United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9375.6-08C
EPA540/R-94/008
PB94-963230
December 1993
Superfund
An Analysis Of State
Superfund Programs
/
50-State Study
1993 Update
-------
9375.6-08C
PB94-963230
EPA540/R-94/008
AN ANALYSIS OF STATE
SUPERFUND PROGRAMS:
50-State Study, 1993 Update
December 1993
Prepared by the Environmental Law Institute
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Control Division
Washington, DC 20460
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by the Environmental Law Institute under Cooperative
Agreement No. CR-820593-01 with funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Environmental Law Institute staff contributing to the report were Jamie Dycus, Katie
Goldberg, Suellen Keiner, James McElfish, John Pendergrass, David Spohr, Lisa Vogel and
Heather Wicke. Information on voluntary remediation programs was provided by Voluntary
Remediation Profiles, prepared by Stateside Associates for General Electric, and the study's
author, Mark Anderson. U.S. EPA staff were Ann McDonough and Murray Newton. The
assistance of state program officials is gratefully acknowledged.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
LIST OF ACRONYMS v
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. DEVELOPMENTS IN STATE PROGRAMS 5
III. OVERVIEW OF STATE "SUPERFUND" PROGRAMS 7
A. Cleanup Activities and Capabilities 7
B. Statutory Authority 8
G Hazardous Waste Sites 9
D. Program Organization 10
E. Funding 14
F. Cleanup Policies and Criteria 24
G. Public Participation 27
H. Enforcement 30
IV. VOLUNTARY REMEDIATION PROGRAMS 37
V. STATE PROGRAM TABLES 44
VI. STATE SUMMARIES 131
Region I 132
Region II 145
Region III 153
Region IV 166
Region V 183
Region VI 196
Region VII 207
Region VIII 216
Region IX 229
Region X 239
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE
V-l Overview of State Cleanup
Programs and Capabilities 44
V-2 Statutory Authorities 48
V-3 Program Organization 53
V-4 Program Administration and Staff:
Funding Sources 57
V-5 Hazardous Waste Sites 61
V-6 Funding Balances 64
V-7 Funding Sources 68
V-8 Expenditures & Obligations 72
V-9 Fund Uses 78
V-10 Cleanup Standards 82
V-ll Public Participation 85
V-12 Liability Standards 92
V-13 Penalties and Damages Available
in State Superfund Statutes 95
V-14 Natural Resource Damage Assessment 99
V-15 Property Transfer Provisions 102
V-16 Federal-State Partnerships 105
V-17 Voluntary Remediation Programs:
Key Administrative Procedures 108
V-18 Voluntary Remediation Programs:
Authorities and Agreements 110
V-19 State Oversight of Voluntary
Remediation Activities 115
V-20 Voluntary Remediation Programs:
Sites and Cleanup Standards 120
V-21 Voluntary Remediation Programs:
Public Participation, Liability,
and Reopening Provisions 125
w
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AG - Attorney General
ARARs - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
ASTSWMO - Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
CA - Cooperative Agreement
CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980
CERCLIS - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
CPCA - Core Program Cooperative Agreement
DSMOA - Department of Defense and State Memorandum of Agreement
ELI - Environmental Law Institute
FOIA - Freedom of Information Act
FTE - Full-time Equivalent
GAO - General Accounting Office
HRS - Hazard Ranking System
LUST - Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG - Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MSCA - Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement
NEAR - Non-Binding Allocation of Responsibility
NCP - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NPL - National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites
OGC - Office of General Counsel
O&M - Operation and Maintenance
PA/SI - Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation
PRP - Potentially Responsible Party
RA - Remedial Action
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD - Remedial Design
RI/FS - Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
-------
ROD - Record of Decision
RP - Responsible Party
RPM - Remedial Project Manager
SACA - Support Agency Cooperative Agreement
SARA - Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SMOA - Superfund Memorandum of Agreement
SSCA - Site Specific Cooperative Agreement
TAG - Technical Assistance Grant
UST - Underground Storage Tank
VI
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In the thirteen years since passage of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA, generally referred to as Superfund),
the enormity of the problems associated with hazardous waste sites and their cleanup has
become overwhelmingly apparent. Coordinated cleanup efforts between Federal and State
authorities are currently addressing numerous sites targeted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's National Priorities List (NPL). This is the list of uncontrolled substance
releases in the United States that are priorities for long-term remedial evaluation and
response. Still, a vast number of known or suspected waste sites do not meet the criteria
for inclusion on the NPL and, if they are to be addressed, they will have to be cleaned up
by the States. In certain cases States may feel compelled to respond in a manner that is
more stringent or timely than might be possible in joint Federal-State efforts. Where joint
efforts are required, Federal and State authorities need to ensure that their actions are
mutually supportive but not duplicative. For these reasons, the role of the States in
addressing hazardous waste sites, independently and in concert with the Federal government,
will become increasingly important as the numbers of both NPL and non-NPL sites grow.
States are currently responsible for oversight, enforcement, and/or funding cleanups
at non-NPL sites; at NPL sites, their role ranges from required cost sharing at Federal
Fund-lead cleanups to State-lead action in site activities. The prospects for increasing State
involvement at both NPL and non-NPL sites depend on the willingness and capacity of
States to develop effective programs, obtain adequate resources to fund cleanups, take
enforcement action to ensure private cleanups, and conduct oversight activities.
A key step in enhancing the Federal-State partnership on Superfund is to understand
the States' own cleanup or superfund programs aimed at NPL and non-NPL sites. This is
the objective of the present report, which updates the results of a study initially conducted
in 1989, and updated in 1990 and 1991, by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Hazardous Site Control Division, State and Local Coordination Branch. The study examines
site cleanup programs in all 50 States, plus the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, and provides descriptions of their statutes, program organization, funding,
and cleanup procedures.
Purpose of the Study
Under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986,
Congress requires EPA to involve States in the Superfund program in a "substantial and
meaningful" way. EPA's State and Local Coordination Branch (SLCB) is responsible for
developing regulations, guidance, and policy related to this Congressional mandate. As part
of its responsibilities, the SLCB tries to maintain comprehensive information about State
capabilities to contribute to or manage cleanups at hazardous waste sites. Under a
cooperative agreement with EPA, ELI has collected, organized, and summarized the
information presented here on the 52 State cleanup programs.
-------
Research Methodology
To ensure that the information for this report would be complete, accurate, and up
to date, the ELI project team spent several weeks gathering and analyzing research reports,
statutes, regulations, and other State documents, interviewing State program staff by
telephone, and confirming information for each State. ELI initially reviewed both
information gathered for the prior versions of the report and newer information concerning
State cleanup programs as found in State documents, legislative reporting services,
newsletters, and EPA documents. A detailed request for updated program information was
sent to each State, along with a general request for copies of any relevant legislative
amendments or State reports. In addition to the States' written responses, ELI received a
variety of materials from the States, including annual program status reports, legislative
amendments, program descriptions, policy statements, and regulations.
ELI then conducted telephone interviews to clarify written responses and reconcile
any discrepancies in the data. This new information was used to update the two-page
summaries of State programs. ELI then sent each State program office the 1993 summary
for that State for review; appropriate changes were made in response to State officials'
corrections. The State program tables were compiled with the verified State information.
Table V-18, which lists the cooperative agreements that States have signed with U.S.
EPA, is the only table based on information supplied by EPA rather than the States.
The special topic discussion and tables on State voluntary remediation programs are
based on data presented in the study "Voluntary Remediation Profiles" prepared for General
Electric by Stateside Associates in August 1993. The information presented in this study
was obtained from the States by extensive telephone interviews and analysis of written
materials provided by the States. Due to the timely and thorough nature of this analysis,
ELI and EPA decided to avoid a redundant effort and obtained permission from Stateside
Associates to use their profiles for the purposes of this report. General questions on State
voluntary remediation activities were included in the ELI State program survey form to
obtain additional information and verify the Stateside Associates data.
Organization of the Report
The report is divided into three discussion chapters, one chapter devoted to tables
of aggregate data, and a final chapter of State program summaries. Chapter II highlights
the most noteworthy developments in State capabilities that emerged in comparing the 1993
information with the previous reports. An overview of State superfund programs is provided
in Chapter III. This overview examines statutes, program funding and organization, cleanup
sites and activities, cleanup policies and criteria, public participation requirements, and
enforcement tools. Chapter IV discusses the States' voluntary remediation programs.
Chapter V presents program information arranged in tables that facilitate comparisons
between States. Chapter VI contains the two-page summaries for each State program. For
-------
the few States that do not have superfund programs, the summaries focus on States'
capabilities to address hazardous waste sites using other authorities and resources.
In assembling this report, ELI has tried to take a "snapshot" of State cleanup
programs, while recognizing that they are in a dynamic state and that changes may occur
after the publication of this update. For the purposes of this report, we have used State
information that was available on or before December 3, 1993. States were provided an
opportunity to review and update all of the information in the State program summaries.
Comparison of State Data
There is significant interest in State programs due to the pending reauthorization of
the Federal Superfund statute. The information in this report will, therefore, receive
increased scrutiny and use. In light of this, it is important to acknowledge the limits to use
of this data to make direct comparisons of state programs. Differences in state program
terminology, administrative and accounting procedures, and the detail of State responses to
ELI's survey make such comparisons uncertain. There may also be significant discrepancies
between the information presented in this report and in other current State program reports.
This is due not only to the aforementioned factors but also to the precise program questions
asked and the number of State respondents.
Therefore, the most appropriate comparisons of State programs to be made with the
information presented in this report are relative cleanup program capabilities and activity
levels, differences in the general types of cleanup authorities and policies applied, and
similarities in approaches which suggest policy trends. The following two chapters provide
a discussion of State program developments and similarities and differences in State cleanup
approaches. Table V-l provides an overview of key program elements of the States
programs.
-------
-------
CHAPTER II
DEVELOPMENTS IN STATE PROGRAMS
The extent of the States' involvement in the remediation of contaminated sites
depends upon the development of funding and program capability. A comparison of the
data from 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1993 shows that State programs have increased their
cleanup capability. The following bullets provide an overview of the States' involvement and
capability during fiscal year 1993 (FY93).
• The number of States that have cleanup funds and enforcement capabilities has
increased from 39 in 1991 to 45 in 1993.
• Overall program staff levels remained relatively constant, increasing less than three
percent from 3,394 in 1991 to 3,491 in 1993. There were some significant changes
for a number of states - for example, Nevada, Rhode Island and Texas more than
doubled their staff totals. Total legal support was 247 FTE attorneys, down slightly
from 262 in 1991.
• States are relying more on cleanup funds for program funding and less on State
general funds. The number of States using cleanup funds for program support
increased from 33 in 1991 to 39 in 1993. The corresponding number for State
general funds dropped from 33 to 27.
• State cleanup funds had a combined balance (including bond authorizations) in
excess of $1.5 billion, down substantially from over $2.2 billion in 1991. During
FY93, over $700 million were expended for cleanup activities and over $450 million
obligated for future activities. Total additions to State cleanup funds during the last
fiscal year were $957.3 million, a 150% increase from 1990.
• Thirty-six States reported the use of State site inventories or priority lists, an increase
of eight States since 1991. The total number of sites on State site inventories or
priority lists has increased by 39% since 1991, to over 20,000 sites.
• Forty States, an increase of 16 States since 1991, reference ambient or background
quality in determining cleanup levels.
• The number of States with public participation requirements has increased slightly.
A total of 45 States now have public participation requirements, up from 43 in 1991.
Of these, 24 States have statutory or regulatory public participation requirements, up
from 22 in 1991.
• The number of States with specific requirements for basic public participation
practices has also increased. A total of 35 States provide public notice of identified
sites or completed remedial actions plans, and 23 States solicit public comments
-------
during the site handling process. Thirty-five States have provisions for public
meetings or hearings, up from 27 in 1991. About six States currently make use of
citizen advisory groups in planning cleanups and revising cleanup policies.
• States have continued to strengthen their enforcement and cost recovery capabilities.
Twenty-five States now provide for punitive damages - up from 24 in 1991, 23 in
1990, and 22 in 1989. Each of the new State statutes enacted since these reports
began has adopted the strict, joint and several liability standard. Thirty-two States
use this standard; six of these allow some apportionment, however. Only four States
specify a proportional liability standard.
• Twenty-five States report that they have natural resource damages programs, a
substantial increase from 1991, when many programs were only under consideration
or development. States have recovered a combined total of more than $126,944,372
in natural resource damages claims since the start of their NRD programs. Six States
reported a total of $514,500,000 in pending NRDs claims.
• The number of States with property transfer provisions has increased significantly
since the 1991 update. Twenty-three States have such provisions, up from 18 in 1991.
These provisions have assisted private parties in ensuring that they incur no
unexpected liabilities when acquiring property; they have also helped in identifying
sites where remediation may be required.
These few statistics are among the more outstanding indicators of the breadth and
vitality of the State program effort. A close examination of the information contained in
this updated report will lead to a fuller understanding of the cleanup programs that are
developing as the States continue to address the contaminated sites within their borders.
More detailed information on all aspects of State cleanup programs is presented in the
following chapter.
-------
CHAPTER III
STATE "SUPERFUND" PROGRAMS
Most States have established programs to address the risks posed at sites
contaminated by hazardous substances. The majority of the State programs have authorities
and capabilities similar to the Federal Superfund program. For the purposes of this study,
a State "superfund" or cleanup program has some or all of the following characteristics:
1) Procedures for emergency response actions and more permanent remediation
of environmental and health risks;
2) Provisions for a cleanup fund or other financing mechanism to pay for studies
and remediation activities;
3) Enforcement authorities to compel responsible parties (RPs) to conduct or
pay for studies and/or site remediation; and
4) Staff to manage State-funded remediation and to oversee RP-conducted
remediation.
5) Procedures for public participation in decision-making on site cleanup.
This chapter presents detailed information on State programs for all 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. For convenience in discussion
and in the tables accompanying this report (see Chapter V), these are all referred to as
"States." Totals, therefore, include 52 "States". This chapter highlights similarities and
differences among State statutes and programs in areas such as cleanup and oversight
capabilities, number of sites addressed, staffing, funding, enforcement authorities, cleanup
standards, and public participation.
A. Overview of Cleanup Activities and Capabilities
One of the purposes of this report is to provide an updated assessment of the States'
efforts and capabilities in addressing sites contaminated by hazardous substances. The
nature and level of State efforts may vary because of changes in State funding from year to
year, and the continuing enactment and amendment of legislation by the States. All but two
of the States (Nebraska and the District of Columbia) have some public funding capability.
Funds in a few other States are quite small and often limited to emergency response or
removal actions. Most States have enforcement capabilities; however, not all have
enforcement authority associated with their State superfund programs. A number of States
rely on enforcement authorities in other State statutes, such as solid and hazardous waste
laws, groundwater protection laws, or general environmental protection laws. Public
participation in the cleanup process is established by regulation or policy in forty-four states.
Table V-l presents an overview of State program elements.
-------
B. Statutory Authorities
Table V-2 summarizes the many cleanup statutes and related environmental laws
enacted by the 50 States, plus the District of Golumbia and Puerto Rico, for the purpose of
addressing hazardous waste sites. In some States with comprehensive cleanup statutes, these
laws include State response funds, enforcement authorities, priority lists, provisions
governing property transfers, remedy selection criteria, and victim compensation and citizen
suit provisions. In other States, authorities for a cleanup program and enforcement may be
contained in statutes separate from laws creating a State response fund or establishing site
cleanup standards.
Since the 1991 Update, there has been a significant increase in the number of States
that have cleanup funds and enforcement capabilities. Two years ago there were 39 States
with funding and enforcement authorities; now there are 45. There still remain seven States
that either have (1) funds limited to emergency responses and/or CERCLA share or (2)
enforcement provisions that are contained in other statutes not specifically intended for
cleaning up hazardous waste sites. Except for the District of Columbia and Nebraska, all
States have some sort of cleanup fund or other account that can be used by the State for
various types of cleanup expenditures. See Section E and Table V-ll for more detail on
the uses of cleanup funds.
A significant number of States have adopted new legislation during the past two
years, enacting either cleanup laws in the image of CERCLA (Georgia and Oklahoma) or
significant amendments to their prior cleanup laws (Connecticut, Maryland, New Mexico,
and Tennessee). Several States recently adopted new or additional property transfer
restrictions (Georgia, Maine, and Mississippi). A total of 23 States now have property
transfer provisions (not including those with only superliens or data bases). In addition, two
more States have now enacted authorities for developing priority lists for State sites which
will determine the order in which cleanups should occur (Georgia and Tennessee), for a
total of 26 States with priority lists.
No new State citizen suit provisions were passed during the past two years. These
laws allow individuals who may be adversely affected by actual or threatened releases of
hazardous substances to file civil actions in State courts against the responsible parties,
either enjoining them from further damage and/or requiring them to take corrective action
to clean up or prevent the release.
One State (Iowa) adopted new provisions for compensating victims of hazardous
waste releases. Now there are 15 States that provide for victim compensation, although 10
of those States limit their reimbursements for victims to the costs of obtaining either
temporary or permanent alternative water supplies.
