
year 1984 and is therefore excluded in this comparison of total staff (i.e.,
this leaves a total of 155 staff for fiscal year 1983).
100hio, which reported spill funding data only for fiscal year 1984, is
excluded from this analysis. Total funds available for all respondents in
fiscal year 1984 was $7,638,300; Ohio reported $865,000 of that amount.
-------
EXHIBIT 2-10
STATE SPILL RESPONSE STAFF FOR
STATE
Alabaia
Alaska
Ariiona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delanare
District ol Columbia
Florida
6eorgi a
Naiuii
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Naryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Dississipiii
Missouri
Dontana
Nebraska
Nevada
N» Haipshire
Nn Jersey
Hen Nemo
Nn Vork
Olio
Oklahou
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Teias
Veriont
Virginia
•ashington
Hisconsin
Total
Average
ol Respondents
FISCAL YEARS 1983
AND 1984
10DT c**lf IQRI daff
ITOJ btaif I'D* Jlift
Spill Response Faid
Total
1.1
1.0
0.5
2.0
1.0
1.5
7.0
0.3
1.7
1.5
20.0
0.0
1.0
6.0
0.0
2.6
3.0
17.5
7.0
4.0
1.4
2.0
0.5
1.4
0. 1
0.0
18.0
I.I
0.0
7.0
0.3
1 1
1.1
6.0
6.5
0.7
17.0
12.0
2.0
2.0
1.1
0.0
161. 1
3.7
41
1783 Staff
by CERCU
Funds
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
40
Paid by Other
Federal Funds
0.8
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
1.7
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.2
O.I
2.4
0.0
0.5
0.0
7.1
1.5
0.0
1.1
0.0
32.3
0.8
41
Paid by
State Funds
0.3
0.7
0.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.3
0.0
1.0
20.0
0.0
1.0
4.0
0.0
2.6
1.0
16.5
5.0
3.0
0.6
2.0
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.0
18.0
3.3
0.0
7.0
0.1
1.0
3.6
6.5
0.2
17.0
4.7
0.5
2.0
0.0
0.0
128.8
3.1
41
Spill Response
Total
0.4
1.0
0.3
f A
*«U
1.0
1 5
ItJ
BA
.v
4 A
,\i
7 A
ft V
3 A
.U
20.0
0.0
1,0
-6.0
0.0
2n
.0
3.0
19.0
7 ft
/. V
4.0
1.4
5.0
0.5
1.4
0.1
0.0
24.0
11
. 1
2.0
7.0
0 J
1.5
7.0
0.7
17.0
12.0
•) A
*.V
2.0
17
. J
0.0
174.3
41
, 1
40
Paid by CERCLA
Funds
0.0
0.0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
38
Paid dy Other
Federal Funds
0.3
O.t
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
3.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
7.1
1.5
0.0
1.3
0.0
33.4
0.7
39
Paid by
State Funds
0.1
0.9
0.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
5.0
1.0
0.0
3.0
20.0
0.0
1.0
4.0
0.0
2. a
1.0
18.0
5.0
3.0
0.6
5.0
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.0
24.0
0.3
2.C
7.0
0.1
0.5
t
6.5
0.2
17.0
4.7
0.5
2.0
0.0
0.0
140.7
3.5
40
to
Ln
Source: ASTSWMO survey
-------
EXHIBIT 2-11
STATE SPILL RESPONSE FUNDS FOR
STATE
Alaska
Ariiona
California
Colorado
District of Coluttia
Florid)
Himii
Illinois
Indiini
Kentucky
Itassicllusetts
Hinnesota
Mississippi
Rontana
. Nebraska
Nevada
Nw Jersey
Nw Hexico
Nn Vort
Ohio
Oklahoia
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carotint
South Dakota
Veriimt
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Totil
Average
Niuter ol Respondents
Note:
FISCAL YEARS 1983 and 1984
(thousands of §)
1983 Funds
Spill Ritponci
Total
15.0
16.5
1,000.0
45.0
4.3
5.2
2,046.0
0.0
311. 0
214.0
116.5
1,069.5
129.2
B.O
15.0
41.8
5.1
620.7
32.0
300.0
71.5
44. B
71.0
149.5
16.0
169.0
50.0
34.3
41.0
6,664.9
229.3
29
Paid by CF.RCU
Funds
0.0
0.0
f
0.0
0.0
2,000.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
?, 000.0
74.1
27
Paid by Other
Federal Funds
5.0
16.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
16.0
0.0
0.0
74.7
70.1
35.0
38. 8
4.8
0.0
31.3
0.5
0.0
24.0
0.0
0.0
4.B
0.0
0.0
13.0
139.3
0.0
34.3
0.0
509.7
17.4
29
Paid by
State Funds
10.0
0.0
1,000.0
45.0
6.3
3.6
50.0
0.0
311.0
139.3
46.4
1,033.5
90.4
3.2
15.0
10.5
4.6
620.7
e.o
300.0
'71.5
42.0
71.0
149.5
3.0
29. B
50.0
0.0
41.0
4,155.2
142.9
29
Spill Response
Total
IS.O
8.3
1,000.0
45.0
53.0
4.0
1,000.0
0.0
311.0
214.0
122.1
1,630.0
134.0
8.0
18.0
41. B
5.1
923.0
32.0
500.0
665.0
78. 6
67.3
75.0
171.7
16.0
169.0
50.0
40.5
41.0
7,638.3
254.1
30
19B4 Funds
Paid by CEHCIA
Funds
0.0
0.0
.
.
0.0
0.0
.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27
Paid by Other
Federal Fuids
5.0
B.3
0.0
0.0
31.0
2.4
.
0.0
0.0
74.7
75.2
0.0
40.2
4.8
0.0
31.3
0.5
0.0
24.0
0.0
44.0
0.0
37.5
0.0
14.7
13.0
139.3
0.0
40.5
0.0
584. 2
20.0
29
Paid by
State Funds
10.0
0.0
1,000.0
45.0
22.0
1.6
1,000.0
0.0
311.0
139. 1
48.9
1,630.0
91.8
3.2
te.o
10.5
4.6
923.0
B.O
500.0
821.0
78.6
29.9
75.0
137.0
3.0
29.B
50.0
0.0
41.0
7,054.1
234.8
30
These total funding levels are subject to possible revision using
different interpretations of the data. For example, Florida listed $2
million of CERCLA funding for spill response in fiscal year 1983. The
accuracy of this estimate is uncertain since the source and use of the
funds are undocumented.
Source: ASTSWMO survey.
-------
2-27
• The states contributed 89 percent of total state spill
response funding for fiscal year 1983, and 93 percent in
fiscal year 1984. States that made the most dramatic
percentage increase in funding include Delaware (8.5
fold); Massachusetts (53 percent); New Jersey (50
percent); and Oregon (44 percent).
Technical Expertise and Resources. In general, limited data are
available on the technical expertise and resources that are available for
spill response activities at the state level. A survey of 11 states in July
1982 indicated that each of the states surveyed had safety equipment, and 4 of
.the states surveyed had specially equipped vehicles for responding on-scene to
spills.11 Although many of the states surveyed in 1982 mentioned plans to
upgrade their spill response capabilities, there has been no comprehensive
study of state emergency response expertise and equipment.
The recent ASTSWMO survey of state hazardous waste cleanup programs
indicates that state staff have received significant training in spill
response procedures. Exhibit 2-12 identifies the spill response training
programs attended by state personnel from 1981 to 1983. The exhibit shows
that a total of 208 state personnel have participated in training in emergency
incident response, an average of 8 people per responding state. In addition,
a total of 335 people have attended training programs on the use of protective
and safety equipment. Most of the training was sponsored by EPA.
Analysis of Immediate Removal Data
State and EPA immediate removal activities are arrayed by state in Exhibit
2-13. EPA has tracked its own removal efforts and those of the Coast Guard on
a site-by-site basis since fiscal year 1981.
State data are from the ASTSWMO survey, which asked states to identify the
number of short-term cleanups (exclusive of Superfund cleanups) they conducted
in fiscal years 1981-1983. Short-term cleanups were defined in the
questionnaire as actions costing less than $1 million or requiring less than
six months to complete, which is similar to EPA's definition of immediate
removals.
llFor further information on the survey of state resources for
responding to releases of hazardous substances, see ICF Incorporated,
Regulatory Impact Analysis for Reportable Quantities under CERCLA sections
102 and 103 (July 1982), Chapter 6.
-------
2-28
EXHIBIT 2-12
STATE SPILL RESPONSE TRAINING
1981-1983 a/
Emergency Incident
Response b/
Use of Protection and
Safety Equipment
State
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Number of
staff trained
15
1
1
Days of
training
2
5
5
Georgia 18
Illinois
Kansas 7
Kentucky 2
Maryland
Massachusetts 7
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
New Jersey
New York
2
4
2
8
25
Nevada
New Hampshire
Oklahoma
Oregon 40
Ohio
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee 67
Texas 4
Vermont 3
Washington 2
TOTALS 208
NUMBER OF
RESPONDENTS 27
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
2
3
2
2
66
Number of
staff trained
7
1
2
23
1
30
5
35
1
2
70
50 c/
1
8
3
4
60
30
1 c/
Days of
training
5
5
5
5
2
5
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
3
1
4
5
.
355
78
-------
2-29
EXHIBIT 2-12 (continued)
STATE SPILL RESPONSE TRAINING
1981-1983 a/
FOOTNOTES
a/ More than one training session may be included in a particular state's
figures.
b/ Emergency incident response training includes training in incident
mitigation and other hazardous substance emergency operation procedures.
c/ Included in the training for state staff identified by New York and
South Dakota in the ASTSVMO survey was a training program on hazardous
materials transportation sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Source: ASTSWMO survey.