8
-------
C. Hazardous Waste Sites
There is great variation in estimates of the numbers of hazardous waste sites in each
of the States. Despite the uncertainty surrounding estimates of existing sites and the risks
that they pose, the number of sites reported can be indicative of the level of a State's
program activity, as well as of the need for future cleanups.
Table V-5 gives the numbers of final, proposed, and deleted NPL sites in each State,
as well as figures for non-NPL sites. Non-NPL sites are shown in three ways, for differing
purposes. The number of "Known and Suspected State Sites" is generally the largest number
of contaminated sites known to the State. It is most likely to be an estimate, and in many
States, the figure includes sites that have not yet undergone any type of assessment. In cases
where this number is not available from the State, the number reported on Table V-5 has
been taken from CERCLIS, a database maintained by EPA.
State sites "identified as needing attention" are a subset of "known and suspected"
sites. These are sites that have been evaluated by the State and determined to require some
level of cleanup or further evaluation. This number is probably the best indicator of the
workload that each State's cleanup program actually faces.
The third category is the "State Inventory or Priority List." Although each State's law
attaches its own meaning to the inventory or priority list required, generally these lists
indicate that the sites have undergone an additional level of analysis by the State. Often this
list requires priority designation of sites through ranking, scoring, or some other formal
screening procedure, and includes those sites identified as cleanup priorities.
The number of known and suspected non-NPL sites in States ranges from zero
(District of Columbia) to 26,000 (California). The number of known and suspected non-
NPL sites has increased by approximately 38% since 1991, to a total of over 100,000 sites
in 1993. The number of sites identified by States as needing attention ranges from zero
(District of Columbia) to 12,894 (New Jersey). The total number of non-NPL sites
identified by States as needing attention has increased by almost 220% to over 40,000 sites,
reflecting in part the increase in the number of States (from 30 in 1991 to 43 in 1993)
reporting figures for the needing-attention category. The data show that States are
increasingly identifying non-NPL sites and spending resources to classify the risks presented
by these sites, in order to designate cleanup priorities and expedite remediation.
Twenty-six States are required by law to create and maintain inventories or priority
lists of sites. A number of others maintain such lists. This year, 36 States reported a
number for sites on a State inventory or priority list, a significant increase over the 28 States
reporting data for that category in the 1991 study. Priority lists required by laws in Hawaii
and Georgia are currently being developed. Illinois previously had a priority list which had
been developed under regulation; however, the list was voided by State court order in 1992.
The total number of sites on State inventories or priority lists has increased by 39% since
the 1991 study to over 20,000 sites in 1993.
-------
The numbers of sites listed in each State are not always comparable. States use
different criteria to determine placement on lists or in certain categories. Connecticut is
required by law to retain fully remediated sites on its inventory; and in New York, some
fully remediated sites are delisted while others remain on the State Registry. Vermont
includes all petroleum cleanup sites on its list of hazardous waste sites. The South Dakota
list categorizes sites as open or closed; open sites are known and suspected sites that have
neither been fully remediated nor classified as requiring no action.
In six States the number of sites classified as needing attention is smaller than the
number of sites on the inventory or priority list for various reasons. In Maine and
Louisiana, for example, the inventories include all sites that have been the subject of a
citizen suit complaint about possible contamination; and in New York, all sites identified
by counties are included on the list. Not all of these sites will necessarily be confirmed by
the States as sites requiring attention.
In most cases, inventories and priority lists include State sites listed on the NPL.
Some States, such as Connecticut, keep a registry that includes NPL sites as well as a sub-
list of State-lead NPL sites. Maryland compiles a Disposal Site Registry which is a list of
ranked sites, including NPL sites, requiring remedial action.
Not all States with inventories have a formal site ranking system. Many, however,
do categorize sites using one of several systems, including the Federal Hazard Ranking
System (HRSII), modified HRSII, and other non-quantitative systems. HRS II, the ranking
system that is used to determine the National Priorities List, was developed by the EPA and
implemented in 1990. It includes an evaluation of factors such as surrounding population,
groundwater, and wind patterns that is more extensive than the original HRS system.
A number of States have modified the HRS II system for their specific needs. The
Michigan Site Assessment Model (MSAM) differs from HRS II in several ways, including
fire and explosion potential factored into the numerical score. New York has developed a
scoring system that combines three ranking systems: HRS, a State-developed Health
Ranking Model (emphasizing human exposure), and a State-developed Biothreat Ranking
Model (emphasizing natural resource damages). Montana uses a non-quantitative ranking
system based on five factors; 1) contamination of a drinking water supply, 2) air
contamination that may pose a health threat, 3) contamination of surface waters that
provide recreation and drinking water, 4) impacts on wildlife, and 5) danger of fire or
explosion.
D. Program Organization
Administration of a State's program to clean up hazardous waste sites is almost
always handled by the State agency with primary responsibility for environmental matters.
The responsible agency's entire focus may be on environmental protection, as is the case
with Connecticut's Department of Environmental Protection, or its duties may be broader,
as is the case with South Carolina's Department of Health and Environmental Control.
Table V-3 lists the responsible agencies for the 52 "States", and the divisions within these
agencies that administer the State's cleanup programs, as well as staffing levels. Many
10
-------
States have established a hazardous waste management division with cleanup personnel.
The organization of each State cleanup program is unique, however, and it is difficult to
make generalizations concerning program administration. The examples highlighted below
represent some of the more noteworthy organizational features of the States' hazardous
waste cleanup programs.
Divisions Within Programs
Many States' cleanup programs are divided into units, each with responsibility for a
different program element. For example, the roughly 60 FTE staff in Florida's Bureau of
Waste Cleanup are divided into 5 sections: Hazardous Waste Cleanup (15); Preliminary
Assessment (8); Site Investigation (14); Technical Support (17); and Enforcement (6). In
Virginia, 3 divisions of the Office of Superfund Programs deal with site cleanup: The
Federal Facilities Program (4); Site Assessment Program (7), and Superfund Remedial
Program (10).
Staffing Levels
The number of personnel devoted to site cleanup varies greatly, from the
approximately 640 people in New Jersey's Site Remediation Program, to Wyoming, which
does not have a formal superfund program. Program staff levels are indicated on Table V-
4. The total number of State personnel working on the State cleanup programs remained
relatively constant, increasing slightly from 3,394 in 1991 to 3,491 in 1993. In the past 2
years, there have been some dramatic changes in staffing levels for individual states,
however. Nevada, for example, reported 24 FTE staff, up from 3 in 1991, while Rhode
Island and Texas more than doubled their staffs.
Ten States employ more than 100 people working on cleanup activities: California,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and
Washington. Only 4 States have staff levels between 51 and 100 people: Florida, Illinois,
Oregon, and Wisconsin. The bulk of the States, 30, have between 11 and 50 personnel.
Only 8 States (Arkansas, District of Columbia, Georgia, New Hampshire, North Dakota,
Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Wyoming) have 10 or fewer people assigned to their
Superfund programs, down from 11 such states in 1991.
Some of the variations between individual State numbers for both attorneys and
overall staffing may result from differences in the ways in which States account for
personnel, such as including or excluding individuals who work exclusively on Federal sites.
New York, for example, includes approximately 22 staffers funded solely by Federal monies.
In many States, staff members assume multiple duties both within and outside of the
cleanup program, and State officials are often unable to indicate the precise percentage of
time that those personnel devote to cleanup activities.
11
-------
PROGRAM STAFF LEVELS
Number of Personnel Number of States
Over 100 10
51-100 4
11-50 30
0-10 8
Intra-Agency Activities
In a number of States, other divisions within the responsible agency provide support
to cleanup personnel. For example, in Massachusetts, the Bureaus of Waste Prevention and
Resource Protection provide support to the lead Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. Air quality
and water quality divisions of State agencies are often consulted by their counterparts in
cleanup divisions regarding cleanup standards. Cleanup programs must also coordinate their
activities with other elements of the States' hazardous and solid waste programs.
Inter-Agency Activities
Most States report that their agencies with primary responsibility for site cleanup rely
upon other units of State government for assistance. In California, for instance, the Water
Quality Resources Control Board has asserted jurisdiction over some remediation activities,
undertaking cleanups for certain groundwater contaminations. In Maine, the DEP works
with the State's Bureau of Health in conducting risk assessments and lab work. In most
states, the Attorney General's (AG's) Office handles court actions, as discussed below under
Legal Support.
Legal Support
Approximately 247 attorneys were reported by the States to be working on waste
cleanup issues, a slight decrease from 262 reported in 1991. The numbers for individual
States are rather small. Only California (30), Colorado (14), Massachusetts (20), New Jersey
(28), New York (25), and Pennsylvania (18) reported more than 10 FTE attorneys providing
legal support. In many States, the attorneys assigned to handle superfund cases also handle
other types of cases.
The State AG's Office (or its equivalent) is the sole source of legal support for the
cleanup program in 23 States, while in 14 State agencies the department's own legal
personnel provide the sole legal support for State programs. The remaining 15 States rely
upon a combination of attorneys from both the AG's Office and the responsible agency.
12
-------
Vermont uses attorneys from its AG's Office, the Department of Environmental
Conservation, and one attorney from its own superfund program staff. Table V-3 presents
sources of legal support for the States.
Generally, where legal support duties are split between the AG's Office and the
agency responsible for cleanup, such as in Iowa, the agency legal staff provides support on
administrative enforcement issues, such as review of administrative consent orders or
assessment of administrative penalties. When a case requires the initiation of a lawsuit, as
in an action for cost recovery, it is usually referred to the AG's Office.
Funding Sources
There are three basic sources of funding for the States' program costs: State cleanup
funds, State general funds, and Federal grants. The funding sources used by the States are
presented in Table V-4. Since 1991 there has been a general trend towards more reliance
on specific cleanup funds. The number of States using State general funds for support
dropped from 33 to 27, while the number of States using State cleanup funds increased from
33 to 39. For example, Georgia, which in 1991 drew program support funding only from
federal and state general funds, now reports that it receives 100% of its program
administration funding from its new Hazardous Waste Trust Fund.
All but four States fund their program staffs through a combination of Federal grants
and State monies. Georgia and Pennsylvania rely solely on State cleanup funds, while the
District of Columbia relies solely on Federal funds. Idaho relies on Federal funds and
collections from responsible parties. State funding is obtained solely through general fund
appropriations in 11 States, while 21 States rely upon their separate site cleanup funds for
the State share of administrative and personnel costs. The remaining States use both
general fund appropriations and cleanup fund monies to pay the State share of staff and
administrative costs. Some States pay for program administration and staff using additional
funding sources (marked "Other" on Table V-4), which include fees, cost recoveries, and
specific grants.
Federal-State Partnerships
There are several types of agreements made between Federal and State agencies
pertaining to the funding and conduct of Superfund cleanup activities. These are: Site
Specific Cooperative Agreements (SSCAs), which enable the use of Federal funds for site-
specific activities at a State-lead NPL site; Support Agency Cooperative Agreements
(SACAs), which provide Federal funding to enable States with limited staff to provide
oversight assistance on EPA-lead sites; and Core Program Cooperative Agreements
(CPCAs), which are available to fund program administration activities not associated with
a specific site.
13
-------
A Superfund Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA) documents the responsibilities
and procedures assumed by the EPA and a State as regards Superfund activities. A SMOA
may cover broad and specific implementation issues such as project review schedules, the
sharing of documents, and site-lead responsibilities. Unlike cooperative agreements,
SMOAs do not provide funding for State activities.
Table V-16 lists the SSCAs, CPCAs and Superfund Memoranda of Agreement
(SMOAs) between the States and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This data was
obtained from U.S. EPA. No compilation of SACAs was available. For fiscal year 1993,
only Alabama, the District of Columbia and Hawaii did not have SSCAs. The number of
States with SSCAs was 48, more than double the 1991 total of 22 States. All but four of the
States (District of Columbia, Florida, North Dakota, and Wyoming) had CPCAs. Eighteen
States have a SMOA, the same number as in 1991.
E. Funding
A fund is an essential element of a State's program to clean up sites, as it allows a
State to investigate, plan, design and conduct emergency response and remedial actions at
sites where immediate action is required or where RPs are unavailable, unable or unwilling
to conduct or pay for remedial actions. At orphan sites, where no RPs can be found, the
fund will be depleted as money is spent for cleanup activities and must be replenished. A
State may also incur certain expenses that it is not authorized to recover from RPs,
including some administrative costs. If RPs refuse to cooperate on cleanups, a State uses
a fund to pay for the necessary actions, and will typically attempt to recover those costs from
RPs.
A fund also allows a State to control the pace of cleanups; if RPs fail to cooperate,
the State is able to clean up the site without delay using its own funds. In addition to
recovering its costs, the State may be authorized in such situations to seek punitive damages
from the RPs that refused to conduct or pay for the cleanup. In order for a State to
maintain this control over when sites are cleaned up, it must have enough money available
to pay for whatever cleanup activities become necessary. There should also be money
available to handle responses to emergencies and to pay for unexpected expenses such as
cleanup activities at sites where anticipated agreements with RPs are not reached. Having
a fund that is large enough to cover these contingencies, including potentially paying for the
entire cost of one or more site cleanups, allows a State to control which sites and risks are
cleaned up at what times.
A State fund can also be a significant contributor to a State's cleanup enforcement
program. If the State can clean up a site with State funds and recover its costs in a timely
manner, then RPs may decide that it is in their interests to agree to conduct future cleanups.
Thus, States have been very successful in obtaining RP agreements to fund or conduct
cleanups by being able to make a credible threat that if the RPs do not finance the cleanup
the State will perform the work and promptly recover the costs from the RPs.
14
-------
The amount of money needed to make such action credible obviously depends on the
number of sites and types and expense of cleanup actions needed in the State. The
experience of other States indicates that completing a remedial action at a single site is
likely to cost more than one million dollars. Thus, for most States, particularly those with
multiple sites needing permanent remedies, a fund of more than one million dollars would
be needed to preserve the option of conducting a State funded remedial action at a site
while maintaining the ability to respond to emergencies. Some States have considerably less
than a million dollars available for cleanups and these States have, therefore, typically only
been able to pay for emergency response and removal actions with their funds.
Fifty States have established cleanup funds or provided a mechanism for the State
agency to pay for one or more types of cleanup activities at non-NPL sites. Nebraska and
the District of Columbia are the only States without authorized cleanup funds. This is
unchanged from 1991. Table V-6 lists the States' funds, their balances as of the end of the
State's fiscal year (some States provided current balances), the date for that balance, and
how much money was added to the fund during the fiscal year. Not all State funds or
funding mechanisms are listed in Table V-6. Funding instruments that are used solely as
repositories for federal monies or are available only for cleanup of leaking underground
storage tanks have been excluded.
Twenty-two States have more than one fund for cleaning up sites contaminated by
hazardous substances. This is an increase of four since 1991 and is seven more than in 1989.
A State may have multiple funds in order to differentiate sources or uses of the funds. One
fund may receive all the proceeds from a hazardous waste fee while another is the
repository for other authorized types of funding, typically appropriations, penalties, and cost
recoveries. For example, Arkansas' Hazardous Substances Response Trust Fund receives
most of its funding from fees on hazardous waste generators, while its Emergency Response
Fund is funded by civil penalties (the ERF is capped at $150,000 and excess penalties are
deposited in the HSRTF). States may also have multiple funds because they separate the
uses to which their funds may be put. Thus Ohio has both a Hazardous Waste Facility
Management Fund, which may be used for emergency response and the State's CERCLA
share of NPL remedial actions, in addition to its primary RCRA-related purposes, and a
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund that may be used for all other non-NPL related cleanup
activities.
The States vary considerably in their funding sources and authorized uses of funds
and these characteristics are described in Tables V-7 and V-8, respectively.
A key issue for State and federal policymakers is the extent of the States' capabilities
to clean up non-NPL (and potentially NPL) sites. The States have identified over 40,000
sites as needing some type of cleanup. Clearly, the States will rely on RPs to perform or
pay for the cleanups of most of these sites, yet just as surely the risks at some sites will be
addressed only if the State conducts and finances the cleanup itself. A State's capability to
perform cleanups is determined by many factors, including staffing, expertise, experience,
funding, and expenses. This section discusses the financial measures of State capabilities.
15
-------
Fund Balances and Additions
Analysis of fund balances at the end of a State's fiscal year and the amount of money
a State has added to the fund during the past fiscal year is intended to provide a sense of
the State's capability to pay for cleanups in the near future. The fund balance is a measure
of the current availability of funds for new work. This is supplemented by the additions to
the fund, which serve as a measure of the State's immediate past capability to sustain the
fund and is intended to provide a sense of the State's potential to maintain and increase the
fund in the future. Both measures are flawed and, even considered together, do not
necessarily provide a complete or accurate sense of State financial capabilities to pay for
future cleanups. This is particularly true if comparisons are made among the States. Some
of the issues are:
1. Fiscal year-end balances could not be obtained for all funds or all States --
Alaska and Wyoming could provide no balance information and the balances
cited for two of Maine's funds are from December 1992.