-------
EXHIBIT 2-13
FEDERAL AND STATE IMMEDIATE REMOVALS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1981-1983 a/
States
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
Ca 1 i fornia
Co lorado
Connecticut
De 1 awa re
District of
Co 1 Limb i a
F lor ida
Geo rg i a
Hawa i i
Idaho
1 1 1 inois
Ind iana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Loui s iana
Ma ine
Ma ry land
Massachusetts
Michigan
M i nnesota
Mi ssi ss ippi
Mi ssour i
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampsh i re
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Ca ro 1 ina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Caro 1 ina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
FY 81
Federal States
2 5
2 2«4
5
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
3
«4
<4 18
1
3
1
4
1
4
2
1
1
3
FY 82
Federal States
5
1 3
1
3 18
5
1 14
2
1 1
1
2 3 -
3
1
15
1
2
1 3
8
1
1 2
1
1
3 12
1 3
5
9
3
2
1 1
2
4
FY 83
Federal States
r .
1 6
1
10 6
1
1 5
10
10 2
1
2 1
8 5
5
6
1
3
2
1
5 2
6
2 1
14
6
2 4
3
6 15
1 2
2 8
2
4
2 2
1 2
13
1 1
5
2 10
10
FY 8'4 °f
Federal States
3
1
U
1
6
2
1
2
8
12
1
8
3
1
4
1
3
7
3
6
({
5
10
3
3
8
1
4
7
1
3
1
1
13
1
1
2
10
Tota I
Federal States
6 16
1
(4
a u
1
21 48
3
2 15
3 16
3
19 3
12 2
1
3 1
18 9
12
2
214
7
14
5
10
9 6
23
5
8 6
15
6
3
2 4
10 1
21 '45
3 6
14 8
10
1
20
3 2
2 6
32
3
3 2
1 6
14 12
29
I
OJ
O
-------
EXHIBIT 2-13 (continued)
FEDERAL AND STATE IMMEDIATE REMOVALS FOR FISCAL YEARS-1981-1983 a/
States
Trust Territor-
ies of the
Pac i f ic
Vermont
V i rg i n i a
Washington
West Vi rg inia
Wi scons in
Wyom i ng
FY 81
Federal States
20
1
FY 82
Federal States
1
1
2 1
20
FY 83
Federal States
1 U6
1
2
6 5
1 5
FY 8*4 £'
Federal States
32
1
2
3
-
Tota 1
Federal States
32
1 1)6
2 1
5
11 6
1 U5
1
TOTALS
NUMBER OF
RESPONDENTS ON
STATE SURVEY:
36
29
87
56
106
120
157
193
U05
350
N)
to
a/ Federal immediate removal figures include both EPA and Coast Guard immediate removals. The Coast Guard conducted
a total of 38 removal actions between fiscal year 1982 and September 30, 198U. Data do not include planned removals. Data
concerning state actions pertains only to activities that did not involve EPA Superfund monies. Although no breakdown is
available, activities in this category may include short term cleanups undertaken at sites that are not listed on the
National Priorities List and privately financed cleanups at listed sites.
b/ Data for spill response activities conducted by the states in fiscal year 198U were not available.
Sources: Federal spill response data were obtained from the EPA Emergency Response Division, September 30, 198U.
The ASTSWMO questionnaire asked states to report their "short term clean-ups" that have not involved EPA
Superfund and that cost less than $1 million or required less than six months to complete. The short-term site
cleanups are defined similarly to "immediate removals" in the National Contingency Plan. Therefore, state data on
short-term cleanup activities are comparable to EPA data for immediate removals.
-------
2-32
The data collected in the ASTSWMO study may not provide comprehensive
information on all state immediate removal activities. Although most states
collect information on their immediate removal activities, some do not report
this information to a central source. Certain states report this information
to regional EPA offices or maintain their own individual files.
As illustrated in Exhibit 2-13, both EPA and state immediate removal
activities have progressively increased each year since 1981. Between.fiscal
years 1981 and 1982, federal activity increased by sixty percent. An even
greater increase occurred between 1982 and 1983 when federal removals more
than doubled. A total of 212 federal removal actions were conducted between
FY81 and FY83 with an additional 193 removals conducted in FY84.
State immediate removals have also increased significantly; a total of 350
were conducted during this period. As was true for the federal government,
the greatest increase in immediate removal actions took place between 1982 and
1983 (an increase of 48 percent for 29 reporting states). In 7 states,
immediate removals in fiscal year 1983 increased over the previous year. Five
of the most active states (New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Vermont, and
Tennessee) implemented almost 60 percent of all immediate removals in fiscal
year 1983.
Effect of Resources and EPA Policies on State Participation
in Sudden Releases and Short-Term Cleanups
As described in Chapter 1, EPA policies concerning removals have changed
since the beginning of the program. Many changes implemented in 1983 may
affect state participation in responding to sudden releases or conducting
short-term cleanups. These policy changes and their potential effect on state
participation are discussed below.
• Criteria for Immediate Removals -- In early 1983, EPA
broadened the criteria used to determine whether an
immediate removal action can be conducted.
• Limited Delegation of Authority -- Delegation of
authority to the regions in 1983 to obligate up to
5250,000 for immediate removal actions may substantially
reduce the time needed to process immediate removal
requests.
Because the policy changes facilitate federal involvement in conducting
immediate removals, the states may direct more resources toward responding to
sudden releases, or toward conducting removals that may differ in scope from
EPA removals. It appears from the ASTSWMO study that states generally assume
responsibility for sudden releases (over 8,000 annually) and conduct a portion
of removals (350). The removals conducted by states may differ from those
conducted by EPA, since EPA usually conducts removals at existing hazardous
waste sites.
-------
2-33
2.3 ENFORCEMENT12
This section describes the role and participation of states in the
Superfund enforcement program. Unlike the remedial program, enforcement
efforts under CERCLA have involved relatively little coordination between EPA
and the states. A major reason for this is the language of the law itself:
CERCLA's enforcement authorities are almost exclusively federal authorities.
States must derive most of their enforcement authority from state laws, which
differ from state to state.
The primary sources of EPA's civil enforcement authorities under CERCLA
are Sections 106 and 107 of the Act. Section 106(a) authorizes EPA to issue
administrative orders or to commence civil judicial actions to abate the
threats posed by a release of a hazardous substance, if it is determined that
such release "may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health or welfare or the environment." This authority allows EPA to order
unilaterally a responsible party13 to conduct specific cleanup actions or to
cease certain actions that pose a potential danger. EPA may also, after
negotiating with potentially responsible parties, issue an administrative
consent order specifying the actions to be taken. Consent orders are signed
by EPA and the parties, whereas unilateral orders are signed only by an EPA
regional administrator. CERCLA Section 106(b) establishes penalties for
non-compliance with an, order issued under Section 106(a). Alternatively,
under Section 106, EPA may seek action or restraint by the responsible party
by requesting that the Department of Justice file a complaint in federal
district court against the potentially responsible parties.
Section 107(a) of CERCLA makes responsible parties liable for:
• The costs incurred by the state or the federal
government in responding to an actual or threatened
release of a hazardous substance;
• The costs incurred by any other person in responding
to a release consistent with the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; and
• Damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of
natural resources, including the reasonable costs of
assessing such injury, destruction, or loss.
12A detailed discussion of enforcement is contained in Chapter 4 of the
301(a)(l)(A) analysis.
13Potentially responsible parties are persons potentially responsible
for a release of a hazardous substance. Such parties may include owners and
operators of a facility and anyone who transports, generates, uses, stores,
handles, treats, or disposes of the hazardous substances.
-------
2-34
In addition, CERCLA Section 107(c)(3) makes responsible parties liable for
up to three times the cost of any government response actions necessitated by
the failure, without sufficient cause, of such parties to comply with an
administrative order issued pursuant to section 106(a).
Of these enforcement provisions available to EPA, only the liability
provisions of CERCLA Section 107 are available to the states. States may sue
responsible parties to recover costs of state response under Section 107. In
addition, states are granted an independent federal cause of action under
CERCLA Section 107(f) to sue for damages to natural resources "within the
State or belonging to, managed by, controlled by, or appertaining to such
State."
States are not authorized to issue administrative orders or commence civil
actions under CERCLA Section-106. Many states may have passed laws granting
the state, government similar authorities, but a detailed review of state laws
would be required to determine whether states may apply the authorities under
the same circumstances or whether states have penalties and damages comparable
to the penalties and treble damages authorized by CERCLA. States vary in
their willingness and capability to pursue enforcement action. EPA has little
information abut the status of enforcement action at NPL sites classified as
state enforcement leads.
State Resources for Enforcement1<>
In the majority of the states, lack of funds and personnel has been the
greatest obstacle to effective state enforcement efforts. Exhibits 2-14 and
2-15 present figures on enforcement resources available to the states for
fiscal years 1983 and 1984. Exhibit 2-14 shows, for each state responding to
the survey, the amount of funds available for state enforcement in fiscal
years 1983 and 1984 from EPA, state, and other federal (i.e., non-EPA)
sources. Exhibit 2-15 shows, for each state, the number of state enforcement
staff in fiscal years 1983 and 1984 supported by state, EPA, and non-EPA
federal funds. The most striking feature of these data is the concentration
of funds and staff in a few states. For example, of .the more than $4 million
reported for state enforcement use in fiscal year 1983, approximately 40
percent was spent by New York, with the majority of the remaining funds spent
by a few other states (Minnesota, New Jersey, New Hampshire). For fiscal year
1984, New York's share of the total projected expenditures drops somewhat, but
85 percent of budgeted expenditures are concentrated in five stat.es: New
York, California, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Minnesota. The data on
enforcement staff show similar results, with roughly two-thirds of the total
for fiscal year 1983 concentrated in five states and roughly 95 percent of the
total for fiscal year 1984 concentrated in six states.
ll*ASTSWMO survey responses were provided by state hazardous substance
cleanup offices. State attorney general offices, which are often central to
state enforcement actions, were not surveyed.
-------
EXHIBIT 2-14
STATE ENFORCEMENT. FUNDS,.FISCAL YEARS 1983-1984
SIME
Ufeu
llntl
IriMM
•rUnn
tlliliriil
Mir*
(MKtiCIt
ttlwri
liilrict if CilMkii
Htriit
Inrii*
Imii
IMM
llhMil
Miw
IKMI
iHUtlf
Ulgrcmrt
III!)
0.0
11.0
.
I.I 1
M.I
f
3.1
I7.t
M.I
M
O.I
0.01
Ml
21.1
U.I
IN! Fun
tut k« ami
Fafc
I.I
I.I
I.I
W.I
0.0
1.0
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
1.0
0.0
i.i
A
fiil kt Mkff
FHirll Fwtfl
I.I
Il.l
I.I
I.I
I.I
Il.l
Il.l
I.I
I.I
.
13.1
I.I
tut kf
(till F««I
I.I
I.I
M.O
3.1
3.1
M.I
1.0
O.I
3.1
Il.l
blortnxt
Mil
l.l
Il.l
.
1,114.3
IM.I
.
3.1
17.1
M.I I
0.0
O.I
I.I 1
H.I
11.3
IOMFM
fill kf KK1I
FMM
1.0
0.0
.
0.0
M.O
0.0
1.0
0.0
*.!
0.0
.
0.0
0.0
,
0.0
tt
tiU kf MMr
Fifcrll Ml
1.0
Il.l
131.1
0.0
O.I
IM
.
O.I
I.I
13.0
4.3
till kf
Mitt F«ft
I.I
I.I
.
HI .3
M.O
3.1
S.I
M.I
I.I
I.I
.
3.0
.
13.1
InMtknrtU
31.5
1.1
51.5
I.I
IJIMWU
Itltiuiwi
^talli
Mrukt
fcuto
In lM»Ulrt
Intent
to. Inla
•MtVk
Nrtk lltrtl
•ill
Hi AMI
frM*
rWlfllMll
talk CirtliH
Sntk liliti
ItMNNIM
Inn
fcriart
Vir|ii lilMls
Virfitii
liUi»tl«
•nt Viriiiii
IlKMtll
Mil
liirifi
r .1 Im^l,
4tl.7
1.1
Il.l
1.3
1.1
MM
IU.I
M.I
,741.1
.
117.]
17.3
Il.l
IM.O
11.3
J.I
IM.I •
I.I
M.O
.
I.I
I.I
I.I
Il.l
4,455. 4
111.1
U
Il.l
I.I
I.I
1.0
0.0
I.I
O.I
0.0
i.i
.
i.i
i.i
i.i
i.i
1.0
O.I
I.I
1.0
I.I
.
1.0
I.I
I.I
I.I
lll.l
1.4
U
I.I
4.1
Il.l
O.I
M
173.7
1.1
Il.l
1.0
0.0
O.I
l.l
0.0
0.0
1.0
.
I.I
15.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.I
4M.t
14. 1
11
411.7
1.1
I.I
1.3
l.l
111.7
m.i
1.1
I.7U.1
117.3
17.3
I.I
IM.I
11.5
I.I
IM.O
I.I
13.1
I.I
4.0
0.0
11.0
1,141.3
IU.I
1!
I.I
0.0
I.I
i ht ir nil uktelilt MM HutM u Iki iwitf muim il tWu ililn. litil iniKlim HI Iktrilori ntaitiU lk> .ui
Source: ASTSWMO Survey.
Note: Figures were reported by the states; it is not clear why some states
reported CERCLA funds. Superfund monies may not be used for state
enforcement activities.
I.I
311.1
I.I
U.I
1.3
1.1
MM
I.MM
M.I
I.5M.I
117.3
IM
Il.l
IN.I
U.l
l.l
I.I
H.I
I.I
N.I
IM.II
11.1
3,717.1
I7«.l
14
Il.l
I.I
14.1
I.I
O.I
I.I
1.0
O.I
0.1
I.i
.1
137.0
I.I
11
1.0
I.I
O.I
0.0
i.i
171.7
O.I
31.1
M
I.I
0.0
M
M
11.7
I.I
1
*
I.I
I.I
.
0.0
I.1N.1
41.1
11
IM.I
1.1
0.0
1.3 '
1.1
310.1
I.ON.O
IM
I.3N.O
117.3
Il.l
M
IN.I
11.3
I.I
I.I
13.1
I.I
N.I
IN.I
H.I
4.HM
'ill. 3
11
LO
l/l
-------
EXHIBIT 2-15
STATE ENFORCEMENT STAFF FOR FISCAL YEARS 1983-1984
IMIE
tint*
fclllM
blann
tllltiriil
CUMclInt
fclMrt
tiitrict •< bMU
FltrUl
tar|il
llllMll
Miw
IKIH
InuclMwttf
UninlMl
Htarl
Mm
Mr «!•
ilrt
kikilc*
kite!
•It
tall brillu
Inn
•fTMBl
flrfli lilMn
Krilili
Ml*..
tat «ir|iil<
Hvmli
Mil
im si in
Mil
MgrcNMt
t.ia
1.1
i.]
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
i.f
1.1
1.1
1.1
i.i
t.i
1.1
1.1
i.i
i.i
ii. i
11.1
1.1
i.i
1.1
i.i
1.1
1.1
U.I
i.i
!M
J.i
1.1
1.7
7.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
I.I
I.I
1.1
I.I
I.I
IM.I
!.»
II
r>it t( ami
Fun
i.i
i.i
i.i
i.i
i.i
i.i
«.i .
i.i
i.i
i.i
i.i
i.i
i.i
i.i
1.1
i.i
i.i
i.i
i.i
M
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
1.1
.1
41
flit by Otktr
Frtml Furii
O.I
I.I
I.S
I.I
4.»
I.I
I.I
I.I
1.1
I.J
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
1.1
1.1
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
1.1
I.I
1.1
I.I
.1
1.1
1.1
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
1.1
I.I
I.I
1.1
I.I
1.1
i.i
M
I.I
IM
1.1
41
rii< tr
suit F»fc
0.073
I.I
I.I
I.I
4.1
I.I
1.1
I.I
I.I
1.1
I.I
I.I
I.I
1.7
I.I
1.1
1.1
I.I
II. 1
II. »
I.I
1.1
1.1
1.1
I.I
1.1
II.I
1.3
!M
1.1
.1
I.I
4.1
1.1
I.I
>.l
I.I
1.1
I.I
I.I
I.I
11.)
1.1
41
lilll
EnlviMMt
I.i
1.1
1.1
I.I
11.1
I.I
1.1
I.I
I.I
1.1
I.I
I.I
1.1
1.1
I.I
I.I
I.I
1.1
II.I
II.I
1.1
II.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
II.I
1.1
U.I
I.I
I.I
1.1
I.I
I.I
1.1
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.i
I.I
II4.I
1.4
41
IW4 SUM
Nil »r tMttl
Fllllfc
0.0
0.0
O.I
I.I
O.I
1.0
I.I
I.I
M
I.I
I.I
I.I
1.1
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
1.1
I.I
1.1
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
4.1
I.I
N
tlH »F Itktr
Frinil Fad
I.I
I.I
1.1
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
1.1
1.1
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
1.1
I.I
1.1
I.I
I.I
I.I
1.1
I.I
I.I
.1
•
I.I
1.1
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
.
I.I
I.I
I.I
l.t
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
lit
I.I
1»
NU ki
Hilt Finn
I.I
1.1
1.1
I.I
I.I
I.I
1.1
I.I
I.I
1.1
1.1
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
1.)
I.I
I.I
II.I
II.I
I.I
II.I
I.I
1.1
I.I
I.I
II.I
1.1
41.1
1.1
.1
I.I
1.1
I.I
I.I
1.1
1.1
I.I
1.1
I.I
Il4.t
l.t
41
to
i
Source: ASTSWMO Survey.
Note:
Figures were reported by the states; it is not clear why some states
reported CERCLA funds. Superfund monies may not be used for state
enforcement activities.
-------
2-37
Because Fund monies may not be used for state enforcement activities,
funding for state enforcement programs generally comes from the states
themselves. Exhibit 2-14 shows that Fund monies apparently contribute a
negligible portion of total expenditures by the states; such monies may have
been used for sampling purposes. Other federal sources provide additional
funds but, with the exception of a large ($953,000) grant to California in
fiscal year 1984, total federal funding for state enforcement covers less than
30 percent of total expenditures in both fiscal years.
Despite the generally low level of resources available, many states have
conducted active enforcement programs. The next section describes this
activity and relates it to EPA's enforcement activity under the Superfund
program.
Analysis of Enforcement Data
As might be expected from the resource distribution described in the
previous section, most state enforcement activity tends to be concentrated in
certain states - particularly New Jersey and California. In general, however,
the levels of civil and administrative activity are relatively high in a
number of states for which available funding and staff resources were
relatively low. Exhibit 2-16 presents the numbers of civil and administrative
enforcement actions conducted by states from 1981 to November 1983 and the
number of those actions resulting in private party cleanup. Because
enforcement authorities, site priorities, and resource levels vary from state
to state, it is difficult to draw conclusions from these data.
Effect of Resources and EPA Policies on State Participation
in the Superfund Enforcement Program
Direct state participation in the Superfund enforcement program is limited
by the language of the Act itself. Civil and administrative actions conducted
by states are based on widely varying state laws. This section of the report
has attempted to analyze state enforcement activity within these parameters.
In general, state enforcement programs have been relatively active. As
federal policy and guidance to assist and support state actions evolve, it is
likely that a set of enforcement objectives will emerge that will provide a
greater degree of consistency in state action at state-lead enforcement
sites. EPA is beginning to develop more specific policies with regard to
state enforcement which may provide for more effective coordination between
EPA and the states. If these policies are accompanied by a greater diversion
of federal resources to state-lead enforcement sites, as the Agency is
currently considering, then the effectiveness of state enforcement efforts
over the next few years could increase significantly.