2. Fund balances may be artificially low because of infrequent collection of fees
or taxes, timing of appropriations (some States use biennial budget and
appropriation cycles), or a program's need to exhaust its fund at the end of
the fiscal year because carryover is not allowed.
3. Some States continue to rely on site-specific appropriations for remedial
actions, despite the existence of a cleanup fund. In that case the State's
ability to pay for cleanups may be less predictable.
4. A portion of a State's fund balance may be obligated for future work on sites
currently in the system and thus all of the fund balance will not be available
for work on new sites.
With these caveats, the total of the balances, including bond authorizations, for all
the States' funds is $1.52 billion, and excluding the bonding authority available in four states
(Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, and Wisconsin) is $556.2 million. The latter balance,
excluding bond authorizations, may be more representative of States' capabilities to pay for
cleanups in the near future if there is a substantial delay in selling the authorized bonds,
receiving the proceeds and being able to spend that money. The balance excluding bond
authorizations is $47.5 million less than the comparable balance in 1991, a decrease of 7.9%,
following a decrease of 13.7% from 1990 to 1991.
This trend of declining balances is also reflected in the amount of bonding authority
available to States. In 1993 four States were authorized to issue $967.2 million in bonds to
be used for cleanup, a decrease of two States and $647.6 million since 1991. Bond
authorizations have been steadily declining since the first 50-State Superfund Study in 1989
reported a total of $1,981 million in authorized bonds. Most of this decline is due to the
fact that the States have been issuing the bonds and spending the proceeds on cleanups as
was intended. New Jersey and New York have each issued hundreds of millions of dollars
of bonds and spent the money on cleanups in the past few years. Massachusetts, Michigan,
16
-------
Wisconsin and New Hampshire have also been spending down their bond authorizations and
no State has added bonding authority since 1991.
Despite the overall decline in funding since 1991, the distribution of fund balances
has moved upward, with more States moving into the middle levels of fund balances than
in the past. This year nine States have balances (including bond authorizations) of less than
$1 million, with two of those (Nebraska and the District of Columbia) having no fund at all,
compared to 13 in 1991. Fifteen States have balances from $1 million up to $5 million (1
more than in 1991), 11 States have balances from $5 million to $10 million (6 more than in
1991), 12 States have balances from $10 million to $50 million (2 less than in 1991), and 3
States have balances of $50 million or more (1 less than in 1991). Thus, most (26 of 50
States reporting balances) States have fund balances between $1 million and $10 million,
and more than two thirds of them have balances between $1 million and $25 million.
The total amount of money in fund balances, however, continues to be concentrated
in a few States. The 7 States with fund balances (including bonds) exceeding $25 million
have $1282.9 million or 84.2% of the total State superfund balance, and the 15 States with
Funds of at least $10 million have balances totalling $1412.3 million, fully 92.7% of the total
for all States. This is a slight decline from prior years when the Funds with balances of $10
million or more (including bonds) comprised 96% (1991), 97% (1990), and 96% (1989) of
the total State fund balance. In 1993 there were 15 States with balances of $10 million or
more compared to 18 States in that group in 1991, 17 in 1990 and 11 in 1989.
The concentration of funding is actually even greater, since just three States, New
York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, control $1127.4 million or 74% of the total balance
available to States. This is actually a decrease from 1991, however, when four States with
balances exceeding $50 million represented 84% of the total.
In contrast to the decrease in total Fund balances, States have dramatically increased
their annual contributions to those funds. Forty-six States (of 48 reporting financial
information) added $957.3 million to their cleanup funds during fiscal year 1993. This is a
150% increase ($575.7 million) over the $381.6 million reported by 36 States in 1991. Much
of this rise in annual infusions to State funds can be attributed to New Jersey, where annual
additions rose from $19.4 million in 1991 to $350.1 million in 1993. Of this amount, $239.5
million was added to the Bond fund, presumably from a sale of bonds, which may not be
repeated in the future. Even excluding the bonds, though, New Jersey's additions in 1993
were substantial and significantly more than in 1991.
Other States that raised their annual additions by significant amounts include Texas
(up from $20 million to $112.3 million), Michigan (too variable to estimate in 1991, added
$78.9 million in 1993), and California (up from $50 million to $107 million). On the other
hand, Pennsylvania's additions decreased from $89 million to $45.6 million, and Alaska did
not report any amount this year but in 1991 estimated that annual additions could be as
much as $50 million.
As with fund balances, the amounts added to funds are concentrated in a few States,
with five adding more than $50 million (up from only one State in 1991). Seven States
17
-------
reported annual additions to their funds in the range from $10 million to $50 million (this
number was the same in 1991, though it referred to different States). Ten States reported
adding less than $1 million to their funds in 1993 (up from nine States in 1991).
Sources of Funds
Table V-7 indicates the sources of funding for State funds and classifies each source
as a major (contributing more than 20% of the Fund's revenues) or minor source. Nine
types of sources are listed, including appropriations from the legislature, bonds, cost
recovery, fees charged for hazardous waste or other activities, interest on fund or other State
investments, penalties or fines, private funds, transfers from other funds or accounts, and
taxes. Where it was not possible to classify a source as major or minor, an "X" was marked
in the appropriate column.
Eighty funds exist in the 50 States that have funds for cleaning up sites contaminated
by hazardous substances. This does not include funds that receive only federal monies or
funds restricted solely to cleaning up contamination from leaking underground storage tanks.
The following chart shows both the number of funds and the number of States that derive
funding from each of the nine types of sources, and indicates whether each is a major or
minor source of funding. The 1991 numbers are provided for comparison purposes.
SOURCES OF FUNDS
Maior Source For:
Minor Source For;
Fees
Appropriations
Penalties/fines
Bonds
Taxes
Cost Recovery
Transfers
Interest
Private funds
No. of
Funds
1992 1993
25 26
19 21
15 16
15 17
13 11
11 17
2
2 2
5
No. of
States
1991 1993
22 25
17 17
14 14
13 12
12 10
10 14
2
2 1
3
No. of
Funds
1991 1993
6 9
15 10
34 27
1
3 8
44 30
5 10
26 29
23 5
No. of
States
1991 1993
6 7
15 8
30 22
1
3 6
39 29
5 7
24 23
10 5
18
-------
Fees on the generation, transport, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste,
hazardous substances, or solid waste (in Kansas, fees on water use are deposited in the
Water Plan Fund, which is used for cleanups) are an important source of revenue for many
State cleanup funds. Half of the States rely on such fees to contribute more than 20% of
the revenues for their funds. This number has increased slightly each year since 1989, when
19 States relied on fees as a significant source of cleanup funding.
Because hazardous waste fees are such a substantial source of funding for State
cleanups, it is important to note that State legislatures often attach limits or conditions on
the collection and use of such fees. Fund administrators in South Carolina must report to
the legislature on the need for continuing fee collection once the fund balance reaches $7.5
million. Iowa and Kentucky both suspend fee collection if the fund balance exceeds $6
million and resume collection if the fund balance falls below $3 million; West Virginia does
the same, but the cut-off fund balance is much lower, at $1.5 million, and the range is
narrower, since fee collection resumes when the balance drops to $1 million. Illinois, on the
other hand, has a higher cut-off and allows the fund balance to drop further, as it uses
figures of $10 million to suspend and $3 million to resume fee collection. The Tennessee
legislature imposed even more restrictions on collection of its fees, requiring annual
adjustments to maintain a fund balance of $3-5 million in unobligated funds and limiting the
amount of fees collected annually to $1 million (estimated); moreover, the fees are
abrogated if the legislature fails to appropriate matching funds. Beyond these administrative
limits imposed on fees, these revenues may also fluctuate due to changes in waste handling.
In addition to providing funds for cleanup, fees on hazardous waste activities are
often intended to provide incentives to generators to reduce their generation of hazardous
waste and to encourage recycling efforts. For example, Illinois has regularly raised its fees
on the transport and disposal of hazardous waste, which make up 90% of its Fund, at least
in part to discourage the generation of hazardous waste. Kentucky bases its fees on the
level of treatment required for hazardous waste. A sliding scale is also applied to solid
waste disposal in Ohio, where fees provide up to 80% of total cleanup funds. Tennessee
also requires the board that sets the hazardous waste fee structure to set the fees at levels
(within a statutory range) that encourage recycling and discourage land disposal.
Appropriations are also a primary source of funding for State cleanup funds. They
provide more than 20% of the funds for 21 funds in 17 States and are a minor source of
funding in an additional 8 States. Many States appropriate money to their cleanup funds
on a regular basis, which allows the State agency flexibility in handling cleanups. However,
in other States, such as Kansas, appropriations for State-funded cleanups must be requested
on a site-specific basis.
Bonds provide significant funding for 17 funds in 12 States. In 1986, the New York
legislature authorized the State to sell $1.2 billion in bonds to pay for cleaning up
contaminated sites, $100 million of which has since been redirected to cleaning up
nonhazardous waste landfills. The State began selling the bonds in 1989 and has $902.7
19
-------
million in bonding authority remaining. Although New York has by far the most bonding
authority, a number of other States have also issued substantial amounts of bonds. New
Jersey added $239.5 million in revenues to its Bond Fund in 1993, a significant change from
1991 when the State issued no bonds. Similarly, Michigan added $55.3 million in bond
revenues to its Bond Fund. Other States, like New Hampshire, have exhausted their
authority to issue bonds and must look for other sources of revenue for the future.
Penalties and fines provide more than 20% of the revenue for the funds in 14 States,
but many of the funds for which penalties are a significant source are quite small. Penalties,
in fact, rarely provide revenues of the magnitude needed to conduct remedial actions (i.e.,
on the order of $1 million).
Taxes are a significant source of revenues for 11 funds in 10 States. Several States
impose a tax on hazardous wastes or substances that is similar in nature to the fees charged
for hazardous waste activities, and in fact, there may be no practical distinction at all.
Restrictions similar to the ones imposed on fees are sometimes placed on waste taxes. For
example, Florida's tax on pollutants is suspended if the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund
balance exceeds $12 million and is reinstated if the balance falls below $5 million. The
primary source of revenue for New Jersey's Spill Compensation Fund is a transfer tax on
hazardous substances.
Fund Expenditures
The amount of money spent by States on cleanups in the past year provides another
indication of States' financial capabilities to clean up sites contaminated by hazardous
substances. State expenditures reflect the State's cleanup capability for the past year and
may be a good indicator of future capabilities if the State is maintaining a stable cleanup
program. Table V-8 reports States' expenditures and obligations from fiscal year 1993.
Refinements were made to the fund expenditure measure for this 1993 update to
better describe States' capabilities to clean up non-NPL contaminated sites, which are the
focus of this study. Therefore, States were asked to separate expenditures, i.e., money
actually spent during the year, from obligations, i.e., money committed to a specific project
or task and thus not available for spending, but not yet spent. They were also asked to
categorize their expenditures and obligations by whether they were for NPL or non-NPL
sites.
In contrast to 1991, most States were able to separate their expenditures from the
amounts they obligated, although some States could not provide any information about their
expenditures or obligations (Florida, Maryland and Wyoming). Most States were also able
to segregate the amounts they spent or obligated on non-NPL sites from the amounts
committed to NPL sites. Unfortunately, the State that reported spending the most money
during 1993, New Jersey ($188.5 million), was unable to provide this breakdown, and several
other States that spent relatively large amounts in the aggregate were similarly unable to
20
-------
separate their expenditures by NPL and non-NPL sites (Arizona ($7.3 million), California
($88.6 million), Ohio ($20 million) and Oregon ($18.8 million)). Nevertheless, the 1993 data
makes it possible to focus somewhat on the States' capabilities to clean up non-NPL sites.
And, to the extent that New Jersey's and California's expenditures are substantially higher
than most other States, their exclusion may make the comparisons and analysis more
representative of the "typical" State cleanup program.
With those caveats, 37 States reported expenditures of $149 million on non-NPL sites
in 1993 (7 States actually spent $0). A slightly different group of 37 States reporting
expenditures for NPL sites totalled $166.3 million. Thus, the States appear to be spending
amounts on non-NPL cleanups roughly comparable (90%) to the amounts they are spending
on their State shares of Federal Superfund cleanups of NPL sites. In fact, only 2 States,
Texas and New York, accounted for most of the money reported as spent on NPL sites
($144 million or 87%) and 20 States that each spent $0 on NPL sites are included in the
group of 37 reporting their breakdown of expenditures. The inability of some of the States
with the highest expenditures to separate those amounts between NPL and non-NPL sites
leaves unexplained a large percentage, $396.4 million, or 56% of the total $711.7 million
spent by the States in 1993.
As is the case with fund balances, the vast majority of the total spent by States on
non-NPL sites is accounted for by a few States. New Jersey spent $188.5 million, followed
by Texas, which spent $132 million, New York, which spent $112.9 million, and California,
which spent $88.6 million from one of its two funds; together these four States account for
$522 million, or 73% of the total spent by the States in 1993. By comparison, in 1991, the
$57 million spent by California was the most spent by any State. In 1993, most (27) States
spent less than $5 million and 20 States spent less than $1 million. These figures should not
be compared with the expenditures figures reported in 1991, because the States were not
asked to separate expenditures from amounts obligated, although many of them did,
including California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.
The combination of fund balances, additions to funds, and expenditures can provide
the most accurate indicator of the capability and stability of a State cleanup program.
Pennsylvania continues to add more to its fund ($45.6 million) than the total of its
expenditures and obligations ($34.4 million) and its balance continues to grow (from $21.8
million in 1991 to $60.5 million in 1993) indicating that the State is expanding its capacity,
presumably in anticipation of paying for more expensive remedial actions.
When expenditures exceed additions by a significant amount, the size of the fund
balance is critical to maintaining the State's ability to continue the same level of activity.
Massachusetts, like Michigan, New Jersey and New York, has had a relatively large amount
in authorized bonds ($89 million initially) from which it has funded much of its program
over the past several years. But with a remaining authorized amount of $22 million in
bonds and expenditures from the fund of $10 million, it is clear that the State will soon need
to find other sources of funds if it intends to maintain the same type of program.
21
-------
Uses of Funds
Table V-9 lists the activities on which States are authorized to spend fund monies.
These activities are grouped into nine categories: site investigation (SI), emergency response
(ER), removals (RM), studies and design (SD), remedial actions (RA), operation and
maintenance (O&M), natural resource restoration (NR), CERCLA matching cost share for
NPL sites (CM), program administration (AD), grants to local governments (LG), and
victim compensation (VC). The following chart shows the number of States and number
of funds that may be used for each type of activity, with the 1991 figures for comparison.
USES OF FUNDS
Emergency response
Removals
Remedial Actions
Studies and design
CERCLA match
Site Investigation
Operation and maintenance
Grants to municipalities and
local governments
Victim compensation
No. of
States
1993 1991
48
48
45
44
45
43
39
12
6
49
47
47
45
44
39
42
11
13
1993
59
60
60
56
50
58
49
15
7
No. of
Funds
1991
64
63
61
58
52
50
52
12
14
Emergency response and removals continue to be the most widely authorized uses,
although the number of funds authorized to pay for emergency responses has dropped
slightly since 1991. It is not surprising that virtually every State is authorized to pay for
these activities since they are among the least expensive and most cost effective in reducing
risks at a site. Among the States that have funds, only Connecticut and Colorado reported
not being authorized to pay for emergency responses; only Colorado and Wyoming may not
pay for removals.
The primary purpose of several funds is not cleanup of sites contaminated by
hazardous substances. The Hazardous Waste Perpetual Care Trust Fund in Kansas, for
example, is intended primarily for RCRA activities, but up to 20% of the fund may be used
for emergency response at hazardous waste disposal sites closed prior to the 1981 enactment
of the State's hazardous waste act. Virginia's fund covers incidents related to solid as well
as hazardous waste. Other funds are extremely limited in their uses at contaminated sites.
Colorado's Hazardous Substances Response Fund is primarily intended for CERCLA match,
22
-------
with only 5% allowed to be spent on program administration and grants to local
governments. Other States also have funds intended primarily for CERCLA match, but they
generally have other funds that may be used for a wider variety of activities on non-NPL
sites. Colorado's only other fund, however, is the Natural Resource Damage Recovery
Fund, which may be used only for restoration of natural resources.
Pennsylvania's Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund is used for a broad range of activities
that go beyond the scope of a typical site cleanup program. The Fund may be used to
encourage recycling activities through a grant program for which $2 million has been set
aside. A small Loan Fund has been established to facilitate private party cleanups, and the
State may also provide loans or grants as inducements and compensation to municipalities
where hazardous waste facilities will be located. Oregon has established a more extensive
loan program for RPs who need financing in order to undertake cleanup activities. The
interest and other terms of the loan are negotiated by the RPs and the Department of
Environmental Quality. Similarly, Washington's State Toxics Control Account funds a
number of activities in addition to cleanup of contaminated sites, including hazardous and
solid waste planning, management, regulation, enforcement, technical assistance, and public
education.
Many funds that are authorized to be used for most cleanup activities are limited in
practice by very low funding levels. Georgia, North Carolina, North Dakota and South
Dakota have such funds but spent no State funds on cleanup activities in 1993, and
Alabama, Hawaii, Oklahoma and Virginia all spent less than $100,000. Only Georgia, which
is establishing its program, North Carolina and South Dakota had balances exceeding $1
million. The low levels of funds available in many of these States restricts them to small-
scale actions, such as emergency removals of drums.
Special Conditions on Fund Use
Restrictions and preconditions on fund use are primarily of two types: those that
statutorily require the State to exhaust every funding alternative, whether Federal or private
party, before drawing upon State cleanup monies, and those that require the State cleanup
agency to obtain specific authorization before undertaking any response action. In Alabama,
sites receiving funds must not be on the NPL at the time activity starts; and in several other
States, State funds may be used only where Federal funds are not available or sufficient.
Eighteen States require that an attempt be made to obtain responsible party participation
in site cleanup before State funds are used; many States waive this restriction in the
presence of an imminent threat to public health or the environment. Virtually all States
pursue RP participation first as a matter of practice and policy. Although it appears that
only a relatively small number of States are required to seek alternative funding sources
before using State monies, it is probably safe to assume that many more do so as a matter
of policy.
23
-------
Six States require that the State agency responsible for cleanup obtain prior approval
from some administrative authority before undertaking one or more types of response or
remedial action at hazardous waste sites. All expenditures must be approved by the governor
in New Hampshire, the Pollution Control Board in Minnesota, the Environmental Quality
Council in Wyoming, the Board of Public Works in Maryland, and the agency's Commis-
sioner in Indiana. Arkansas requires a commission to approve expenditures over $30,000.
In six States, the agency must obtain prior legislative approval for some types of
expenditures. Washington requires that any expenditure from its State or Local Toxics
Control Account first be appropriated by statute. Oklahoma requires a site-specific appropri-
ation whenever site costs are expected to exceed $1 million; Illinois must get a similar
appropriation if site expenditures will exceed $1 million for a single incident. According to
Illinois program officials, this cap has not affected the program's effectiveness. In Vermont,
non-emergency expenditures over $50,000 must be approved by the legislature or its joint
fiscal committee. Similarly, Delaware's joint fiscal committee must approve any expenditures
that would exceed 15% of the fund balance. Finally, Nevada's Interim Finance Committee
must approve any studies not already budgeted.
California is the only State that restricts fund use based on the origin of
contaminants-monies from the State's primary cleanup vehicle, the Hazardous Substance
Account, cannot be used for removals or remedial action if a significant portion of
hazardous substances originated outside the State.
F. Cleanup Policies
Cleanup policies and criteria are used to establish cleanup goals and to determine
the level of environmental and health risk reductions to be achieved by remedial action.
As the stringency of cleanup goals increases, the costs of cleanup also increase. A larger
proportion of State superfund program funds will be needed to meet strict remediation goals
when enforcement efforts fail or there are no RPs.
Determining the appropriate and feasible level of cleanup for hazardous sites involves
technical, administrative, and economic considerations that are necessarily evaluated on a
site-by-site basis. The States vary considerably in the extensiveness and formality of
procedures used to set cleanup standards. Nearly all of the States use Federal guidelines
and standards as part of the process of cleanup determination. A number of States have
promulgated State standards for a range of hazardous residuals in groundwater, surface
water, soil, and air. Those States with the most active cleanup programs have adopted
procedures for determining cleanup levels using a wide array of cleanup criteria. These
procedures generally involve the application of health-based risk assessment and an
evaluation of cost-effectiveness and land use factors on a case-by-case basis.
Table V-10 indicates a number of criteria, including promulgated cleanup standards,
water quality criteria, MCLs or MCLGs, background levels, risk assessment, and EPA
24
-------
guidelines, that are used by States to determine cleanup levels at hazardous sites. All but
two States (District of Columbia and Idaho) reported the use of two or more criteria. Since
1991, more States have begun to use a variety of cleanup criteria.
CRITERIA USED TO DETERMINE CLEANUP LEVELS
Criteria
MCLs or MCLGs
Water Quality Criteria
Risk Assessment
Background Levels
EPA Guidelines
Promulgated Cleanup Standards
Number of States
47
43
42
40
34
19
Thirty-four States report the use of EPA guidelines for cleanup standard selection.
Forty-seven States apply MCLs or MCLGs when relevant. Forty-three States apply water
quality criteria. Forty States report the use of background levels to determine cleanup
levels. Nineteen States report having promulgated standards used to determine cleanup
levels. Two of these States (Arizona and Colorado) have adopted RCRA standards by
reference for cleanup purposes in addition to promulgating other standards. The other
States have developed standards for various chemical residuals in soil, surface water,
groundwater and/or air. Most of these standards are derived from health-based risk
assessments with carcinogenic risk levels of 10"4 to 10"6 or a Hazard Index ^ 1. All of the
States with promulgated standards also use other available criteria and EPA guidelines.
Forty-two States use risk assessments to determine cleanup levels. The majority of these
States use U.S. EPA Risk Assessment Guidance to derive these levels on a case-by-case
basis. The rest of the States have developed their own risk assessment procedures.
Several States cited general statutory instructions that parallel CERCLA's original
guidance on cleanup standards, calling for cost-effective measures that protect public health
and welfare and the environment. Massachusetts' standards call for permanent solutions
whenever feasible, and include consideration of both technical and economic feasibility.
Texas looks for the lowest cost alternative that is technically feasible and reliable and
effectively mitigates and minimizes damage to and provides adequate protection of public
health and safety or the environment.
Promulgated Cleanup Standards
Nineteen States report the use of State-promulgated standards for determining
cleanup levels. These standards include both standards adopted by the State for chemical
residuals in soils, groundwater, surface water, and/or air and Federal RCRA or CERCLA
standards that have been adopted by reference into the State code. Washington has
25
-------
adopted standards for air, soil, groundwater, and surface water based on health-based
formulas.
All of the States apply these standards in conjunction with risk standards or other
criteria. Michigan uses a three-tiered set of cleanup standards: background quality is
applied at Type A sites, risk-based standards at Type B sites, and less stringent standards
at Type C sites.
Federal Standards and Guidelines
MCLs and MCLGs are the most widely used standard for cleanup as reported by 47
States. In many cases, MCLs are used as the first point of reference in setting groundwater
cleanup levels. Thirty-four States reported the use of EPA guidelines either as the primary
source of cleanup standards or in conjunction with other standards. Standards found in
RCRA and CERCLA were cited as relevant by more than half the States. Several States
reported following NCP procedures.
Water Quality Criteria
Forty-three States, one more than reported in 1991, use existing State surface water
quality criteria, adopted under the Clean Water Act, in determining cleanup standards.
Those States that do not use water quality criteria rely on other promulgated State
standards, MCLs, and health-based risk assessment.
Background Quality
Forty States, an increase of 16 States since 1991, reference ambient or background
water quality in determining cleanup standards. While some States have background quality
as their cleanup goal, they recognize that it may not be feasible for all cleanups to meet this
standard; in practice, they may use ambient quality as a starting point for assessing cleanup
levels and negotiating with responsible parties. In Oregon, for example, if cleanup to
background is infeasible, the State will select a remedy that attains the lowest concentration
level that satisfies specified feasibility criteria, which include cost-effectiveness. In other
States, ambient quality is simply one factor that must be considered before a cleanup
standard is determined. Finally, some States require cleanup to background for some, but
not all, sites based upon regulatory criteria such as groundwater classification.
Risk Standards and Assessments
Forty-two States, four more than in 1991, either reference risk levels or conduct a risk
assessment in determining cleanup standards. All of these States use risk assessment in
conjunction with other criteria. Some States invoke risk standards only in the absence of
applicable standards. In Indiana, for example, cancer risk assessment is used where MCLs
and applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) are not established, or
26
-------
where multiple carcinogens are present. Other States have risk standards that apply
generally. In addition to risk standards for carcinogens, North Carolina prohibits any
chemical intake exceeding the amount known to cause non-carcinogenic health effects.
Kentucky requires that there be no long term detrimental effect for non-carcinogens. North
Dakota uses narrative rather than numerical risk levels.
Site-by-site risk assessments are performed by at least 12 States to determine cleanup
levels. Risk assessments may be used either in the absence of other standards, or as
supplements to other standards. For example, Massachusetts undertakes risk assessments
only when an appropriate standard does not exist for a specific chemical constituent. In
contrast, Florida and Kentucky weigh the results of site-specific risk assessments along with
other applicable standards to determine cleanup levels at each site.
G. Public Participation
General
The degree of public participation required in decisions about cleanups of hazardous
waste sites varies widely from State to State. Public participation may be required by statute
or regulation, pursued as agency policy, or implemented in response to expressed public
concern. Table V-ll describes formal and ad hoc public participation requirements for each
State.
There has been a slight increase in the States' public participation requirements since
1991. The number of States reporting some sort of public participation procedure increased
from 43 in 1991 to 45. A total of 24 States have statutory or regulatory requirements for
public participation, up from 22 in 1991. Another 21 states solicit public participation
strictly as a matter of policy or on an ad hoc basis.
Some States have no specific public participation requirements of their own, but
follow the public participation guidelines contained in the National Contingency Plan (NCP)
as a matter of policy. The NCP guidelines are the primary source of public participation
practices in eight States: Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, New Jersey, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Utah, and Virginia. Illinois policy supplements the NCP guidelines by stipulating that the
required public meeting must be a formal public hearing.
A number of States are developing new public participation procedures at this time.
New Jersey, which currently solicits public participation according to policy, is preparing
amendments to its technical rules which will address public participation. The Ohio statute
addressing public participation is under review. Nevada has a draft public participation
policy which addresses public notice, public hearings, advisory groups, and appeal
procedures. Hawaii is preparing to establish public participation requirements in its
administrative rules; these will include requirements for an administrative record, public
notice, solicitation of public comments, and the development of a public education program
for hazardous waste issues.
27
-------
States that have voluntary remediation programs often have public participation
requirements which apply specifically to those programs. In a few cases, these requirements
exceed the public participation requirements of the State's regular cleanup program. For
example, while Indiana's regular cleanup program has no specific public participation
requirements other than adherence to NCP guidelines, the Indiana voluntary remediation
program requires the State to provide public notice of all actions and to conduct a hearing
before approving any workplan.
Public Notice Requirements
One of the most common public participation practices is the notification of the
public at important points during the site handling process. A total of 35 States report that
they provide public notice at some point during site handling. Fifteen States have statutory
or regulatory provisions for public notice. Twenty States provide public notice according to
policy; this figure includes those States that provide notice as part of their adherence to
NCP guidelines.
Public notice is usually issued as part of the site listing procedure or when a remedial
action plan is proposed, but some States require notice of other events as well. Delaware
requires notice of proposed consent decrees and settlement revisions. Montana requires
notice of consent decrees and administrative orders.
The States have a variety of methods for performing public notice. New York uses
mass mailings for this purpose. Some States, including Alabama and Missouri, place
announcements in local newspapers. Nebraska requires that proposed remedial action plans
be placed in local libraries.
In addition to providing public notice, many States make information available to the
public in more passive ways. Several States, including Kentucky, New York, and Ohio,
maintain information repositories like those required by the NCP. Massachusetts permits
site inspections by the public. Vermont requires that hazardous waste and UST sites be
explicitly identified in land records which are maintained by local governments and made
available to the public. Wisconsin makes its files available to the public with limited
confidentiality.
Public Comments
A total of 23 States solicit comments from the public during the site handling process.
Thirteen States have statutory provisions for public comments. Ten States solicit public
comments according to policy; this figure includes those States that provide an opportunity
for public comment as part of their adherence to NCP guidelines. Eight States indicate that
they have statutory provisions for comment periods with fixed durations of between 30 and
90 days; these include Alabama, Arizona, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
28
-------
Public Meetings/Hearings
A total of 35 States have provisions for public meetings or hearings during the site
handling process. Eighteen States have statutory requirements for meetings or hearings.
Seventeen States have discretion to hold meetings as a matter of policy; this figure includes
those States that may hold meetings as part of their adherence to NCP guidelines.
Some States, like California, Ohio and Pennsylvania, are required to hold meetings
or hearings during the site handling process. In other States, including Arizona and North
Carolina, meetings are discretionary. Oregon and Wisconsin hold meetings upon citizen
petition. Montana holds meetings at the request of local government officials.
Some States conduct less formal outreach by meeting with citizens on an individual
basis. State officials in Alaska and Florida sometimes perform door-to-door outreach.
Minnesota officials meet with citizens in their homes.
Public Participation Plans
In some States, a public participation plan similar to that outlined in the NCP may
be adopted by States to lend a more formal structure to public participation activities.
Under such a program, one or more spokespersons may be designated to inform, solicit
views of, and respond to, inquiries from local residents, local government officials or other
agencies regarding conditions and activities at hazardous waste cleanup sites.
Several States report the use of public participation plans. Massachusetts prepares
a public participation plan upon the petition of at least 10 citizens. Louisiana institutes
community relations programs at complex cleanup sites. New York and Washington develop
and implement site-specific public participation plans.
A number of States indicate that they assign public relations personnel to their
cleanup sites. Minnesota assigns each site a public information officer. In Illinois,
community relations coordinators are assigned to qualifying sites.
Some States, including Iowa, provide technical assistance to local governments and
citizens for the purpose of participating in the cleanup process at a particular site.
Massachusetts provides technical assistance grants, like the Federal Technical Assistance
Grants under CERCLA.
Advisory Groups
Many States' cleanup programs are assisted by groups of citizens and private sector
representatives acting in an advisory capacity. These groups provide input on site handling
decisions and changes to cleanup programs.
29
-------
New Jersey's Site Remediation Program Advisory Group consists of representatives
of industrial, banking, real estate, consulting, and environmental groups, and assists the State
with program refinements and operations. New York's State Superfund Management Board
includes environmental group and citizen representatives.
In promulgating regulations for its cleanup law, Oregon used input from a 22-member
committee composed of citizens, local government officials, and environmental and industry
representatives. Washington makes use of regional citizen advisory committees established
by the State Department of Ecology. Colorado is currently using citizen advisory groups
with greater frequency. Nevada's draft public participation policy provides for citizen
advisory groups. The Alaska legislature has established a Citizens' Oversight Council on Oil
and Hazardous Substances.
H. Enforcement
State cleanup fund laws frequently contain enforcement provisions. Enforcement
authorities and capacities under State laws vary significantly. Many of the States with
cleanup fund laws have enforcement provisions contained in those laws. Others rely for
enforcement on their general environmental laws, hazardous and solid waste laws,
groundwater laws, and other provisions. (See Table V-2). Some States have no
enforcement provisions directly linked to State remediation programs for contaminated sites
because they have no fund-lead program independent of CERCLA authorities (e.g.,
Nebraska, Colorado), or because their cleanup fund was enacted without supporting
enforcement provisions (e.g., West Virginia).
Nebraska's enforcement provisions are contained in its groundwater protection laws
and apply only to contamination of groundwater. Colorado uses its hazardous waste laws
and the citizen suit and natural resource damage provisions of CERCLA.
Liability
A key issue in enforcement is who is liable. Most of the States have followed the
Federal lead and make a wide spectrum of actors "responsible parties" at cleanup sites.
However, some States have more difficulty reaching beyond owners, operators, and direct
disposers. States that rely on RCRA-type authorities generally must show a RCRA violation
or, at least, RCRA jurisdiction over the actor or the site at the time that the disposal
occurred. Some State solid waste laws or imminent danger provisions provide a longer
reach. Most States define "waters of the State" to include groundwater. Because most
States also have a general provision prohibiting pollution of "waters of the State," they can
arguably reach generators or transporters that have placed hazardous material where it has
entered the groundwater.
Standards of liability are even more complex. The threshold question is whether any
showing of culpability is required. In other words, is liability strict -- that is, based solely
30
-------
on the occurrence of a release — or does it require proof of fault? The second question is
how liability is to be divided among the various actors who contributed to the presence and
release of a hazardous substance. This is the issue of allocation ~ joint and several versus
proportional liability. These two questions are often misunderstood. They must be
answered separately. For example, strict liability may be joint and several in one state, and
proportional in another.
With strict liability, a responsible party who has contributed to hazardous conditions
at a site is liable for the actual or potential damages based upon simply the occurrence of
a release, without proof of fault. Liability standards other than strict require a greater
burden of proof to be satisfied by the State, such as proof of negligence or intent by a
responsible party. This, in turn, requires the State to spend more staff time and money
investigating the intent of RPs rather than on reducing risk. Standards that require proof
of fault effectively limit the universe of parties to whom cleanup liability may attach. This,
in turn, is likely to reduce the effectiveness of the cleanup program. Forty States have strict
liability standards (Table V-12). One of these States is Wisconsin, which has two cleanup
statutes ~ one with strict liability and one without. Of the remaining 12 States, 7 do not
specify liability standards, 4 specify that they are not strict (Alabama, Tennessee, New
Mexico, and Wyoming), and 1 is limited to sites where waste is "improperly managed"
(Virginia). Of the seven States without a specified standard, several assert strict liability
(e.g., Ohio).