-------
2-38
EXHIBIT 2-16
SITES SUBJECT TO STATE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Number
of Sites
SINCE 1981
Sites Subject to
Administrative
Enforcement
Sites Subject to
Judicial Enforcement
Subject Number Number
to State Resulting in Resulting in
Enforcement Private Party Private Party
State Actions a/ Number
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan a/
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
1
6
-
5
3
399
1
95
1
0
67
1
-
0
0
56
9
-
12
22
-
-
27
30
96
67
11
-
0
0
3
7
692
3
1
6
-
5
2
362
0
95
0
0
13
0
-
0
0
3
3
-
12
22
-
-
14
30
24
67
11
-
0
0
3
5
500
3
Cleanup
1
3
-
3
1
47
0
95
0
-
2
0
-
0
0
0
3
-
4
• 5
-
-
6
10
-
13
8
-
0
0
3
1
250
0
Number
0
3
-
1
1
37
1
3
1
-
29
0
-
0
0
48
6
-
0
0
-
-
13
8
72
2
0
-
0
0
0
1
50
0
Cleanup
0
3
-
0
1
3
0
0
0
-
6
0
-
0
0
12
3
-
0
0
-
-
3
8
-
1
0
-
0
0
0
0
2
0
-------
2-39
EXHIBIT 2-16 (continued)
SITES SUBJECT TO STATE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
SINCE 1981
State
Sites Subject to
Number
of Sites
Subject
to State
Enforcement
Administrative
Enforcement
Number
Resulting in
Private Party
Actions a/ Number
Cleanup
Sites Subject to
Judicial Enforcement
Number
Resulting in
Private Party
Number
Cleanup
New York 77 23
North Carolina
North Dakota 0 0
Ohio 50 40
Oklahoma 5 3
Oregon 6 5
Pennsylvania 50 40
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina 30 28
South Dakota 1 0
Tennessee 27 27
Texas 40 31
Trust Territories - -
of the Pacific
Utah
Vermont 13 11
Virginia 22 18
Virgin Islands
Washington 40 40
West Virginia 0 0
Wisconsin 100 90
Wyoming
TOTALS 2,075 1,537
NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS 43 43
18
0
20
0
5
20
12
0
11
12
10
18
0
25
606
40
23
0
10
2
1
10
6
1
0
9
3
4
1
0
10
356
42
12
0
7
i
1
3
4
1
0
5
0
4
0
0
5
85
41
a/ Figures are for pending or resolved civil enforcement actions in 1983.
A site may be subject to both administrative and judicial actions, and some
states did not classify all of their sites as being subject to either an
administrative or judicial action. It is unknown whether or not these sites
are on the National Priorities List.
Source: ASTSWMO survey.
-------
3. STATE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE CLEANUP PROGRAMS
This chapter describes the programs states have developed to address
hazardous substance problems within their borders. Section 3.1 assesses state
funding levels. Section 3.2 examines how funding limitations, along with
legal and institutional restrictions, have affected states' efforts to staff
their cleanup programs and to acquire needed equipment and services.
The data presented here, as in other chapters of this report, were
obtained from a survey conducted by the Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) in July to October 1983. In the
survey, states were asked to describe their entire cleanup programs, including
resources devoted to both the national Superfund program and to state cleanup
efforts. Funding figures include evaluations of the amounts available to the
Superfund program. Information concerning staff and equipment, however,
pertains to both components of states' programs.
3.1 STATE FUNDS
The ASTSWMO questionnaire asked recipients a series of questions
concerning state funding of hazardous waste cleanups. Responses to that
questionnaire were supplemented and clarified as needed through a series of
telephone contacts. The responses obtained through the questionnaire and the
follow-up conversations represent the best information obtained directly from
the states pertaining to their funding of hazardous substance responses.
The funding section of the questionnaires was completed by forty-two
states and the District of Columbia. These jurisdictions are listed
alphabetically in Exhibit 3-1, along with the sources and amounts of funding
reported by each jurisdiction. As the exhibit reveals, five of these
forty-three responding jurisdictions (Alabama, Hawaii, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
and West Virginia) indicated that they had no existing source of cleanup
funds. Five others (Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Maryland, and Oregon) listed a
projected source of funds but were unable to provide estimates of the amounts
that would become available. The analysis in this section focuses on the
remaining thirty-three states, those that provided information concerning both
the sources and amounts of cleanup appropriations. The two parts of this
discussion summarize, respectively, the amounts and sources of the funds these
states had spent or planned to spend on hazardous waste cleanups as of late
1983 when the survey was conducted, and the proportion of these funds states
designated as available for Superfund cost shares.
3.1.1 Sources and Amounts of Cleanup Funds
Exhibit 3-1 contains brief descriptions of the various sources of funds
employed to finance state and territorial response efforts. These figures
-------
Exhibit 3-1
STATE
SOURCE
STATE HAZARDOUS HASTE CLEANUP FUNDS
SOURCES, TOTAL AIIOIMTS, AND AHOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR COST SHARE
AKOUNT BY SOURCE
(in thousands of t)
AMOUNT AVAILABLE
FOR CERCLA COST SHARE
(in thousand* of I)
Alabaia
NONE
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California «
Colorado
Connecticut
Dela*art
District of Coloibia
Florida
Georgia
i OIL AM HAZARDOUS MTERIAL SPILL FUND
i GENERAL FUNDS
TOTAL
t STATE APPROPRIATION
• WTER 0UALITT REVOLVING FUND IFOR SEVERAL YEARS)
t STATE EMERGENCY FUND (FOR 1 NPL SITE)
TOTAL
» PEMIITS, APPMPRIATIOW, MANIFESTS
TOTAL
t HAZARDOUS SUISTANCE ACCOUNT
TOTAL
i GENERAL FUND
» APPROPRIATIONS FOR SPILLS
TOTAL
• STATE SPILL FUND
t STATE GENERAL FUNDS
i GENERATOR TAI
TOTAL
i STATE REVENUES FOR SPILL RESPONSE
TOTAL
* D.C. GOVERNNERT GENERAL FUND
TOTAL
i HATER 8UAL1TY ASSURANCE TRUST FUND
i STATE GENERAL FUND
• HAZARDOUS HASTE TRUST FUND
TOTAL
» HAZARDOUS HASTE PR06RAN LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS
* HAZARDOUS HASTE TRUST FUND
TOTAL
1,000.0
0.0
802.5
700.0
MO.O
177.2
1,000.0
2,102.1
177.2
38,300.0
38,300.0
450.0
1,300.0
66.8
22,500.0
885.0
100.0
450.0
1,500.0
46.8
23,485.0
700.0
700.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
lo
i
NJ
HiMii
NONE
-------
Exhibit 3-1 (cbntinued)
STATE HAZARDOUS NASTE CLEANUP FUNDS
SOURCES, TOTAL AMOUNTS, AND AHOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR COST SHARE
STATE
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
SOURCE
i HAZ. NASTE MANAGEMENT ACT-ALLONS EIPENDITURES NITH COST RECOVERY
TOTAL
< HAZARDOUS NASTE FUND
• GENERAL REVENUES
TOTAL
• HAZARDOUS NASTE TRUST FUND - HATCHES FEDERAL SUPERFUND »
TOTAL
i STATE GENERAL FUND. (GENERAL REVENUES APPROPRIATION)
TOTAL
* GENERAL REVENUES
* HAZARDOUS NASTE MANAGEMENT FUND
TOTAL
* HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES CONTROL FUND
TOTAL
i STATE SUPERFUND OF B3--BOND
* CAPITAL OUTLAY BUDGET OF 1979 ~ EIHAUSTED
TOTAL
< STATE GENERAL FUNDS APPROPRIATIONS (ANNUALLY)
TOTAL
i STATE SUPERFUND
i GENERAL STATE APPROPRIATIONS
TOTAL
i STATE GENERAL FUND
TOTAL
f LAND DISPOSAL FEES
t HAZARDOUS HASTE GENERATION FEES
* STATE GENERAL FUND (13.3 N FOR TINES BEACH)
TOTAL
t STATE GENERAL FUND
TOTAL
AMOUNT BY SOURCE
(in thousands of t)
.
2,700.0
2,700.0
5,400.0
380.0
360.0
375.0
375.0
120.0
615.0
735.0
•
25,000.0
5,000.0
30,000.0
20,000.0
20,000.0
5,000.0
3,171.4
8,171.4
48. 0
48.0
3,750.0
1,200.0
4,500.0
9,450.0
330.0
330.0
AMOUNT AVAILABLE
FOR CERCLA COST SHARE
(in thousands of I)
.
500.0
300.0
380.0
•
615.0
•
25,000.0
0.0
20,000.0
15,000.0
0.0
•
3,750.0
330.0
800.0
380.0
,
615.0
,
25,000.0
20,000.0
15,000.0
.
3,750.0
330.0
10
I
-------
Exhibit 3-1;(continued)
STATE
SOURCE
STATE HAZARDOUS HASTE CLEANUP FUNDS
SOURCES, TOTAL AMOUNTS, AND AMOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR COST SHARE
AMOUNT BY SOURCE
(in thousands of t)
AMOUNT AVAILABLE
FOR CERCLA COST SHARE
(in thousand} of I)
Nebraska
i GENERAL REVENUES
TOTAL
24.5
24.5
Nevada
Ned Haipshirc
Hen Jersey
Ne* Neiico
Hen York
North Dakota
* GENERAL FUND FYB3 AND FY84, POSSIBLY FYB5 (ANNUALLY) 36.0
* HAZARDOUS NASTE PENALTY FUND FY83 AND FV84, POSSIBLY 85 (ANNUALLY) 60.0
TOTAL 96.0
i NASTE END TAl OF I.04/K6: PROJECTED REVENUE 1,230.0
i APPROPRIATION 1,500.0
TOTAL 2,730.0
• SPILL FUND 20,000.0
• HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES DISCHARGE BOND ACT OF 1981 100,000.0
TOTAL 120,000.0
i HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE RESPONSE FUND (LEGISLATIVE) 130.0
> LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION FOR PERSONNEL 120.0
TOTAL 250.0
i HAZARDOUS NASTE FEE REVENUE 5,300.0
i GENERAL FUND 3,630.0
TOTAL 8,930.0
NONE
60.0
20,000.0
100,000.0
60.0
120,000.0
Ohio
• HAZARDOUS NASTE CLEANUP ACCOUNT (MATCHABLEI - FROM 3 SETTLEMENTS
t 608 SPILL ACCOUNT (GENERAL REVENUE FUND) - NOT FOR MATCH
TOTAL
350.0
12.6
362.6
330.0
0.0
330.0
Oklahota
NONE
Dream « GENERAL APPROPRIATION AND NEN DISPOSAL FEE
TOTAL
Pennsylvania * LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION FYB3
• STATE SOLID NASTE ABATEMENT FUND (FINES, PENALTIES ETC)
TOTAL
South Carolina « CONTINGENCY FUND
t STATE IUMET APPROPRIATIONS
TOTAL
3,000.0
200.0
1,901.0
77V. 0
3,200.0
2,680.0
-------
Exhibit 3-1 (continued)
STATE
SOURCE
STATE HAZMDOUS HASTE CLEANUP FUNDS
SOURCES, TOTAL AKOUNTS, AND AHOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR COST SHARE
AKOUNT Bl SOURCE
(in thousands o( I)
AKDUNT AVAILABLE
FOR CERCLA COST SHARE
(in thousands of I)
South Dakota
i STATE FUNDS FROJ SENERAL REVENUES (USED FOR COST SHARIN8)
TOTAL
IS.O
13.0
13.0
13.0
Tennessee
Texas
Veriont
> STATE EENERAL FUNDS 1,000.0
I GENERATOR FEES (ANTICIPATED) 1,000.0
TOTAL 2,000.0
> STATE DISPOSAL FACILITY RESPONSE FUND 3,350.0
TOTAL 5,550.0
> SPECIAL STATE HAZ. HASTE APPROPRIATION IFOR NPL AND RELATED SITES) 200.0
I STATE POLLUTION CONTINGENCY FUND (REVOLVING FUND) 10.0
TOTAL 210.0
5,350.0
200.0
0.0
5,550.0
200.0
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Hashington
Vest Virginia
Wisconsin
I GENERAL FUND FY8J 4,300.0
• HAZ. HASTE CONTROL AND ELIDINATION ACCOUNT -- FUNDS TO BE ACCRUED
i STATE REFERENDA 38 AND 31 - SOME PORTION SHOULD FINANCE CLEANUP
TOTAL 4,300.0
NONE
i PR06RJHI REVENUES 150.0
i GENERAL REVENUES 132.0
TOTAL 282.0
i
Ln
TOTALS
212,601.0
194,250.0
H California listed a iiigle nchinisi (or funding medial responses, its Hazardous Substance Account,
but indicated that the account muld be supported by both luip sui and annual appropriations.
Source: ASTSWMO Survey.
-------
3-6
represent total funds and include funds for spill response, remedial response,
and enforcement that were discussed in Chapter 2. The funding sources may be
classified by reference to two broad types of administrative mechanisms: lump
sum appropriations which, like the CERCLA Response Trust Fund, are drawn upon
as the need arises over an indefinite timespan, and annual appropriations,
which are established and administered under usual budgetary procedures. For
funding sources that fit the latter classification, jurisdictions were asked
to estimate expenditures for fiscal years 1983, 1984, and 1985. Entries in
Exhibit 3-1 for funding sources that are administered through the annual
appropriations process represent aggregates of the amounts given for all three
fiscal years.
The descriptions of funding sources contained in the Exhibit 3-1 generally
provide a fair indication of whether a given funding mechanism conforms to the
lump sum or fiscal year model. Response funds, spill funds, and state
Superfunds were generally listed by jurisdictions as lump sum sources from
which funds could be drawn as needed. General revenues, legislative
appropriations, and generator or disposal fees, on the other hand, were
usually classified as yearly appropriations. In some instances, however, the
labels affixed to funding mechanisms may be misleading. Several states (e.g.,
Kentucky and New Jersey) reported having spill funds or waste funds from which
annual appropriations are drawn. Conversely, legislative appropriations were
listed by some states as the source of lump sum funds (e.g., Nebraska and New
Hampshire). A more detailed version of Exhibit 3-1, which is presented in
Appendix A to this report, indicates the classification jurisdictions gave for
each funding source.
Results from the ASTSWMO survey suggest that jurisdictions rely more
frequently on annual, appropriations rather than lump sum funds as a source of
cleanup funds. Of the thirty-three jurisdictions that provided information on
funding sources, fifteen reported lump sum funds, while twenty-four reported
cleanup financing through annual legislative appropriations. (The numbers of
jurisdictions relying on each type of financing mechanism sum to thirty-nine,
not thirty-three, because six states reported reliance on both types.)
Moreover, ten jurisdictions reported two or three sources of annual
appropriations (e.g., Wisconsin listed annual funding amounts from both
"program revenues" and "general revenues"), while only four states reported
having more than one lump sum funding source.
Cleanup funds that jurisdictions have budgeted or expect to budget on an
annual basis are most often derived from general state revenues. Nineteen of
the twenty-four jurisdictions that reported reliance on annual appropriations
listed general state revenues as the source. Dedicated taxes or fees, such as
waste-end taxes (New Hampshire), fines and penalties (Pennsylvania), and
permit fees (Arkansas) were cited as sources of annual cleanup appropriations
by six jurisdictions. Finally, six jurisdictions listed trust funds as a
source of annual budgetary appropriations for responses.
The questionnaire results do not provide a detailed picture of how
jurisdictions have raised the revenues used to support lump sum funds. Some
states (e.g., Ohio and New Jersey) described sources for lump sum funds, such
as legal settlements or bond acts. Most, however, reported only that they
have established a response fund or a "state Superfund".
-------
3-7
The amounts that jurisdictions reported having spent or
earmarked for hazardous waste cleanup vary widely. Amounts reported
for annual appropriations range from $5,000 (South Dakota in fiscal
year 1985) to §14 million (Florida in fiscal year 1985). Generally,
fewer jurisdictions reported annual figures for 1985 than for 1983
and 1984, although the amounts that were reported for 1985 tend.to
be larger. Wide variation is also evident in the lump sum amounts
that jurisdictions reported. Lump sum funds ranged from $10,000
(Vermont's pollution contingency fund) to $100 million (New Jersey's
Hazardous Substance Discharge Bond authorization). Not
surprisingly, the jurisdictions that reported the greatest
expenditures and projected expenditures tend to contain numerous NPL
sites. New Jersey, for example, which leads all jurisdictions
listed in Exhibit 3-1 in the amount of funds committed to cleanups,
contains eighty-five NPL sites. Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York,
Minnesota, California, Massachusetts, and Florida, which rank high
in their number of NPL sites, are also among the leading states in
the amount of funds committed to waste cleanup. ^
3.1.2 Cost Share Funds
Not all of the funds that jurisdictions budget for hazardous
waste cleanup are available for cost sharing under the Superfund
program. Appropriations bills may reserve certain funds for
cleanups of sites that are not listed on the NPL. Alternatively,
governors or their appointees may be given broad discretion to
allocate state cleanup funds. Policies developed by state
executives who exercise this authority may reserve certain funds for
state staffing needs or for response actions states might decide to
take outside the Superfund program. In responding to questions
concerning cost shares, some states who reported funding sources
that were entirely available for cost sharing indicated that
practical and political considerations might limit funds available
for cost shares even though no statutory provisions or federal
policies pertained.
The amounts, by funding source, that jurisdictions have
available to meet cost share obligations are set out in column 4 of
Exhibit 3-1. Jurisdictions reported $194 million in funds available
for cost.sharing out of a total of $293 million, a ratio of
sixty-six percent. Appendix A presents a more detailed picture of
the availability of state funds for cost share responsibilities.
Examination of these disaggregated figures yields the following
generalizations:
• There is a marked disparity between the proportions of
lump sum funds and annual appropriations reported as
available for cost sharing. Jurisdictions reported that
the vast majority of lump sum appropriations, $132
million out of $156 million (eighty-four percent), could
be used for cost shares, while only $62 million out of
$137 million (forty-five percent) of amounts allocated
to hazardous waste cleanup on an annual basis would be
used to meet cost share requirements. The difference,
however, results principally from the classification of
the two largest lump sum funds, Massachusetts' $25
-------
3-8
million state Superfund and New Jersey's $100 million
fund, as entirely available for those states' cost share
obligations. Of the S31 million in lump sum funds
reported by states other than New Jersey and
Massachusetts, only $7 million, or twenty-three percent,
were described as available for cost share obligations.
• The types of funding mechanisms did not differ
significantly in the percentage of funding instruments
of each type that can be used as a source of cost share
funds. Jurisdictions that reported on funding sources
listed a total of thirty-seven types of annual
appropriations and nineteen types of lump sum funds that
they were using or expected to use to address hazardous
waste releases. Of the thirty-seven funding sources
described as annual appropriations, twelve, or
thirty-two percent, could be used partly or wholly to
meet state cost shares. Of the nineteen lump sum
appropriations, six, or thirty-one percent, could be
used to meet state cost share requirements.
3.2 STATE NEEDS
CERCLA cost-share provisions have encouraged states to establish or
enlarge their capabilities to respond to hazardous substance releases. This
incentive has arisen, however, during a period when states' budgets have been
severely constrained. Budgetary pressures are manifested not only in the
limits on the funding available for state cleanup efforts (reviewed in the
preceding section) but also in legal and institutional restrictions on the
expenditure of resources. This section assesses the effects of restrictions
on two broad aspects of states' efforts to marshal1 resources for cleanup
efforts: the hiring of additional staff and the procurement of needed
equipment and services.