The breakdown on allocation of liability among responsible parties is more complex.
Thirty-two states have strict, joint and several liability (Table V-12). Of these 32, 6 allow
parties to prove that they are entitled to apportionment (Arkansas, Louisiana, Maryland,
Montana, Texas, and Vermont). Additionally, two States (New Mexico and Wyoming)
follow joint and several liability, but not strict liability.
Of the 18 States that do not specify joint and several liability, only 4 specify
proportional liability (Alabama, California, Tennessee, and Utah). No standards for
allocating liability are specified in 14 States. These include seven States without any
specified liability standard (this again includes Ohio, which asserts joint and several liability),
six States with strict liability standards, and Virginia with its non-strict liability standard.
Any of these 14 States may be able to avail themselves of joint and several liability as a
common law doctrine.
Prior updates to this study have reflected the shifting nature of assertions of liability
standards where the State statutory language is unclear or subject to more than one
interpretation. This study relies, to the extent possible, upon information about liability
standards provided by the States themselves, with an independent cross-check against the
language of the statutes to assure that the States' asserted standards were consistent with
the language of the statutes. Thus, for example, New York is shown in this update as having
a standard of "strict, joint and several" rather than "other" as in previous updates. In part,
this is based on some stronger interpretations in 1992 New York regulations. Conversely,
31
-------
Ohio's standard, which was previously shown as "strict, joint and several" (but with an
explanation) is now shown as "not specified." Neither statute has changed since the 1991
update.
In most cases, liability is subject to interpretation by State courts, based on the
statutory language, statutory structure, and the legal arguments advanced by the State agency
or State Attorney General. In a significant number of States, the liability standard has never
been tested in court or fully determined because all cases have been settled prior to court
resolution.
Enforcement Tools
Virtually all State programs have authority to issue administrative cleanup orders.
Where such authority is not available under a State cleanup statute, it often is available
under a solid and hazardous waste law, a groundwater protection law, or a general imminent
endangerment provision. All States have authority to seek injunctions for cleanups. Both
order authorities and injunction authorities are limited by the substantive provisions of State
law; some do not reach generators, some require proof that the release is of a "hazardous
waste," and some are as broad as the Federal Superfund program or broader.
State cleanup orders are not always identical to CERCLA §106 orders, which are not
subject to pre-enforcement review. In many of the States, a responsible party receiving an
administrative cleanup order has the right to seek review of that order before a board,
commission, or State court. For example, in Illinois, the State must file a complaint with
the Pollution Control Board if the responsible party does not agree to cleanup. In Arizona,
the recipient of an order may seek administrative review. Pennsylvania's Hazardous Sites
Cleanup Act provides for two kinds of orders that may be issued by the Department of
Environmental Resources; one is not subject to pre-enforcement review, and the other may
be appealed to the State's environmental hearing board. In Texas, the recipient of a
cleanup order may appeal to State court. Other States, like Tennessee and Oregon, do not
allow pre-enforcement review. In a significant number of States, the availability of pre-
enforcement review has not been determined because, until now, all sites have been handled
by consent order or voluntary agreement.
The standard of review for an agency's administrative order may be important.
Frequently there is a deferential standard of review. In Pennsylvania (under one of the two
order types) the agency action must be upheld unless it is "arbitrary and capricious." In
Texas, the State must prove on appeal that there is an imminent and substantial danger and
that the order recipient is liable; however, if the "appropriateness" of the remedy is
contested on appeal, the remedy must be upheld unless the court finds it "arbitrary and
capricious." In most States, however, no standard of review is spelled out in the statute.
Recovery of punitive damages (Table V-13) is provided in 25 States. Recovery of
treble damages is authorized in 22 States; 1 State authorizes double damages; and 2 States
32
-------
authorize 1.5 damages. Since the 1991 update, Georgia has enacted a treble damages
provision and Texas increased its double damages to treble damages. The States' standards
for assessment of punitive damages vary somewhat, but generally require more than simple
refusal to do the work directed in an order. For example, the Pennsylvania statute requires
"willful" failure to comply. The New Jersey courts have created a "good faith" defense to
such damages.
Most States have civil penalty provisions usable in enforcing cleanup of hazardous
sites, but most rely on hazardous waste laws, water pollution laws, and solid waste laws for
this purpose. Penalties have not been deemed important by the States in securing cleanup
actions. The potential to perform fund-lead cleanups and recover punitive damages has
been a much stronger incentive. The real force of this incentive depends upon the
credibility of the State's threat to spend fund monies. The enforcement leverage is minimal
to non-existent in those States where the fund may only be expended for the State share of
NPL cleanups or for emergency responses, or where it may be expended on State sites only
after a lengthy listing process or by special enactment of the legislature. In contrast, in
those States where expenditures can be authorized relatively quickly, the States' enforcement
leverage is enhanced.
Criminal penalties are not really a factor in most State cleanup programs. Virtually
all of the State programs contain provisions making the submission of false information or
failure to pay fees (where State funds are supported by fees) criminal offenses. In general,
the failure to comply with a State cleanup order is not a criminal offense; however, solid and
hazardous waste statutes provide a broad range of criminal offenses that may reach unlawful
disposal and other types of conduct.
Natural Resource Damages Programs
There is great variation in the content and scope of the States' natural resource
damages (NRD) programs. The States' programs range from having the legal authority to
recover NRDs, to using State funds for natural resource restoration, to having full-time staff
devoted to overseeing NRD Agreements. Several States — such as Arizona, Hawaii,
Maryland, and Tennessee ~ report that they have natural resource damages programs, but
have not actually pursued any NRD claims or undertaken any recovery actions. Several
other States — such as Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Virginia ~ report that
they do not have formal NRD programs, but that they do have the authority to recover
damages to natural resources from PRPs.
Some States ~ such as Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Minnesota, Pennsylvania,
Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- do not have official NRD programs, but are able to use
monies from their State funds for natural resource damage assessments or restoration.
Colorado has a Natural Resource Damage Recovery Fund, which is to be used solely for
restoring damaged natural resources. Alaska and Missouri do not have NRD programs, but
they have both collected natural resource damages through cleanup settlements.
33
-------
Information about the NRD programs of the 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of
Columbia appears in Table V-14.
Only two States report that they have full-time staff devoted to natural resource
damages. California has 25 FIB staff managing the Department of Fish and Game's natural
resource damages program, and Washington has one full-time staff member assigned to the
Department of Ecology's State/CERCLA NRD process.
Twenty-five States report that they have natural resource damages programs.
Fourteen of these states report recovering NRD claims with a combined total in excess of
$126,944,372. This does not represent a full accounting of the total, since California could
not provide a total amount of money recovered, but reported that three major NRD
recoveries by the California Department of Fish and Game totaled $23,855,533. In addition,
Kansas was not able to provide any information about the damages they have recovered.
The amount of damages recovered varies greatly from State to State, ranging from $200,000
in Ohio (since 1990) to $40,000,000 in Washington, where the State has joined with Federal
Indian trustees in joint NRD settlements.
There are currently 70 natural resource damages claims pending in 15 States.
Fourteen of these States have NRD programs. Utah does not have a formal NRD program,
but has one natural resource damages claim pending for $12,000,000. Six States were able
to report the approximate amount of pending claims; this totalled over $514,500,000. Three
States report that they are currently developing natural resource damages programs.
Property Transfer Provisions
In the 1991 update to this study, State property transfer provisions were the special
topic discussed in Chapter IV. This year, they are included in Chapter III and Chapter V,
Table V-15. Property transfer provisions are "laws, regulations, or policies that link the
discovery, identification, investigation, cleanup, or disclosure of hazardous substance
contamination to transfers of real property, or to transfers of ownership or control of such
property." An increasing number of States have adopted property transfer provisions; 23
States report that they have property transfer provisions, up from 18 in 1991. Twenty-six
States have no laws concerning property transfer. Three others ~ Arkansas, Massachusetts,
and New Hampshire - have only superliens.
Most property transfer provisions impose duties to disclose the presence of hazardous
substances on a site; others require site investigation; and some even require cleanup as a
condition of the transfer. "Superliens" are also included in this study. While not technically
a property transfer requirement, such liens often come into play at the time of transfer,
because they make property transfers more difficult, or require satisfaction in order to give
the transferee clear title to the property. A great many States that have cleanup funds have
authority to impose liens on the cleaned-up property in order to recoup the State's costs, but
:iese ordinary liens have not been included in this study.
34
-------
Superliens differ from ordinary liens in that they claim a higher priority than they
would ordinarily obtain under the laws governing security interests. Ordinarily, liens obtain
priority in the order in which they are recorded. The first lien recorded takes precedence
over the second lien, the second over the third, and so on. This precedence means that
upon sale of the property (or foreclosure), the earlier lienholders must be paid before the
later ones can recover anything. A superlien changes this priority by giving the State's lien
for recovery of cleanup costs priority over some or all liens even if they have been recorded
earlier.
The rationale for the superlien is that if the State had not expended the money, the
property would have been worthless; therefore, the State should recoup its expenses before
any others benefit. Seven States - Arkansas, Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, and New Jersey have superliens. However, the superiority of these liens
varies somewhat. For example, New Jersey's superlien takes priority over all other liens and
over other real property owned by the site owner, not just the cleaned up property. Most
other superliens give priority only over liens on the cleaned up property. Maine's superlien
takes priority over any lien recorded after the date of the superlien law, but not those
recorded before the law. Louisiana's lien does not take priority over prior recorded liens,
but its Inactive and Abandoned Hazardous Waste Sites statute allows the recordation of the
lien before the amount is known and allows the lien to relate back to the date of filing, thus
giving it some effective priority.
Sixteen States have provisions that require deed recordations where hazardous sites
have been either discovered, listed, or cleaned up. Deed recordation requirements in some
States are limited to hazardous or solid waste disposal facilities. Louisiana requires
recordation of notices that a site has been used for disposal of hazardous waste or as a solid
waste landfill, and that such wastes remain; or, where the State finds an abandoned site, that
the site is an abandoned waste site. In Michigan, a seller who knows that hazardous
substances were released in a reportable quantity must not only provide notice to the
purchaser, but also record the notice with the deed of transfer. Upon completion of
cleanup, the owner records a certificate of completion of an approved remedial action.
Similar provisions apply in West Virginia, but only to conveyors of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, or disposal sites. New York requires county clerks to index in the land
records any sites listed on the Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites. In Iowa, a
conveyor of real property is required to provide the recorder of deeds with a statement
regarding the existence of wells, disposal sites, underground storage tanks, and hazardous
wastes; the recorder must notify the transferee and the State if these are present.
Sixteen States require disclosure by sellers to purchasers. Some of these States
explicitly require sellers to examine their property; in others, the obligation is implied or
unstated. In some cases the disclosure is limited to sites that have come to the attention of
the State cleanup program. In others it applies to whole classes of industrial properties.
In California, any owner of a nonresidential real property interest who knows, or has reason
to believes that a hazardous substance is located on or beneath the property is required to
35
-------
notify, in writing, each buyer prior to the sale. Lessees of residential and nonresidential
property are required to give notice to property owners of any release of a hazardous
substance. Failure to give notice can subject the lessees to liability for damages and civil
penalties. Sellers of real property or residential stock cooperatives with one to four dwelling
units must disclose whether they are aware of the presence of any substances, materials, or
products which may be an environmental hazard. California counties and cities may add
their own disclosure requirements.
The Illinois Responsible Property Transfer Act requires that the transferor provide
to both the transferee and lender environmental disclosure documents. The law applies to
all transfers of real property which is used for manufacture, import, or use of hazardous
materials above a statutory threshold or which contains an underground storage tank.
Parties to the transaction may cancel a prospective transfer based on the disclosures.
Indiana's Responsible Property Transfer Law is modeled on the Illinois statute.
In Minnesota, there is both a recordation requirement (limited to hazardous waste
facilities or extensive contamination by release of a hazardous substance) and a State-
assisted program to assist transferrees in determining whether a property has had a release.
Missouri law requires disclosure, but only for sites on the State's registry.
Two States require cleanup or cleanup commitments in connection with transfers or
sales of industrial establishments. New Jersey's 1983 Environmental Cleanup Responsibility
Act (ECRA) pioneered the whole wave of disclosure laws that followed. It remains the
most extensive in terms of obligations, however. In 1993, the legislature amended ECRA,
renaming it the Industrial Sites Recovery Act (ISRA). ISRA retains the basic approach of
ECRA, requiring parties to examine sites and imposing cleanup obligations as a condition
of the transfer. The law also applies to closures of facilities. Failure to comply makes the
transaction voidable by the transferee or by the State; civil penalties are also available.
ISRA does allow deferral of cleanup under three conditions: if the site has been assessed,
if it will remain in the same industrial use after the transfer, and if the seller's ability to pay
for cleanup is certified. The New Jersey law is particularly far-reaching because it is not
limited to conveyances of real property; ECRA, and now ISRA, also apply to transfers of
ownership and control of entities holding real property.
Connecticut has a cleanup law patterned after ECRA, but it is not quite as
comprehensive. It too requires cleanup as a condition of transfer. However, the transaction
is not voidable for noncompliance. Instead, the transferor remains strictly liable and is also
subject to penalties.
Fifteen States report that they maintain a data base or data bases to assist purchasers
and other parties to transactions in conducting environmental due diligence to determine
whether sites have been contaminated.
36
-------
CHAPTER IV
VOLUNTARY REMEDIATION PROGRAMS
There has been significant interest on the part of the States and private parties in
finding an alternative to the conventional CERCLA or State superfund approach to cleaning
up hazardous waste sites. The primary motives of the States are to expedite the cleanup of
non-NPL sites and to achieve results that are acceptable to the State in terms of costs and
protection of the environment and human health. Private parties are interested in avoiding
the lengthy, costly and inflexible Superfund procedures in the event that their property is
listed on the NPL. Many States have established, or are in the process of developing,
programs which allow private parties to initiate and proceed with cleanup with varying levels
of State oversight.
These programs are referred to by a variety of names, including voluntary cleanup
or remediation or independent action programs. It is difficult to select a general term to
encompass all of the State programs because of the variation in State oversight and
enforcement conditions. However, the term "voluntary remediation" has been selected here
because of its common usage. The term "voluntary" is not quite apt because of the State
oversight and/or approval of cleanup activities at these non-NPL sites. In fact, three States'
programs (North Carolina, Utah, and Washington) require the "voluntary" party to enter into
an enforceable consent agreement. Therefore, the term "voluntary" should be equated with
"private-party initiated" which is the single aspect that all of these programs have in
common. The term "remediation" should be understood to be guided or interpreted by the
State through active workplan oversight, designation of cleanup levels, and/or cleanup sign-
off procedures.
Currently, 14 States (Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin)
have established voluntary remediation programs. Six States (Alaska, California, Kansas,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee) are developing programs or have legislation pending.
Numerous States are participating in private party cleanups on a site-by-site basis without
a written program or guidelines.
Details of the 14 State programs are listed in Tables V-17 through V-21. The data
in these tables were drawn directly from Voluntary Remediation Profiles, a study completed
by Stateside Associates in August 1993 for General Electric. This report provides a
thorough analysis of established and proposed State programs. The key criterion for
inclusion in this inventory was that the program be documented with established authority,
investigative and remedial procedures, cleanup levels, State sign-off conditions and
procedures, and liability provisions. While most States have the authority to allow private
parties to clean up in accordance with State agreements, it is the existence of a documented
program which encourages private parties to clean up sites by this alternative administrative
method. These sites would otherwise not be cleaned up because of their relatively low
priority, or their cleanup would be delayed by Superfund procedures. The following
discussion of voluntary remediation programs is based on the Stateside Associates' study,
37
-------
recent State program developments provided by Mark Anderson, the study's author, and the
limited questions in ELI's State cleanup program survey.
There are four basic approaches among existing State programs to oversight and
enforcement of private party remediation activities at non-NPL sites. These are:
1) the State provides oversight during the development of the investigative and
remedial action plans and signs off at completion of cleanup with a No
Further Action Letter;
2) a third party, licensed by the State, provides oversight of the cleanup process
and the State does not sign-off on completion of the remediation;
3) the State does not provide or require oversight, but provides review and sign-
off when the remediation has been completed; and
4) the State and the private party sign an enforceable consent agreement which
specifies the remediation work procedure and schedule, cleanup standards to
be met, and an oversight and cleanup payment schedule.
Nine States (Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey,
Oregon, and Virginia) have adopted the first approach. Three States (North Carolina,
Washington, and Wisconsin) have adopted the second approach, one State (Massachusetts)
follows the third approach, and three States (North Carolina, Utah, and Washington) have
adopted the fourth approach. The States of Washington and North Carolina each have two
different voluntary remediation programs; one in which the State does not provide oversight
but certifies completion of cleanup and another which requires an enforceable consent
agreement. Private parties have the choice of entering a consent agreement with the State,
if they desire active State oversight of the cleanup, or selecting a third party to oversee the
cleanup, which must be certified by the State at completion.
Tables V-17 through V-21 provide an inventory of the legal and procedural
components of the States' voluntary remediation programs and a means of direct comparison
between the various programs. The following discussion provides a summary of this
information.