3.2.1 Hiring Additional Staff
The ASTSWMO survey asked respondents to identify current and optimal
staffing levels for both technical and administrative positions. Exhibits 3-2
and 3-3 set out the survey findings for technical and administrative
positions, respectively. States reported equally pressing shortages with
respect to technical and administrative positions. To reach optimal levels,
they indicated that technical staffing would have to increase by eighty-four
percent (from 492.6 to 907.1 person years) and that administrative staffing
would have to increase by eighty-five percent (from 198 to 367 person years).
In absolute terms, the largest shortages in technical manpower involved
sanitary engineers, geologists, and chemists. Administrative positions for
which states reported needing the most new personnel include clerks, contract
and budget specialists, and policy analysts.
-------
3-9
EXHIBIT 3-2
CURRENT AND OPTIMAL TECHNICAL STAFFING LEVELS
Civil Engineer
Sanitary Engineer
Environmental
Chemist
Biologist
Public Health
Geologist/Hydrolegist
Soil Scientist
Other:
- Agricultur
- Chemical E
- Environmen
Officer/Sc
Technician
- Field Insp
- Investigator
- Industrial
- Pharmacist
- Specialist
solid wast
mental enf
environmental,
pollution cont
resource contr
emergency resp
water quality)
- Toxicologist
- Zoologist
TOTALS
ual Totals
r
gineer
ecialist
ogist
Engineer
;ineer
1 Field
ntist
tors
ygienist
(radiation
environ-
cement ,
•1,
mtrol ,
itrol,
sponse,
TT^
yj
for Respondent
Number of
Current
Staff
15.9
86.6
35.7
42.0
46.7
46.3
47.0
14.6
0.5
3.1
27.2
5.0
0.0
0.8
1.0
119.2
0.0
1.0
492.6
States in
Number of
Optimal
Staff
29.0
165.1
96.6
108.0
55.7
63.6
119.5
31.1
0.3
4.3
42.9
5.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
177.0
0.5
5.0
907.1
Person Years)
Number of
Additional
Staff Needed
(Optimal -
Current)
13.1
78.5
60.9
66.0
9.0
15.3
72.5
16.5
-0.2
1.2
15.7
0.0
1.0
0.7
0.0
57.8
0.5
4.0
414.5
Percentage
Increase
Needed
82
91
171
157
19
33
154
113
-40
39
58
0.0
-
88
0.0
48
-
400
84*
'''Percentage increase of total current technical staff needed to achieve
total optimal technical staff.
-------
3-10
EXHIBIT 3-3
CURRENT AND OPTIMAL ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING LEVELS
(Annual Totals
Budget /Finance/Contract
Specialist
Attorney
Steno/Clerk
Policy/Management ;
Analyst
Other:
- Accountant
- Data Manager
- Division Supervisor
- Executive Assistant
- Liberal Arts
- Planner
- Programmer
- Public information/
for Responding
Number of
Current
Staff
21.3
26.4
76.9
53.4
0.5
5.0
0.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
7.0
States in
Number of
Optimal
Staff
56.8
52.7
131.1
. 81.9
0.5
11.0
0.5
2.0
-
1.0
3.0
13.5
Person Years 1
Number of
Immediate
Staff Needed
(Optimal-
Current)
35.5
26.3
54.2
28.5
0.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
6.5
Percentage
Increase
Needed
166
100
70
53
0
120
0.0
0
-
0.0
50
93
affairs/community
relations
- Support
0.0
13.0
13.0
TOTALS
198
367
169
85*
"'Percentage increase of total current administrative staff needed to achieve
total optimal administrative staff.
-------
3-11
The survey also asked states to report existing and projected staff levels
for fiscal years 1983, 1984, and 1985. Exhibit 3-4 presents the results of
this inquiry. (The fiscal year 1983 total presented in Exhibit 3-4 is not
equivalent to the sum of the figures for current technical and administrative
staffing because not all respondents answered all parts of the survey.)
Because a large number of states declined to provide projections for fiscal
year 1985, comparisons involving totals for that year have been omitted.
However, totals for fiscal years 1983 and 1984, which include essentially
identical groups of states, indicate that states planned a substantial
increase -- thirty-nine percent -- in total staff. Several states with large
cleanup programs accounted for a large proportion of the projected aggregate
increase in staffing (e.g., New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, and New
York).
The survey revealed several legal and institutional factors that could
impede states' efforts to achieve optimal, or even projected, staffing
levels. Freezes on hiring by state governments represent one important
impediment. Two-thirds of the survey respondents reported hiring freezes in
effect during fiscal year 1983. Only about one-half the states with hiring
freezes in place during 1983 anticipated that the restrictions would continue
into 1984. States differed in their assessments of the effects of hiring
freezes on their hazardous waste programs. Some states reported that hiring
of needed personnel had been cancelled or postponed, resulting in increased
workloads or reductions in the number of spills receiving attention. Other
respondents stated that hiring had been slowed, but not eliminated. Several
states, finally, indicated that hiring freezes had not significantly affected
their programs.
The survey also investigated the effect of civil service regulations on
state programs. The vast majority of respondents (80 percent) reported that
the constraints imposed by civil service rules did not hinder their programs.
The remaining respondents indicated that they were generally able to
accomplish hiring goals within civil service restrictions by postponing
hiring, creating new job descriptions, and searching for state employees to
perform needed jobs. (States' responses concerning hiring restrictions are
tabulated in Exhibit 3-5.) Generally, respondents indicated that restrictions
such as mandatory hiring preferences presented a less significant obstacle to
needed hiring than did restrictions on the salaries that states were able to
pay for personnel with technical training.
3.2.2 Procurement
States were also asked to describe how restrictions on the procurement of
equipment and services affected their cleanup programs. Because states often
employ different procedures for procuring engineering or scientific
consultants and for procuring construction contractors, the survey addressed
these topics separately. Survey findings concerning the procurement of
equipment and services are summarized briefly in this section.
Laboratory equipment shortages were cited as a problem by almost one-half
(forty-seven percent) of the states that responded. Many states reported that
-------
EXHIBIT 3-4
STAFF RESOURCES -- CURRENT AND PROJECTED TOTAL STAFF FOR FY 1983-FY 1985
FY 1983 Staff
FY
1984 Projected
Percent Percent
State Federa 1 ly
State
Alabama
American Samoa
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Ca 1 i f o rn i a
Colorado
Connecticut
De 1 awa re
District of Columbia
Florida
Geo rg i a
Guam
Hawa i i
Idaho
1 1 1 inoi s
India na
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Loui si ana
Ma ine
Ma ry 1 a nd
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mi ssi ss ippi
Mi ssour i
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshi re
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carol ina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsy 1 van ia
Puerto Rico
Rh > Island
So. h Carol ina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Tota 1
2.2
-
1.1
7.3
6.0
46.0
2.5
9.8
1.9
5.5
11.3
26.0
-
0.0
-
5.0
17.4
-
0.5
7.0
-
-
7.0
46.0
32.0
38.5
3.6
11.5
2.0
2.0
1 .0
6.0
109.0
6.0
80.0
-
-
18.7
2.7
1.8
29.5
-
-
11.0
0.9
39.0
21.5
Rank
30
-
35
17
20
3
29
16
33
23
m
9
-
HO
• -
25
12
-
39
18
-
-
18
3
7
6
27
13
31
-
36
20
1
20
2
-
-
11
28
34
8
-
-
15
38
5
10
Funded
25
-
91
69
100
91
100
29
100
22
91
92
-
-
-
80
33
-
25
89
-
-
66
91
81
71
142
87
25
33
37
100
100
25
91
-
-
81
13
63
60
-
-
73
33
71
25
Funded
75 (0)
9 (0)
31 (0)
0 (0)
9 (0)
0 (0)
71 (0)
0 (0)
78 (0)
9 (0)
8 (0)
-
-
-
20 (100)
67 (69)
-
75 (0)
11 (0)
-
-
34 (0)
9 (0)
19 (67)
29 (91)
58 (0)
13 (0)
75 (0)
67 (0)
63 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
75 (0)
9 (100)
-
-
16 (0)
87 (55)
37 (0)
40 (0)
-
-
27 (100)
67 (0)
26 (100)
75 (53)
Total
7.4
-
1.9
10.3
6.0
57.0
2.5
10.8
5.6
7.3
20.8
30.0
-
1.5
• -
5.5
32.0
-
0.5
13.2
-
-
7.0
59.5
49.0
36.0
3.5
29.0
3.5
2.0
0.7
6.0
175.0
8.0
142.0
-
-
24.7
3.7
4.2
-
-
-
15.0
0.9
39.0
25.5
Rank
20
-
37
18
24
4
34
17
27
21
13
9
-
38
-
28
8
-
41
16
-
-
22
3
5
7
31
10
32
36
40
24
1
19
2
-
-
12
30
29
-
-
-
15
39
6
11
Percent
State
Funded
1
-
74
32
100
90
100
35
46
32
98
80
-
0
-
54
9<<
-
25
55
-
-
20
82
71
75
42
93
14
33
39
100
100
25
95
-
.
55
13
26
-
-
-
67
33
74
24
Staff
Percent
Federa 1 ly
Funded
99 (0)
_
26 (0)
68 (61)
0 (0)
10 (0)
0 (0)
65 (0)
54 (0)
68 (0)
2 (0)
20 (0)
-
100 (0)
-
46 (100)
6 (0)
- -
75 (0)
45 (25)
-
-
80 (0)
18 (0)
29 (57)
25 (89)
58 (0)
7 (25)
86 ( 100)
67 (0)
61 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
75 (0)
5 (100)
-
-
45 (0)
87 (56)
74 (60)
-
-
-
33 (0)
67 (0)
26 (100)
76 (54)
FY
Tota I
0.0
_
2.0
12.3
-
63.0
2.5
10.8
5.6
9.3
20.8
30.0
-
1.5
-
5.5
32.0
-
0.5
11.9
-
.