Authority
Seven States (Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, and
North Carolina) have specific statutory authority for their voluntary remediation programs,
with procedures outlined in the statute. Seven States (Delaware, Illinois, Oregon, Utah,
Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin) have established programs under the general authority of
the State's Toxics Control Act, Hazardous Substance Cleanup Act, Waste Management Act,
Environmental Protection Act or similar statute. The specifics of the programs are issued
as agency procedural rules and regulations. There is no correlation between the general or
specific nature of the statutory authority and the basic administrative approach taken by the
program.
38
-------
Agency
Among the 14 States with programs, 9 have a specific voluntary remediation division
or program office. In the remaining cases, the State's environmental department has
responsibility for private party cleanups.
Initial Agreement
In all of the existing programs, cleanup activity is initiated when a private party
contacts the State to: 1) notify them of the contamination and to request State oversight,
2) apply to enter the program, or 3) offer to enter into a consent agreement with the State.
The State's initial response varies depending on the basic administrative approach
the State has adopted. In the Maine and Minnesota programs, the State does not provide
oversight until the private party application is filed and the site is accepted into the program.
In North Carolina's consent agreement program, after the party notifies the State of its
intent, the Department and the party sign a consent agreement. The agreement must be
signed before the State will review documents or participate in the preparation of the
Remedial Action Plan. In New Jersey, a party submits a formal application. If the site is
accepted into the program, a memorandum of agreement, which outlines the process to be
used to obtain State sign-off, must be signed. Massachusetts has a unique site/risk
classification procedures used to determine the appropriate initial agreement. When a party
notifies the State that a site is contaminated, the party has one year to classify the site
according to the risk posed. The site is labeled as either a Tier I Category A, B, or C site
or a Tier II site. The State has a numerical ranking system to be used to determine the risk
level. If the site poses a "serious" risk to public health and the environment, it is labeled
a Tier I Category A site and there is direct State oversight and enforcement of the cleanup.
Sites placed in any other category follow voluntary program procedures.
Workplans and State Approval
Cleanup of workplan requirements, in terms of content and procedure, vary directly
with the extent of State oversight exercised in the program. In the majority of programs in
which the State has an active oversight role, investigation and remediation work plans are
required to be submitted for State approval. Generally, the State will also be involved in
the determination of cleanup standards or approval of risk assessment procedures during
workplan preparation. New Jersey plays a more active role in its program than most States.
The process used in their program is virtually identical to that of an enforced remediation
action. The party must first submit an investigation work plan for Department approval.
Next, the party must submit and complete a feasibility study as part of the remediation work
plan. Finally, the Department approves the study and chooses a remedy for site cleanup.
New Jersey is the only State, except for Washington in their consent agreement program,
that selects the cleanup remedy. The other States approve workplan elements and sign-off
on the cleanup after completion.
Massachusetts' program is the only one which applies different workplan
requirements and levels of State oversight based on site priority, as described in the
39
-------
preceding section. If the site is a Tier I Category B or C site, the party may use a licensed
consultant but a permit must be obtained. If the site has been labeled a Tier II site, a party
can use a licensed consultant with no permit.
North Carolina is one of two States that have two active programs with different
levels of State oversight and workplan requirements. In one program, there is no State
oversight and workplans are not required. After the cleanup is completed, the parry submits
a report to provide a basis for the State's determination that the site has been cleaned to
Department standards. In the State's "consent agreement" program, the party must prepare
an Investigation Work Plan in accordance with U.S. EPA Engineering Support Branyfa
Standards Operating Procedures Manual (SOP). The plan consists of two phases: location
of all potential sources of contamination, and determination of the extent of contamination.
The Department notifies the party when it determines the investigation is complete. The
Department sets cleanup goals after the first phase of the investigation is complete. The
party must then prepare a detailed remedial action plan which is approved or disapproved
after a public comment period.
Oversight Costs and Schedule
Most of the programs with active State oversight require the party to pay an hourly
oversight charge to the Department in addition to all cleanup costs. Indiana requires a
$1,000 application fee which is applied against oversight costs. Delaware negotiates deposit
requirements in the consent agreement. Oregon requires an initial deposit of $5,000 which
is applied to State costs. New Jersey does not require a deposit against oversight charges.
North Carolina is an exception in that it does not charge for active State oversight.
Most of the States have no time limits on remediation actions. New Jersey sets no
time limits, but if insufficient progress is made toward completion, the site will be eliminated
from the program. In the three (North Carolina, Utah and Washington) consent agreement
programs, time schedules are stipulated. Most of the State programs without consent
agreements allow a party to terminate remediation actions at any point.
Cleanup Standards
In most of the programs, a number of criteria, including State and Federal standards
and guidelines, background quality, and risk assessment, are applied to determine cleanup
levels. Procedures for determining cleanup levels are generally well-defined. In Minnesota,
and several other States, cleanup levels are the same as those required under State statute
for Federal Superfund enforcement actions.
Indiana has developed guidance specifically for cleanup under the voluntary
remediation program. The guidance provides three options for determining cleanup levels:
1) background levels, 2) levels determined by specific equations based on factors such as the
type of contamination and land use (residential or industrial, and 3) a site-specific risk
assessment according to U.S. EPA Superfund Risk Assessment Guidance (Volume 1 Human
Health Evaluation Manual, Part A).
40
-------
Delaware requires a site-specific risk assessment in accordance with Departmental
guidance under Delaware Regulations Governing Hazardous Substance Cleanup. The
Department uses U.S. EPA Superfund Risk Assessment Guidance and takes exposure
pathways and land use into account in risk characterization.
Minnesota applies groundwater cleanup levels based on established state drinking
water criteria known as Recommended Allowable Limits (RALs) and federal MCLs.
Applicable State surface water quality criteria are also determined on a site-specific basis
using a Soil Cleanup Guidance Document. Site information is used in a set of equations
or model to determine standards for the relevant exposure pathways. Where the soil
cleanup model is not applicable, cleanup levels are determined using; 1) best available
technology, 2) background levels, and 3) other applicable criteria such as RCRA or TSCA
requirements.
Public Participation
Eight of the 16 State programs have public notice requirements at various stages of
the cleanup process. Delaware requires notice and a 20-day comment period before the
Department approves a remedy. Washington's program requires the Department to provide
public notice on all agreements. In Oregon, a four-week public notice and comment period
is required before work plan approval. In Virginia, the Department requires public notice
before State sign-off on site remediation.
Sign-off Procedures
There are several different types of procedures used by the States to certify State
approval of a completed voluntary cleanup. Sign-off procedures vary in terms of, 1) the
information required of the remediating party to make a showing of cleanup completion and
2) the certification of completion and/or statement of no further enforcement action.
Final cleanup information requirements may consist of; a final report with monitoring
data which verifies that the approved remedial action plan was completed, submission of all
site data and document for State review, a demonstration that no contamination is present
at the site in concentrations above established cleanup criteria or risk-based cleanup
standards, or a determination by a licensed consultant that the site is clean and a completion
statement is filed with the State.
The majority of the States issue Certificates of Completion or No Further Action
letters upon a showing that the cleanup has been completed in accordance with State
requirements. The No Further Action letter assures the remediating party that the State
will not take further enforcement action. However, in some programs the State explicitly
reserves the right to require environmental assessments or remedial actions in the event that
any future monitoring identifies contamination. Certificates of Completion generally also
reserve this right.
The following three State programs provide examples of the basic differences in State
sign-off procedures. North Carolina's enforced program requires the submission of a final
41
-------
report with sampling data verifying completion of the State approved Remedial Action Plan.
After review and approval of the report, the site will be assigned No Further Action status
in the Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory. The remediating party is sent a letter indicating
that all the terms of the Administrative Order on Consent have been met.
In Missouri, the Department will issue a No Further Action Letter after determining
that the remedial criteria set forth in the approved Remedial Action Plan have been met
and all applicable fees paid. The Department reserves the right to require the party to
conduct additional environmental assessments or remedial actions in the event that
contamination is detected at the site in the future.
Indiana provides a Certificate of Completion to a party upon satisfactory completion
of a remedial action plan. In addition, the State provides the party with a covenant Not to
Sue for any liability or claim resulting from the release addressed in the plan.
Liability Provisions
The sole liability provision in most of the State programs is the No Further Action
Letter or a similar mechanism, which does not release the party from liability. A No
Further Action Letter does not preclude the State from taking further action in the event
that additional contamination is discovered. In Oregon, a party can also attempt to enter
into a Covenant Not to Sue which is negotiated on a site-by-site basis. Minnesota has a
series of limited liability provisions: 1) a Certificate of Completion provides that the
Department will never initiate an enforcement action against non-responsible parties and
lenders and successors to the property; 2) non-responsible parties who undertake and
complete voluntary remediation action are protected from liability for the cleanup; 3)
responsible and non-responsible parties can enter into covenants not to sue on a site-by-site
basis; 4) non-responsible parties who perform voluntary investigation and cleanup work are
protected from liability for contributing to and aggravating contamination; and 5) any party
is protected from future cleanup liability if it is determined that the source of contamination
is an off-site source.
Reopening Provisions
Eleven of 16 State programs have similar reopening provisions. The States reserve
the right to reopen the site if previously unavailable information indicates that the site poses
a threat to human health and the environment. This is stipulated in the No Further Action
Letter or Certificate of Completion received at sign-off. In Indiana, the Department will
reopen only if it finds that information provided by the party was false. Otherwise, the
covenant not to sue applies, and accompanies transfer of land ownership. In Massachusetts,
the Department does not issue a final sign-off and the site may be reopened at any time.
A set percentage of sites are audited by the Department within five years after completion
of cleanup to ensure further contamination has not occurred. Illinois reserves the right to
reopen for any reason.
42
-------
State Views: Program Keys and EPA Support
In response to ELI's survey, the States identified key aspects of their "voluntary"
programs which expedite cleanups and achieve the desired results. These are: 1) total
cooperation from the responsible or private party; 2) the absence of a protracted
administrative process; 3) the application of uniform cleanup standards for groundwater,
surface water, and soil; 4) the remedial workplan procedures and schedule established by
a consent agreement; and 5) the ability to streamline the RI/FS process. The types of
support U.S. EPA could provide to these State programs were identified as follows: 1)
funding for State program staff; 2) uniform cleanup standards for groundwater, surface
water, and soils; 3) technology transfer opportunities; 4) State staff training; 5) model
program procedural guidelines; and 6) endorsement of the State program to assure private
parties that subsequent Federal action would not be taken (except under limited conditions).
43
-------
CHAPTER V
STATE PROGRAM TABLES
TABLE V-l
Overview of State Programs
SUMMARY
This table provides an overview of four key elements of State cleanup programs;
enforcement authority, staffing level, fund balance, and public participation procedures.
These elements mirror the criteria for State superfund programs as discussed in Chapter III;
Overview of State Programs. This Table provides a useful comparison of State programs
when the elements are viewed as integral parts of each State's program. These elements
were not selected for the purpose of evaluating the size or effectiveness of state programs.
Differences in program terminology, administrative and accounting procedures, and the
detail of program information provided by the State make direct comparison of individual
program elements difficult. Therefore, this tabulation of State information provides a
picture of the general programmatic direction and activity levels of State programs.
The table headings are defined as follows:
• "Cleanup Enforcement Authority" indicates whether or not States undertake
enforcement actions under specific hazardous cleanup authority ("Yes"), a
ground water protection statute ("GW"), a hazardous waste enforcement
statute ("HW"), or a general environmental protection authority ("Gen").
• "Staffing Level" indicates the number of full-time program staff and attorneys
who work on each State program. (Attorneys in both State cleanup programs
and State AG's Offices are included in this figure.) There is a possibility of
double counting, as some States may have counted attorneys who work full-
time on superfund programs as staff.
• "Fund Balance" lists the balance of each State's cleanup fund at the end of
fiscal year 1993. If a State has multiple cleanup funds, this column indicates
the sum of the balances. The balances, which range from zero to almost a
billion dollars, do not signify the extent of cleanup activity on their own. The
fund balance may be small because significant cleanup expenditures were
made during the year, or it may be large because little activity occurred
during the year. A State's balance amount is meaningful only when viewed
in conjunction with the number of actions taken by the State, and as an
indicator of future financial capability.
44
-------
"Public Participation Requirements or Policy" indicates whether each State has
statutory or regulatory public participation requirements or follows public
participation procedures as a matter of policy.
45
-------
TABLE V-l
OVERVIEW OF STATE PROGRAMS
Region State
1 CT
ME
MA
NH
RI
VT
2 NJ
NY
PR
3 DE
DC
MD
PA
VA
WV
4 AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
5 IL
IN
MI
MN
OH
WI
6 AR
LA
NM
OK
TX
7 IA
KS
MO
NE
8 CO
MT
ND
SO
UT
WY
9 AZ
CA
HI
Cleanup
Enforcement
Authority
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Gen
Yes
HU
Yes
Yes
Yes
HW,GW
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
HU
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Gen
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
GW
GW.HU
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Gen
Yes
Yes
Yes
Staffing
Level
51
29
260
8
34
21
668
343
8
32
1
34
145
25
13
23
62
10
23
16
29
29
51
94
28
388
114
115
100
2
44
32
11
103
10
18
40
11
32
28
6
5
33
5
29
265
15
Public
Fund Participation
Balance Requirements or Policy
$21,775,000
$5,700,000
$23,600,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,544,426
$161,500,000
$905,400,000
$4,185,000
$4,000,000
$0
$14.000,000
$60,500,000
$311,338
$2,200,000
$379,690
$8,363,000
$8,260,818
$5,000,000
$2,700,000
$3,783,852
$16,900,000
$6,260,883
$6,065,300
$14,907,856
$18,200,000
$5,252,000
$34,680,714
$24,032,917
$6,202,997
$3,056,023
$103,634
$260,000
$30,396,128
$1,006,218
$1,868,000
$5,800,000
$0
$13,200,000
$3,002,329
$79,000
$1,715,767
$425,000
$0
$3,743,000
$26,908,000
$222,604
Pol.
Pol.
Req.
Pol.
None
Req.
Pol.
Req.
None
Req.
None
Pol.
Req.
Pol.
None
Req.
Pol.
None
Pol.
Pol.
Req.
Pol.
Req.
Req.
Pol.
Req.
Req.
Pol.
Req.
Req.
Req.
Req.
None
Req.
Req.
Pol.
Req.
Req.
Pol.
Req.
Pol.
Pol.
Pol.
Pol.
Req.
Req.
Pol.
Yes = specific authority; Gen = general environmental protection authority
HW = hazardous waste authority; GW = ground water protection authority
Req. = required by statute or regulation; Pot. = state practice
46
-------
TABLE V-l
OVERVIEW OF STATE PROGRAMS
State
Cleanup
Enforcement
Authority
Staffing
Level
Fund
Balance
Public
Participation
Requirements or Policy
Region
9 NV HW.GW 26 $6,000,000 None
10 AK Yes 37 $0 Pol.
ID Gen 21 $3,139,032 None
OR Yes 99 $5,476,340 Req.
UA Yes 114 $46,302,976 Req.
Yes = specific authority; Gen = general environmental protection authority
HW = hazardous waste authority; GW = ground water protection authority
Req. = required by statute or regulation; Pol. = state practice
47
-------
TABLE V-2
Statutory Authorities
SUMMARY
45 States have Funds that can be used for a range of cleanup activities (full Fund
capabilities).
2 States have no Fund.
5 States have limited Fund capabilities, in that, their Funds can only be used for
emergency responses and/or CERCLA match.
47 States have State superfund laws that provide enforcement authorities.
45 States have statutes providing both full Fund capabilities and enforcement
authorities.
5 States have enforcement authorities only in statutes other than their State
superfund laws.
26 States have statutory provisions for a priority list.
17 States report some authority for citizen suits.
15 States provide compensation for victims of hazardous waste releases, although 10
States limit that relief to replacement of water supplies.
23 States have some provisions governing property transfers, not including States
which have only superliens and/or data bases.
48
-------
TABLE V-2
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND PROVISIONS
Cleanup Enforcement Priority Citizen Victim Property
Region State Statute Fund Authority List Suit Comp Transfer
1 CT Public Act 87-561 X
Water Pollution Control Laws X
Transfer of Hazardous Waste Establishments
Program
Urban Sites Remedial Action Program X
Emergency Spi 1 1 Response Fund X X
ME Property Transfer Statute (P.L. 355, 1993)
An Act to Assist in the Cleanup of
Contaminated Property (Innocent Landowner
Protection)
Uncontrolled Hazardous Substance Sites Act X X
MA Oil and Hazardous Material Release X X
Prevention and Response Act
NH New Hampshire Hazardous Waste Laws X X
RI Hazardous Waste Management Act X X
VT Solid Waste Management Law X
An Act Relating to Administrative X
Enforcement of Specified Environmental
Laws (Act 98)
Water Pollution Control Law X
2 NJ Industrial Sites Recovery Act, amending X
Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act
Spill Compensation and Control Act, as X X
X
X
X
US
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
amended.
NY Abandoned Sites Act of 1979 XX WS
New York State Superfund Act X
Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1986 X
PR Public Policy Environmental Act X
Environmental Emergencies Fund Act, Law 81 X
(1987)
DE Hazardous Substance Cleanup Act XXX
DC Hazardous Waste Management Act X
MD Ann. Code of Maryland, Environment XXX WS
Article, Title 7 - Hazardous Material and
Hazardous Substances
PA Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (HSCA) (Act X X X X WS
108) 1988
VA Waste Management Act X X
WV Groundwater Protection Act
Hazardous Waste Management Act X
ER: EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND REMOVALS WS: WATER SUPPLIES
CS: CERCLA SHARE 0: OTHER STATUTES
49
-------
PHOVXS.OKS
Cleanup
Region State Statute c _,
rund
3 WV Hazardous Waste Emergency Response Fund y
Act X
4 AL Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund x
FL Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Removal x
Act
Resource Recovery and Management Act X
GA Hazardous Site Response Act of 1992 X
KY KRS 224.46-580(13) and KRS 224.01-400 x
MS Property Transfer Law
Air and Water Pollution Control Act
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1974 X
Pollution Emergency Fund x
NC Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Act X
Inactive Hazardous Sites Response Act of X
1987
SC Hazardous Waste Management Act X
TN Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1983 X
5 IL Environmental Protection Act X
Responsible Party Transfer Act
IN Responsible Property Transfer Law
Hazardous Waste Act X
Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund X
Environmental Management Act
MI Environmental Response Act X
MN Environmental Response and Liability Act X
OH Solid and Hazardous Waste Disposal Law X
WI Hazardous Substance Spi 1 1 Statute
Abandoned Containers Statute
Environmental Repair Statute X
6 AR Remedial Action Trust Fund X
Emergency Response Fund Act X
LA Hazardous Waste Control Law ER.CS
Inactive and Abandoned Hazardous Waste ER
Site Law
Environmental Quality Law X
Liability for Hazardous Substance Remedial
Enforcement Priority citizen Victim Property
AlJtn/ir*it'tj i-
Author, ty L)st Suit Comp Transfer
X
X
ws
X
x x „
X
x x x
y
X X
X
X
uc y
XW3 A
X
X
x x
X
x x
X
X
X
X X
x X
X
x
x x
X x y
x X X
x
* X
x
x
x x
x x
X
X
X
X
X y
x x
X
Action
ER: EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND REMOVALS
CS: CERCLA SHARE
US: WATER SUPPLIES
0: OTHER STATUTES
50
-------
TABLE V-2
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND PROVISIONS
Cleanup Enforcement Priority Citizen Victim Property
Region State Statute Fund Authority List Suit Comp Transfer
6 NM Water Quality Act
Hazardous Waste Act
OK Hazardous Waste Fund Act
Hazardous Waste Disposal Act
Environmental Quality Act
TX Texas Property Code
Solid Waste Disposal Act
Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and
X
ER.CS X
ER
ER.CS
X X
X
XXX
X
Control Act
7 IA Environmental Quality Act X X X X WS X
Groundwater Protection Act
Groundwater Hazard Documentation Law X
KS Environmental Response Act X X
MO Hazardous Waste Management Law XXX X
Voluntary Cleanup Law X
NE Environmental Protection Act X X
8 CO Hazardous Waste Sites Act CS X
MT Comprehensive Environmental Cleanup and XXX
Responsibility Act
State Participation in CERCLA X
ND Hazardous Waste Management Act X
Water Pollution Control Law X
Environmental Quality Restoration Fund X 0
SD Hazardous Waste Management Act X
Regulated Substance Discharge Law X X
UT Hazardous Substances Mitigation Act XXX
WY Environmental Quality Act ER X X X
9 AZ Environmental Lien Authority
Environmental Quality Act XX XX
CA Health and Safety Code X
Hazardous Substance Account Act X X XXX
HI Environmental Response Law X X X X WS
NV Water Pollution Control Law X
Rev. Stat. "Hazardous Waste Statute" ER.CS X
10 AK Hazardous Substance Release Control Law X
Oil and Hazardous Substance Releases Law X X
ER: EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND REMOVALS WS: WATER SUPPLIES
CS: CERCLA SHARE 0: OTHER STATUTES
51
-------
TABLE V-2
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND PROVISIONS
Cleanup Enforcement Priority Citizen Victim Property
Region State Statute Fund Authority List Suit Comp Transfer
10 AK Liability and Cost for Oil and Hazardous X
Substances Discharge Law
ID Hazardous Waste Management Act ER X X
OR Environmental Cleanup Law XXX
WA Model Toxics Control Act X X X X US
ER- EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND REMOVALS WS: WATER SUPPLIES
Csi CERCLA SHARE 0: OTHER STATUTES
52
-------
TABLE V-3
Program Organization
SUMMARY
Program staff levels range from 2 staff members to approximately 640.
Only 8 States now have program staff levels below 10 FTE.
The overall program staff level was 3,491 FTE, up from 3,394 in 1991.
23 States rely solely on the State AG's office for legal support.
14 States rely solely on the responsible agency for legal support.
Total legal support was 247 FTE attorneys, down from 262 in 1991.
53
-------
TABLE V-3
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
Region State
1 CT
ME
MA
NH
Agency
Department of
Environmental Protection
Department of
Environmental Protection
Department of
Environmental Protection
Department of
Program
Bureau of Water
Management
Division of Site
Investigation and
Remediation
Bureau of Waste Site
Cleanup
Waste Management Division
Staff
48
27
240
5
Legal
Support
AG's Office (2-3)
AC'S Office (1.5)
DEP Office of General
Counsel (12)
AG's Office (8)
Department of Justice (3)
Number
of Attorneys
2.5
1.5
20.0
3.0
Environmental Services
RI Department of
Environmental Management
VT
NJ
NY
PR
DE
Department of
Environmental
Conservation
Department of
Environmental Protection
and Energy
Department of
Environmental
Conservation
Environmental Quality
Board
Division of Site 31
Remediation
Sites Management Section 14
Department of Natural
Resources and
Environmental Control
DC Department of Consumer
and Regulatory Affairs
MD Department of the
Environment
PA Department of
Environmental Resources
VA Department of
Environmental Quality
WV Department of Commerce,
Labor and Environmental
Resources
AL Department of
Environmental Management
FL Department of
Environmental Protection
GA Department of Natural
Resources
KY Department for
Environmental Protection
MS Department of
Environmental Quality
NC Department of
Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources
Office of Legal Services
(0.75)
AG's Office (2)
DEC Enforcement Div. (2)
AG's Office (4)
Program Attorney (1)
Site Remediation Program 640 AG's Office (28)
Division of Hazardous
Waste Remediation
SARA and Emergency
Response Office
Superfund Branch
No superfund program
Environmental Response &
Restoration Program
Hazardous Sites Cleanup
Program
Office of Superfund
Program
Site Investigation &
Response Section
Special Projects Office
Bureau of Waste Cleanup
Hazardous Sites Response
Program
Superfund Branch
Superfund Branch
Division of Solid Waste
Management
318 NYSDEC Division of
Environ. Enforcement (18)
AG's Office (7)
7 EQB Legal Division (1)
31 Department of Justice (1)
UST Division (0.8)
Hazardous Waste Program
(0.2)
32 AG's Office (1.5)
127 DER Chief Counsel's Office
(18)
24 AG's Office (0.5)
12 AG's Office (1)
23 DEM Office of General
Counsel (0.3)
60 DEP Office of General
Counsel (2)
9 Law Department (1)
21 Department of Law (2)
12 Department of
Environmental Quality
28 Department of Justice (1)
2.8
7.0
28.0
25.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
18.0
0.5
1.0
0.3
2.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
1.0
54
-------
TABLE V-3
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
Region State
Agency
Program
Staff
27
49
91
21
381
Legal
Support
Number
of Attorneys
SC
TN
IL
Department of Health and Bureau of Solid and
Environmental Control Hazardous Waste
Management
Department of Environment Division of Superfund
and Conservation
Environmental Protection
Agency
IN Department of
Environmental Management
MI Department of Natural
Resources
MM Pollution Control Agency
OH Environmental Protection
Agency
WI Department of Natural
Resources
AR Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology
LA Department of
Environmental Quality
NM NM Environment Department
OK Department of Health
TX Texas Water Commission
IA Department of Natural
Resources
KS Department of Health and
Environment
MO Department of Natural
Resources
NE Department of
Environmental Quality
CO Department of Health
Remedial Projects
Management Section
Branch Chief, Project
Management Branch
Superfund Section
Site Response Section 110
Division of Emergency and 107
Remedial Response
Emergency and Remedial 97
Response Section
MT
ND
SD
UT
WY
Superfund Branch
Office of Legal Affairs
and Enforcement
Superfund Section
Solid Waste Management
Service
Pollution Cleanup
Division
Solid Waste Section
Bureau of Environmental
Remediation
Hazardous Waste Program,
Superfund Section
Superfund Section
Hazardous Materials and
Waste Management Division
Superfund Section
Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences
The Department of Health
and Consolidated
Laboratories
Department of Environment Ground Water Quality
and Natural Resources
Department of
Environmental Quality
Division of Waste
Management
Resources
CERCLA Branch
2
43
30
10
102
10
15
35
10
DHEQ Legal Office (2)
Office of General Counsel
(1.5)
AG's Office (0.5)
Remedial Projects
Management Section (3)
Office of Legal Counsel
(6)
AG's Office (1)
AG's Office (7)
AG's Office (4)
EPA (5)
AG'S Office (3)
Bureau of Legal Services
(3)
DPC&E,
AG's Office
Office of Legal Affairs
and Enforcement (1)
NMED General Counsel (1.5)
Department of Health (1)
Legal Services Division
(1)
DNR Enforcement and
Compliance Bureau (<.5)
DHE Office of Legal
Services (2.5)
AG's Office (5)
Department of
Environmental Quality
Department of
Environmental Quality
No superfund program
18 AG's Office (<14)
25 Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences (3)
5 AG's Office (1)
3 DENR, AG's Office (2
total)
30 Division of Environmental
Response and Remediation
(1)
AG's Office (2)
AG's Office (5)
2.0
2.0
3.0
7.0
7.0
4.0
8.0
3.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
2.5
5.0
1.0
14.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
5.0
55
-------
TABLE V-3
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
Region
9
State
AZ
CA
Agency
Department of
Environmental Quality
Department of Toxic
Substances Control
Program
Remedial Projects Section
Site Mitigation Program
Staff
26
235
Legal
Support
AG's Office (3)
AG's Office, Office of
Legal Counsel and Criminal
Number
of Attorneys
3.0
30.0
10
HI
Department of Health
NV Department of
Conservation and Natural
Resources
AK Department of
Environmental
Conservation
ID Department of Health and
Welfare
OR Department of
Environmental Quality
WA Department of Ecology
Hazard Evaluation and
Emergency Response Office
(HEER)
Bureau of Corrective
Actions
Contaminated Sites
Remediation Program
Remediation Activities
Bureau
Waste Management and
Cleanup Division
Toxics Cleanup Program
Total:
Investigation (30 total)
15 AG's Office (0.25) 0.3
24 AG's Office (2) 2.0
36 AG's Office (<1> 1.0
17 AG's Office (4) 4.0
98 Department of Justice (1) 1.0
110 AG's Office (3-4) 3.5
3491 246.4
56
-------
TABLE V-4
Program Administration and Staff; Funding Sources
SUMMARY
• 27 States use State general funds for program administration and staff.
• 39 States use State cleanup funds for program administration and staff.
• 50 States use Federal funds for program administration and staff.
57
-------
TABLE V-4
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF: FUNDING SOURCES
Reg i on
\
2
3
4
State
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
State
General
Fund
59%
X
40%
23%
1%
10%
10%
X
X
X
X
X
15%
X
Cleanup
Fund
X
30%
80%
X
2%
X
92%
10%
20%
X
X
20%
X
X
100%
X
X
19%
X
Federal
Grants
23%
X
10%
20%
X
75%
X
7%
90%
63%
X
X
90%
80%
X
X
50%
X
X
66%
28%
Other
18% (Spill Fund)
20% (Other State funds)
(Bond Fund, PRP
reimbursements)
7% (DOO Grant)
(Cleanup fund funded by
hazardous waste disposal
fees)
(Trust funds)
21% (Fees on generation,
treatment and shipment of
hazardous waste)
11linois
7%
83%
10%
X = SIGNIFICANT FUNDING SOURCE, BUT NO PERCENTAGE AVAILABLE
58
-------
TABLE V-4
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF: FUNDING SOURCES
Region State
5 Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
6 Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
7 Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
8 Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Uyomi ng
9 Arizona
California
State
General Cleanup Federal
Fund Fund Grants Other
75% 5% 20%
35% 50% 15%
60% 40%
75% 25% (Solid waste disposal
fees)
X X
X X
50% 50%
X XX
15% 5% 80%
X X
5% 75% 20% (Solid Waste Account)
XXX (Petroleum Storage Tank
Trust Fund)
X X
10% 90%
10% 60% 30% (PRP Cost
Reimbursement)
X X
X X
10% 90%
4% 96%
X X
58% 42%
X X (Fees, cost recovery, and
10
Hawai t
Nevada
Alaska
reimbursements)
10%
80%
68%
90%
20%
32%
X = SIGNIFICANT FUNDING SOURCE, BUT NO PERCENTAGE AVAILABLE
59
-------
TABLE V-4
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF: FUNDING SOURCES
State
General Cleanup Federal
Region State Fund Fund Grants Other
10 Idaho x (Responsible parties)
Oregon x x
Washington 75% 25%
SIGNIFICANT FUNDING SOURCE, BUT NO PERCENTAGE AVAILABLE
60
-------
TABLE V-5
Hazardous Sites
SUMMARY
The number of known and suspected non-NPL sites in States range from 0 (District
of Columbia) to 26,000 (California).
The number of known and suspected non-NPL sites has increased by approximately
38% since 1991, to a total of over 100,000 sites.
The number of non-NPL sites identified by States as needing attention ranges from
0 (District of Columbia) to 12,894 (New Jersey).
The number of non-NPL sites identified by States as needing attention has increased
by almost 220% since 1991 to over 40,000 sites.
The total number of sites on State inventories or priority lists has increased by 39%
to over 20,000 sites since 1991.
Thirty-six States reported use of State inventories or priority lists.
61
-------
TABLE V-5
HAZARDOUS SITES
Known and
Final Proposed Deleted Suspected
State Sites
Identified as State Inventory
Region State
1 Connecticut
Ma i ne
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
2 New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
3 Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
4 Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
5 Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
NPL Sites
15
9
24
17
12
8
108
83
9
19
0
9
98
23
5
12
55
13
18
2
21
24
14
31
36
78
42
NPL Sites
0
1
6
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
0
3
1
2
1
2
3
0
2
2
1
0
1
1
1
4
1
NPL Sites
0
0
1
0
0
0
5
1
0
2
0
1
8
1
0
1
4
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
5
2
0
State Sites
1475
370
6328
250
300
1291
18519
995
-
288
0
463
3000
3100
500
625
1015
800
1000
390
665
475
1142
1400
1549
9785
542
Needing Attention
579
160
5867
250
60
1291
12894
680
-
89
0
343
50
310
-
125
725
-
500
200
655
200
157
147
82
9785
184
or Priority List
642
370
524
250
-
568
774
935
-
30
-
25
10
-
51
-
-
-
12
109
155
100
157
-
60
9785
184
DASH = NO FIGURE AVAILABLE
62
-------
Region
State
TABLE V-5
HAZARDOUS SITES
Known and State Sites
Final Proposed Deleted Suspected Identified as State Inventory
NPL Sites NPL Sites NPL Sites State Sites Needing Attention or Priority List
5 Ohio
Wisconsin
6 Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
7 Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
8 Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
9 Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
10 Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
34
39
10
12
10
10
27
19
13
23
7
16
8
2
3
12
3
11
96
2
1
7
8
9
52
2
1
0
0
2
1
3
5
2
0
3
3
0
1
1
1
0
0
6
1
0
0
2
3
.
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
-
0
0
0
1
-
1
1200
4000
351
1014
600
-
1200
900
450
1253
370
-
265
-
218
200
-
450
26000
2500
145
1051
220
1235
1029
771
565
101
184
220
-
83
200
200
163
120
-
265
-
218
31
-
65
350
-
145
1051
50
102
628
100
565
7
1287
410
-
38
67
396
51
-
-
265
-
218
13
-
25
350
-
-
1051
-
63
401
DASH = NO FIGURE AVAILABLE
63
-------
TABLE V-6
Funding of State Cleanup Activities
SUMMARY
• 50 States have cleanup funds; 2 States have no fund.
• 22 States have more than one Fund or Account.
• Total State superfund balance for all States is $1523.4M, including S967.2M
authorized in bonds in 4 States.
• The average State fund balance, excluding bond authorizations, is $11.6M, the same
as it was in 1991.
• The median State fund balance, including bond authorizations, is $5.15M. The
median State balance, excluding bond authorizations, is S3.89M.