6.0
-
157.0
36.0
3.5
29.5
3.6
-
0.7
-
194.0
11.0
112.0
-
-
-
-
2.7
-
-
-
23.0
0.9
39.0
-
1985 Projected
Rank
32
-
28
12
-
3
27
15
20
16
10
7
.
29
-
21
6
-
32
13
-
_
19
-
2
5
24
8
23
-
31
-
1
14
-
-
_
-
-
26
-
-
-
9
30
4
-
Percent
State
Funded
_
75
57
-
86
100
35
46
36
98
80
_
0
-
36
94
-
25
66
-
_
50
-
77
75
42
95
17
-
39
100
46
.
-
_
-
-
31
-
-
-
56
33
74
-
Staff
Percent
Federa 1 ly
Funded
_ _
25 (0)
43 (81)
.
14 (0)
0 (0)
65 (0)
54 (0)
64 (0)
2 (0)
20 (0)
_
100 (0)
-
64 (100)
6 (0)
75 (0)
34 (59)
_
_ _
50 (0)
23 (83)
25 (89)
58 (0)
5 (0)
83 (100)
-
61 (0)
0 (0)
54 (0)
-
_ ..
-
-
69 (33)
- _
-
44 (0)
67 (0)
26 (100)
-
-------
EXHIBIT 3-4 (continued)
STAFF RESOURCES -- CURRENT AND PROJECTED TOTAL STAFF FOR FY 1983-FY 1985
FY 1983 Staff
State
Trust Territories
of the Pacific
Utah
Vermont
V i rg i n i a
Virgin Islands
Washington
We s t V i rg i n i a
Wi sconsin
Wyom i ng
TOTALS
NUMBER OF
RESPONDENTS
Total
632.
H2
Rank
Percent
State
Funded
FY 198U Projected Staff
Percent
FederaIly
Funded
5.0
2.0
5.2
0.0
1.0
25
31
2»»
HO
36
25
100
50
-
100
75 (0)
0 (0)
50 (0)
- -
0 (0)
Tota I
17.3
2.3
3.0
881.8
Rank
22
26
Hi
35
33
Percent
State
Funded
19
3'4
87
1UO
100
Percent
FederaIly
Funded
FY 1985 Pro.jected Staff
Percent Percent
State FederaIly
TotaI Rank Funded Funded
81 (U7)
0 (0)
22 (70)
0 (0)
144 (100)
81 (H7)
66 (100)
13 C*'l)
0 (0)
0 (0)
7.0
3.0
19.3
5.3
9.0
18
25.
11
22
17
19
100
78
100
56
758.2
32
Note: () Indicates percent of total staff financed by CERCLA fund.
Source: ASTSWMO Survey.
-------
3-14
EXHIBIT 3-5
STATE RESPONSES CONCERNING HIRING RESTRICTIONS
Civil Service
Hiring
Freeze
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
FY
1983
Y
Y
-
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
-
Y
Y
Y
Y
-
N
Y
-
-
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
•N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
-
Y
FY
1984
N
Y
-
-
Y
Y
N
Y
N
-
N
-
-
Y
N
Y
Y
• -
-
Y
-
-
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
-
-
N
Y
N
Y
N
-
-
-
State
Restrictions
on Federal
Positions
N
Y
-
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
" - '
N
N
Y
N
•
N
N
-
-
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Nega-
tive
Impact
Y
N
-
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
-
N
-
N
Y
-
N
N
'
-
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
-
-
Manda-
tory
Hiring
Pre-
ferences
Y
-
-
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
-
N
Y
Y
N
-
Y
Y
-
-
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
-
N
Rules
Problems
With
Hiring
Pre-
ferences
Y
-
-
-
-
Y
Y
N
-
-
N
-
-
-
N
Y
-
-
N
N
-
-
N
Y
Y
N
N
-
N
-
-
Y
Y
-
-
-
-
-------
3-15
EXHIBIT 3-5 (continued)
STATE RESPONSES CONCERNING HIRING RESTRICTIONS
Civil Service
Hiring
Freeze
State
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Trust Territories
of the Pacific
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTALS
Yes:
No:
FY
1983
Y
Y
Y
N
-
- •
Y
N
N
N
-
-
N
-
N
N
Y
N
-
30
14
FY
1984
N
Y
Y
-
-
-
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Y
-
-
17
11
State
Restrictions
on Federal
Positions
Y
Y
Y
N
-
-
N
N
N
N
-
-
N
-
N
N
N
N
-
18
26
Nega-
tive
Impact
N
N
N
N
-
-
N
N
N
N
-
-
N
-
N
N
-
N
-
8
33
Manda-
tory
Hiring
Pre-
ferences
—
Y
Y
Y
-
-
Y
N
Y
N
-
-
Y
-
N
N
Y
Y
-
25
17
Rules
Problems
With
Hiring
Pre-
ferences
N
Y
N
N
-
-
N
-
N
-
-
-
N
-
-
-
N
N
-
9
17
NUMBER OF
RESPONDENTS
44
28
44
41
42
26
Source: ASTSWMO Survey.
-------
3-16
equipment shortages limit their capacity to perform timely, complete analyses
of site samples. The survey does not reveal, however, whether the shortages
are attributable solely to funding shortages or whether other factors, such as
time-consuming procedures or limits to the production capacity of equipment
manufacturers, also contribute to the shortages.
Responses concerning the procurement of services addressed procedural
obstacles in greater detail. Because investigations and cleanups of hazardous
waste releases often require brief, intensive application of specialized
skills, states often contract for consultants to provide engineering or
scientific analyses. Exhibit 3-6 sets forth states' responses concerning the
procedures used to contract for consultant services.
Over seventy percent of respondents have used engineering or scientific
consultants. The contracting process can be time-consuming; the average
consultant contract takes about eleven weeks to process. Over one-half
(fifty-eight percent) of responding states reported delays in their
contracting process. Such delays are attributed primarily to financial and
legal reviews or contract negotiations. Requirements for ensuring competitive
bidding and selection have also slowed down the process. Most states
(seventy-eight percent) require consultant contracts to be subject to open
bidding. Thirty-two percent of the respondents indicated that state legal
requirements impeded their efforts to contract for consultants' services.
These impediments contribute to the time delay between signing a cooperative
agreement with a state and the actual beginning of work.
States reported having had less experience with construction contracts at
the time of the survey. The majority of responding states (fifty-eight
percent) reported that they had not yet issued construction contracts for
hazardous substance cleanups. Many states, however, have rules on
construction contracting that expedite procurement of qualified construction
contractors. Open bidding requirements existed to promote competition in most
(ninety-seven percent) of the responding states. A majority of states have
procedures designed to expedite contracting by permitting prequalification of
suitable contractors. Prequalification for construction work is permitted in
60 percent of responding states; prequalification for engineering consulting
is allowed in fifty-nine percent. Exhibit 3-7 presents state-by-state
breakdowns of contracting data.
3.2.3 Summary of State Needs
The data suggest that obtaining additional funding for personnel and
equipment is a high priority for state cleanup programs. States' assertions
that their programs needed eighty-five percent more personnel than they
employed at the time of the survey suggest a critical need for additional
hiring. Even with projected increases in state hiring in 1984, state staffing
levels will still be approximately forty percent short of optimum levels.
Equipment shortages, though less widespread, affected nearly one-half of the
states that responded.
-------
3-17
The survey also indicates that some state programs could benefit from
certain administrative, institutional, and procedural changes. Hiring freezes
and limitations on salaries for technical personnel were said to have impeded
some state programs. Legal restrictions on the procurement of consulting
services were identified as significant sources of delay in some instances.
Similar problems may arise in the procurement of construction services.
However, the limited experience of states with these services at the time of
the survey precludes any clear assessment of how serious these problems may
prove to be.
-------
3-18
EXHIBIT 3-6
CONTRACTING FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Ever
Contract
Consultants?
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
~
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Procure-
ments
Initiated
In-House?
.
-
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
-
Yes
Yes
.
-
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-
-
Yes
„
Yes
-
Yes
Yes
_
Yes
Yes
Yes
Length
of Time
to Procure
(Weeks)
.
-
12
2
36
2
18
12
8
5
2
_
-
12
24
8
7
—
10
26
12
-
-
6
.
4
10
9
13
_
25
3
8
Do
Delays
Occur?
-
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
_
-
No
Yes
No
Yes
:
Yes
Yes
Yes
-
-
No
_
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
_
Yes
Yes
No
Is Com-
petitive
Bidding
Required?
-
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-
Yes
_
-
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
-
-
Yes
—
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
_
Yes
Yes
Yes
-------
3-19
EXHIBIT 3-6 (continued)
CONTRACTING FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
State
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Trust Territories
of the Pacific
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTALS
Yes:
No:
NUMBER OF
RESPONDENTS
Ever
Contract
Consultants?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
29
12
41
Procure-
ments
Initiated
In-House?
Yes
No
Yes
Both
Yes
Yes
Yes
27
4
30*
Length
of Time
to Procure
(Weeks)
12
13
4
14
10
12
Do
Delays
Occur?
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Is Com-
petitive
Bidding
Required?
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
31
18
13
31
25
7 ...
32
•'•Includes one state (Tennessee) that responded "both."
Source: ASTSWMO Survey.
-------
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
CaIi forn i a
Colorado
Connecticut
DeIawa re
District of Columbia
Florida
Ceo rg i a
Guam
Hawa i i
Idaho
I I Ii no i s
Ind iana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Loui si ana
Ma i ne
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Mi ss i ssippi
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Speci fie
Regulat ions
for
Construct ion
Contracts
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
EXHIBIT 3-7
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
Have You
Ever Let a
Construction
Contract?
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Can Contractors
be PrequaIified?
Construct ion
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
LL neer
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Do Any
State Legal
Requi rements
Impede
Procurement?
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Is Competitive
Bidd ing Requi red?
Construct ion E n ginee r
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
CO
i
-------
EXHIBIT 3-7 (continued)
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
State
Trust Territories of
the Pacific
Utah
Vermont
V i rg i n i a
Vi rg in Islands
Wash ington
We s t V i rg i n i a
Wi scons in
Wyom i ng
TOTALS
Yes:
No:
Spec i f ic
Regu la t ions
for
Construct i on
Contracts
Have You
Ever Let a
Construct i on
Contract!
Can Contractors
be Prequa 1 i f led?
Construction Engineer
Do Any
State Legal
Requ i rements
Impede
Procurement?
Is Competitive
B j_dId ing Requ i red?
Construction Enq ineer
NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
No
No
No
Yes
16
21
37
No
No
No
No
No
15
21
36
No
No
Yes
18
12
30
Yes
No
17
12
29
No
10
21
31
Yes
Yes
29
1
30
No
Yes
22
8
30
Source: ASTSWMO Survey.
i
to
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
STATE
SOURCE
APPENDII - Page I
STATE HAZARDOUS HASTE CLEANUP FUNDS
SOURCES, TOTAL AHOUNTS, AND ANOINTS AVAILABLE FOR COST SHARE
(ill figures in thousands of I)
TOTAL APFft. TOTAL APPR. TOTAL APPR TOTAL APPR COST SHARE COST SHARE COST SHARE COST SHARE
LUKP SUN FV 03 FVB4 FVBS AHOtMT MOUNT AHOUNT ANOIMT
LUHP SUH FTB3 FT84 FTB3
Mabaia
Alaska
Ariioni
Arkuiut
California" »
Colorado
Connecticut
Del Mare
Diitrict of Coluibii
Florid!
ttorgii
NONE
t OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SPILL FUND
i GENERAL FUNDS
i STATE APPROPRIATION
i HATER DUALITY REVOLVING FUND (FOR SEVERAL TEARS)
i STATE EMERGENCY FUND (FOR 1 RPL SITE)
< PERMITS, APPROPRIATIONS, IMNIFESTS
i HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE ACCOUNT
t GENERAL FUND
> APPROPRIATIONS FOR SPILLS
i STATE SPILL FUND
• STATE GENERAL FUNDS
• GENERATOR TAI
< STATE REVENUES FOR SPILL RESPONSE
i D.C. GOVERNMENT GENERAL FUND
i HATER DUALITY ASSURANCE TRUST FUND
> STATE GENERAL FUND
I HAIARDOUS HASTE TRUST FUND
i HAZARDOUS HASTE PROGRAM LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS
.
1,000.0 . . . . . • •
'
269.0 15B.5 37S.O
700.0 . . • . 700.0
600.0 .....
177.2 .....
8,500.0 10,000.0 10,000.0 10,000.0 ' .
.
450.0 .......
1,500.0 . . . 1,500.0
24.3 23.3 19.3 ....
8,300.0 14,000.0 ....
363.0 260.0 260.0
100.0 . , .
.
i HAZARDOUS HASTE TRUST FUND
HiNii
NONE
Idaho
Illinoli
i HAZ. HASTE NANAGENENT ACT-ALLOW EIPENDITURES HITH COST RECOVERY
i HAZARDOUS HASTE FUND
i BENERAL REVENUES
900.0
900.0
1,800.0
1,800.0
500.0
100.0
200.0
-------
APPENDI1 - Page 2
o rv> ;o cr
a- oo n> -T
-• o OQ to STATE
OJ ,„ O'
eg g)^ m
v>
SOURCE
. • STATE HAZARDOUS HASTE CLEANUP FUNDS
SOURCES, TOTAL AROUNIS, AND (MOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR COST SHARE
(all figures in thousands of t)
TOTAL APPR. TOTAL APPR. TOTAL APPR TOTAL APPR COST SHARE COST SHARE COST SHARE COST SHARE
LUKP SU» FY 83 FYG4 FY85 ANOUNT ANOUNT MOUNT AIIOUNT
LUKP SUK FY83 FYB4 FYB3
c
r-*-
3"
0
Q>
**T
c/>
I
"
< <-
_ o
* -j
~ ^Indiana
QJ ft)
«5 |toMi
-^Kentucky
O
ST
O
gHaryland
>Nass.chusetts
O>
O
^ Nichigan
Ninnesota
Nississippi
Nissouri
Nontina
Nebraska
Ne>ada
> HAZARDOUS HASTE TRUST FUND -- HATCHES FEDERAL SUPERFUND 1
i STATE GENERAL FUND (GENERAL REVENUES APPROPRIATION)
i GENERAL REVENUES
< HAZARDOUS HASTE RANA6ENENT FUND
i HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES CONTROL FUND
i STATE SUPERFUND OF B3--BOND
> CAPITAL OUTLAY BUDGET OF 1979 -- EIHAUSTED
i STATE GENERAL FUNDS APPROPRIATIONS (ANNUALLY)
i STATE SUPERFUND
* GENERAL STATE APPROPRIATIONS
I STATE GENERAL FUND
i LAND DISPOSAL FEES
i HAZARDOUS HASTE GENERATION FEES
< STATE GENERAL FUND II].] It FOR TINES BEACH)
i STATE GENERAL FUND
i GENERAL REVENUES
i GENERAL FUND FVB3 AND FVB4, POSSIBLY FY8S (ANNUALLY)
* HAZARDOUS HASTE PENALTY FUND FY83 AND FY84, POSSIBLY 85 (ANNUALLY)
3BO.O . . . 380.0
125.0 125.0 125.0
40.0 40.0 40.0
. , . 270.0 345.0
•
23,000.0 . . . 25,000.0
3,000.0 ....
3,800.0 6,200.0 10,000.0
3,000.0 ....
1,020.4 1,073.5 1,075.3
16.0 16.0 16.0
1,250.0 1,230.0 1,230.0
1,200.0
4,300.0
110.0 110.0 110.0
24.5 ....
12.0 12.0 12.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
.
1
270.0 343.0
•
...
3,800.0 6,200.0 10,000.0
3,000.0 3,000.0 3,000.0
•
.
.
3,750.0
110.0 110.0 110.0
.
20.0 20.0 20.0
Nra Haipihire
I HASTE END TAI OF I.04/K6: PROJECTED REVENUE
i APPROPRIATION
1,500.0
300.0
363.0
365.0
Nn Jersey
i SPILL FUND
i HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES DISCHARGE BOND ACT OF 1981
100,000.0
7,000.0 13,000.0
100,000.0
7,000.0 13,000.0
-------
APPEWII - Pi|f 3
STATE
In Itnico
In fork
SOURCE
• HUMHUS SUBSTMCE RESPONSE F1MD (LEGISLATIVE)
< LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION FOR PERSONNEL
I HMWOOU5 HASTE FEE REVENJE
i GENERAL FIUO
STATE HAIARMUS HASTE CLEANUP FUNDS
SOURCES, TOTAL'WBliTS, AM AlBUNTSiAVAILABlE FOR COST SHARE
(ill fifurn in thousands of I)
TOTAL APPR.
LUNP Silt
VE) 130.0
120.0
•
TOTAL APPR. TOTAL APPR TOTAL APPR
FT 83 FT84 FYB5
.
5,300.0
3,430.0
COST SHARE
AHOUNT
LUMP SUN
•
•
COST SHARE COST SHARE
ANOUNT AKMIT
FY83 FYB4
•
•
COST SHARE
AMUR
FYBJ
.
,
IwU Dakota
Ohio
NONE
I HAtARDOUS MSTE aEANUP ACCOUNT IIIATCHAILE) - FROH 3 SETTLERENTS
> 608 SPILL ACCOUNT (GENERAL REVENUE FUND - NOT FOR HATCH
350.0
12.6
350.0
Oklahou
NONE
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Sooth Carolina
• EENERAL AmOPRIATION AND HEN DISPOSAL FEE
• LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION FT83
• STATE SOLID KftSTE ABATEMENT FUND (FINES, PENALTIES ETC)
I CONTINGENCr FUND
I STATE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS
1,000.0
200.0
445.9
184. 1
' •
483. 3
250.3
•
751.7
344.4
South Dikoti
Tennessee
• STATE FUNDS FROH GENERAL REVENUES (USED FOR COST SHADINSI
> STATE EENERAL FUNDS
> GENERATOR FEES (ANTICIPATED)
1,000.0
1,000.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Texas
Veriont
i STATE DISPOSAL FACILITY RESPONSE FUND 5,550.0
i SPECIAL STATE HAI. HASTE APPROPRIATION (FOR KPl AND RELATED SITES)
> STATE POLLUTION CONTINGENCY FUND (REVOLVING FUND) 10.0
200.0
5,550.0
200.0
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Nashington
i GENERAL FUND FY83
• HAI. HASTE CONTROL AND ELIHINATION ACCOUNT - FUNDS TO BE ACCRUED
4,300.0
-------
APPEND!! - Page 4
STATE HA1MDOUS IMSTE CLEANUP FUNDS
SOURCES, TOTAL MOUNTS, AND AKOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR COST SHARE
(ill figures in thousands of I)
STATE
^^c,.,:
lest Virginia
Niscnsin
SOURCE
) I STATE REFERENDA 38 AND 3? -- SORE PORTION SHOULD FINANCE CLEANUP
NONE
I PROGRAR REVENUES
i SENERAL REVENUES
TOTAL APPR. TOTAL APPR. TOTAL APPR TOTAL APPR COST SHARE COST SHARE COST SHARE COST SHARE
LIMP SUN FY03 FY04 FYBS AftOUNT AKOUNT AHDUNT AIWUNT
LIMP SIM FY83 FYB4 FYB5
.
.
50.0 '50.0 50.0 ....
44.0 44.0 44.0 ....
TOTALS
195,727.1
42,030.7 50,735.1 M, 308.1 131,780.0
16,133.0
28.W5.0
17,180.0
*i Cilifornii lilted t fingle nchanisi for funding medial responses, its Hizirdous Suiitance Account,
but indicated that the account maid be supported by both Imp sue and annual appropriations.
Source: ASTSWMO Survey.
------- |