• Including bond authorizations, fund balances (Alaska and Wyoming provided no
information) are distributed as follows:
• 2 States have no fund (NE and DC).
• 7 States have less than $1M.
• 15 States have between $1M and $5M.
• 11 States have between $5M and $10M.
• 12 States have between $10M and $50M.
• 3 States have more than $50M.
• For the 46 States providing information, total annual additions to State funds are
$957.3M (a 150% increase over 1990).
64
-------
TABLE V-6
FUNDING OP STATE CLEANUP
ACTIVITIES
Region State
1 Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
2 New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
3 Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
4 Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Fund
Emergency Spi 1 1 Response Fund
Urban Site Remedial Action
Uncontrolled Sites Fund
Landfill Closure and Remediation
Bond Account
Uncontrolled Sites Bond Account
Environmental Challenge Fund
Bond Fund
Bond Fund
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund
Environmental Response Fund
Environmental Contingency Fund
Petroleum Cleanup Fund
Bond Fund
Spill Compensation Fund
Hazardous Discharge Site Cleanup
Fund
Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund
1986 Environmental Quality Bond Act
Environmental Emergencies Fund
Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
None
Subaccount of Hazardous Substance
Control Fund
Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund
Virginia Environmental Emergency
Response Fund
Hazardous Waste Emergency Response
Fund
Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
Hazardous Waste Management Trust
Fund
Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund
Hazardous Waste Trust Fund
Hazardous Waste Management Fund
Fund
Balance
$6,775,000
$15,000,000
$3,100,000
$1,000,000
$1,600,000
$1,600,000
$22,000,000
$0
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$938,030
$606,396
$112,200,000
$44,100,000
$5,200,000
$2,700,000
$902,700,000
$4,185,000
$4,000,000
$14,000,000
$60,500,000
$311,338
$2,200,000
$379,690
$863,000
$7,500,000
$8,260,818
$5,000,000
Date
6/30/93
6/30/93
12/92
12/92
10/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
10/31/93
10/31/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
3/31/93
3/31/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
11/93
6/30/93
5/28/93
6/30/93
9/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
Additions
During FY
$0
$10,000,000
$869,000
$10,700,000
$1,900,000
$5,700,000
$0
$1,200,000
$1,233,444
$3,698,578
$239,500,000
$85,200,000
$25,400,000
$54,000,000
$0
$1,000,000
$2,830,000
$45,577,000
$94,144
$1,104,569
$348,164
$25,000,000
$2.326,017
$3,000,000
65
-------
TABLE V-6
FUNDING OP STATE CLEANUP
ACTIVITIES
Region State
4 Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
5 Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
6 Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
7 Iowa
Kansas
Fund
Pollution Emergency Response Fund
Emergency Response Fund
Inactive Hazardous Sites Cleanup
Fund
Cost Share Trust Fund
Hazardous Waste Contingency Fund
Hazardous Waste Remedial Action
Fund
Hazardous Waste Fund
State Match (Superfund)
Continental Steel Corporation
Hazardous Substances Response Trust
Fund
Act 307
Superfund
Environmental Protection Bond Fund
Minnesota Environmental Response
and Liability Act
Hazardous Waste Clean-up Fund
Hazardous Waste Facility Management
Fund
Environmental Fund
Bonding Authority
Emergency Response Fund
Hazardous Substance Remedial Action
Fund
Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Fund
State Groundwater Remediation
Account
Potential Responsible Party Program
Hazardous Waste Emergency Fund
Hazardous Waste Fund
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Remediation Fee Fund (Fund 550)
Spi 1 1 Response Fund
Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund
Environmental Response Fund
Fund
Balance
$2,700,000
$500,000
$1,383,852
$1,900,000
$16,900,000
$6,260,883
$6,065,300
$494,983
$4,612,873
$9,800,000
$9,800,000
$0
$8,400,000
$5,252,000
$13,255,486
$21,425,228
$3,532,917
$20,500,000
$139,199
$6,063.798
$3,056,023
$55,642
$33,066
$14,926
$260,000
$30,104,137
$291,991
$1,006,218
$468,000
Date
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
10/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
11/1/93
6/30/93
8/31/93
8/31/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
Additions
During FY
$500,000
$865.599
$800,000
$3,500.000
$2.472.287
$8.469.700
$1.917.733
$668.656
$2,500.000
$22,900.000
$656.000
$55,300.000
$4.290.000
$10.235,240
$10,128,790
$4.110.000
$129,22*
$1.565,61S
$943,977
$210,000
$55.451
$21,000
$200,000
$112,293.147
$0
$254.683
66
-------
TABLE V-6
FUNDING OP STATE CLEANUP
ACTIVITIES
Region State
7 Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
8 Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
9 Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
10 Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Wash i ngton
Total:
Fund
State Water Plan Fund
Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund
None
Natural Resource Damage Recovery
Fund
Hazardous Substances Response Fund
Environmental Quality Protection
Fund
Hazardous Waste/CERCLA Special
Revenue Account
Environmental Restoration Fund
The Regulated Substances Response
Fund
Hazardous Substance Mitigation Fund
Trust and Agency Account Fund
Water Quality Assurance Revolving
Fund
Hazardous Waste Control Account
Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond
Fund
Environmental Response Revolving
Fund
Hazardous Waste Management Fund
Oil and Hazardous Substance Release
Response Fund
Hazardous Waste Emergency Account
Hazardous Waste Training, Emergency
and Monitoring Account
Orphan Site Account
Hazardous Substance Remedial Action
Fund
State Toxic Control Account
Local Toxic Control Account
===================================
Fund
Balance
$1,400,000
$5,800,000
$1,600,000
$11,600,000
$1,500,000
$1,502,329
$79,000
$1,715,767
$425,000
$3.743,000
$14,000,000
$12,908,000
$222,604
$6,000,000
$234,700
$2,904,332
$2,963,537
$2,512,803
$4,825,666
$41,477,310
$1,523,409,842
Date
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
9/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/93
6/30/92
6/30/93
=========
Additions
During FY
$3,100,000
$2,500,000
$1,000,000
$3,160,000
$675,000
$1,098,286
$664,254
$250,000
$4,515,500
$107,000,000
$255,060
$6,000,000
$43,700
$3,116,429
$7,300,000
$5,390,000
$24,344,653
$21,264,889
=========£========
$957,345,789
67
-------
TABLE V-7
Sources of State Cleanup Funds
SUMMARY
• Sources of funds comprising more than 20% of fund additions are:
• Fees (26 funds in 25 States)
• Appropriations (21 funds in 17 States)
• Bonds (17 funds in 12 States)
• Penalties and fines (16 funds in 14 States)
• Taxes (11 funds in 10 States)
• Cost recoveries (17 funds in 14 States)
68
-------
TABLE V-7
SOURCES OF STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
Region
1
2
State Fund A B CR F
CT Emergency Spill Response Fund s
Urban Site Remedial Action s
ME Uncontrolled Sites Fund m s s m
Landfill Closure and Remediation Bond m s s m
Account
Uncontrolled Sites Bond Account m s s m
MA Environmental Challenge Fund s s
Bond Fund s
NH Bond Fund s
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund s s
RI Environmental Response Fund s m
VT Environmental Contingency Fund
Petroleum Cleanup Fund m m s
NJ Bond Fund s
Spill Compensation Fund m m
Hazardous Discharge Site Cleanup Fund s
NY Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund s s m s
1986 Environmental Quality Bond Act s
I P PF R T
m m s m m
m m s m m
m m s m m
s
s
m
s
m
m m m m s
m
PR Environmental Emergencies Fund s
3 DE Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
DC None
MD Subaccount of Hazardous Substance s
Control Fund
PA Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund
VA Virginia Environmental Emergency
Response Fund
WV Hazardous Waste Emergency Response
Fund
4 AL Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund s
FL Hazardous Waste Management Trust Fund
Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund
GA Hazardous Waste Trust Fund
KY Hazardous Waste Management Fund
MS Pollution Emergency Response Fund
NC Emergency Response Fund
Inactive Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund s
s = MAJOR FUNDING SOURCE (>20%) m = MINOR FUNDING SOURCE (<20%)
A: APPROPRIATIONS P: PENALTIES T: TAXES CR: COST RECOVERIES
PF: PRIVATE FUNDS R: TRANSFERS I: INTEREST B: BONDS F: FEES
s
m
m
m
s
m
m
m
69
-------
TABLE V-7
SOURCES OF STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
Region State
Fund
B
CR
PF
NC Cost Share Trust Fund
SC Hazardous Waste Contingency Fund
TN Hazardous Waste Remedial Action Fund
IL Hazardous Waste Fund
IN State Match (Superfund)
Continental Steel Corporation
Hazardous Substances Response Trust
Fund
MI Act 307
Superfund
Environmental Protection Bond Fund
MN Minnesota Environmental Response and
Liability Act
OH Hazardous Waste Clean-up Fund
Hazardous Waste Facility Management
Fund
WI Environmental Fund
Bonding Authority
AR Emergency Response Fund
Hazardous Substance Remedial Action
Fund
m m
s m
LA Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Fund s
NM State Groundwater Remediation Account s
Potential Responsible Party Program
Hazardous Waste Emergency Fund s
OK Hazardous Waste Fund s
TX Hazardous and Solid Waste Remediation
Fee Fund (Fund 550)
Spi11 Response Fund s
7 IA Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund
KS Environmental Response Fund
State Water Plan Fund
MO Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund m
NE None
8 CO Natural Resource Damage Recovery Fund
Hazardous Substances Response Fund
MT Environmental Quality Protection Fund
s = MAJOR FUNDING SOURCE (>20%) m = MINOR FUNDING SOURCE (<20%)
A: APPROPRIATIONS P: PENALTIES T: TAXES CR: COST RECOVERIES
PF: PRIVATE FUNDS R: TRANSFERS I: INTEREST B: BONDS F: FEES
m m
m
m
70
-------
TABLE V-7
SOURCES OF STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
Region State Fund A B CR F I P PF R T
8 MT Hazardous Waste/CERCLA Special Revenue s
Account
ND Environmental Restoration Fund s s
SD The Regulated Substances Response Fund m s m s
UT Hazardous Substance Mitigation Fund s
UY Trust and Agency Account Fund s
9 AZ Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund s s m mm
CA Hazardous Uaste Control Account m s m
Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Fund s
HI Environmental Response Revolving Fund s m m s s
NV Hazardous Waste Management Fund m s m
10 AK Oil and Hazardous Substance Release s
Response Fund
ID Hazardous Waste Emergency Account X X
Hazardous Waste Training, Emergency s s
and Monitoring Account
OR Orphan Site Account s mm
Hazardous Substance Remedial Action s s m m m
Fund
UA State Toxic Control Account m m m m s
Local Toxic Control Account s
Count: 31 18 48 35 32 44 10 10 19
s = MAJOR FUNDING SOURCE (>20%) m = MINOR FUNDING SOURCE (<20%)
A: APPROPRIATIONS P: PENALTIES T: TAXES CR: COST RECOVERIES
PF: PRIVATE FUNDS R: TRANSFERS I: INTEREST B: BONDS F: FEES
71
-------
TABLE V-8
Fund Expenditures
SUMMARY
A total of $711.7M was spent from States' Funds (6 States not reporting).
A total of $459.3M was obligated from States' Funds (36 States reporting).
$149M was spent on non-NPL sites.
Amounts spent by States are distributed as follows:
• 20 States spent less than $1M.
• 9 States spent between $1M and $5M.
• 5 States spent between $5M and $10M.
• 6 States spent between $10M and $50M.
• 4 States spent greater than $50M.
• 6 States provided no information and 2 States have no Fund.
The median amount spent by States was $2.3M.
$522M was spent by the four States that spent more than $50M (73%).
72
-------
TABLE V-8
EXPENDITURES AND OBLIGATIONS FROM STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
Expended Expended Total Obligated Obligated Total
Region State Fund For NPL For non-NPL Expended For NPL For non-NPL Obligated
1 CT Emergency Spill $0 $0 $5,000,000 $5,000,000
Response Fund
Urban Site $0 $0 $750,000 $750,000
Remedial Action
ME Uncontrolled $175,000 $0 $0 $0
Sites Fund
Landfill Closure $4,300,000 $3,800,000
and Remediation
Bond Account
Uncontrolled $1,028,000 $2,400,000
Sites Bond
Account
MA Environmental $600,000 $3,500,000 $4,100,000 $600,000 $3,500,000 $4,100,000
Challenge Fund
Bond Fund $10,000,000
NH Bond Fund $760,000 $0 $760,000 $735,000 $0 $735,000
Hazardous Waste $108,000
Cleanup Fund
RI Environmental
Response Fund
VT Environmental $0 $295,414 $295,414
Contingency Fund
Petroleum Cleanup $0 $3,092,182 $3,092,182
Fund
2 NJ Bond Fund $127,300,000 $71,900,000 $71,900,000
Spill $41,000,000 $40,600,000
Compensation Fund
Hazardous $20,200,000 $12,100,000
Discharge Site
Cleanup Fund
NY Hazardous Waste $52,000,000
Remedial Fund
1986 $59,800,000 $1,100,000 $60,900,000 $2,000,000 $69,000,000 $70,700,000
Environmental
Quality Bond Act
PR Environmental $555,000
Emergencies Fund
3 DE Hazardous $0 $1,890,000 $1,890,000 $0 $3,000,000 $3,000,000
Substance Cleanup
Fund
DC None
73
-------
TABLE V-8
EXPENDITURES AND OBLIGATIONS FROM STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
Expended Expended Total Obligated Obligated Total
Region State Fund For NPL For non-NPL Expended For NPL For non-NPL Obligated
3 MD Subaccount of
Hazardous
Substance Control
Fund
PA Hazardous Sites $45,000 $11,883.000 $11,928,000 $900,000 $21,573,000 $22,473,000
Cleanup Fund
VA Virginia $67,865 $0 $67,865
Environmental
Emergency
Response Fund
UV Hazardous Waste $0 $329,476 $329,476 $348,000 $397,000 $745,000
Emergency
Response Fund
4 AL Hazardous $0 $80,230 $80,230
Substance Cleanup
Fund
FL Hazardous Waste
Management Trust
Fund
Water Quality
Assurance Trust
Fund
GA Hazardous Waste $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Trust Fund
KY Hazardous Waste $0 $818,000 $818,000 $0 $967,000 $967,000
Management Fund
MS Pollution $0 $440,000 $440,000 $0 $0 $0
Emergency
Response Fund
NC Emergency
Response Fund
Inactive $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hazardous Sites
Cleanup Fund
Cost Share Trust $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Fund
SC Hazardous Waste $0 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,100,000 $3,000,000 $5,100,000
Contingency Fund
TN Hazardous Waste $5,594 $2,215,858 $2,221,452 $0 $249,871 $249,871
Remedial Action
Fund
5 IL Hazardous Waste $1,483,300 $1,632,300 $5,952,600 $2,487,200 $4,712,300 $10,748,700
Fund
74
-------
TABLE V-8
EXPENDITURES AND OBLIGATIONS PROM STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
Region State Fund
5 IN State Match
(Superfund)
Continental Steel
Corporation
Hazardous
Substances
Response Trust
Fund
MI Act 307
Superfund
Environmental
Protection Bond
Fund
MN Minnesota
Environmental
Response and
Liability Act
OH Hazardous Waste
Clean-up Fund
Hazardous Waste
Facility
Management Fund
WI Environmental
Fund
Bonding Authority
6 AR Emergency
Response Fund
Hazardous
Substance
Remedial Action
Fund
LA Hazardous Waste
Site Cleanup Fund
NM State Groundwater
Remediation
Account
Potential
Responsible Party
Program
Hazardous Waste
Emergency Fund
OK Hazardous Waste
Fund
Expended Expended Total
For NPL For non-NPL Expended
$6,955 $0 $6,955
$84,580
$100,000 $3,000,000 $3,100,000
$0 $7,900,000 $7,900,000
$400,000 $256,000 $656,000
$0 $21,300,000 $21,300,000
$6,906,000 $89,000 $6,995,000
$8,837,901
$11,171,318
$182,700 $2,994,151 $3,126,851
$1,950,000
$0 $121,683 $121,683
$1,336,766 $1,336,766
$0 $943,977 $943,977
$0 $154,358 $154,358
$0 $22,385 $22,385
$19,740 $19,740
$0 $28,000 $28,000
Obligated Obligated Total
For NPL For non-NPL Obligated
$2,700,000 $5,800,000 $8,500,000
$0 $5,000.000 $5,000,000
$0 $0 $0
$0 $25,600,000 $25,600,000
$0 $1,456,000 $1,456,000
$761,428
$952,397
$189,000 $3,210,455
$0 $1,502 $1,502
$0 $0 $0
$0 $1,923,932 $1,923,932
$0 $154,358 $154,358
$0 $0 $0
$0
75
-------
TABLE V-8
EXPENDITURES AND OBLIGATIONS FROM STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
Region State
Fund
Expended Expended Total Obligated Obligated Total
For NPL For non-NPL Expended For NPL For non-NPL Obligated
TX Hazardous and
Solid Waste
Remediation Fee
Fund (Fund 550)
Spi11 Response
Fund
IA Hazardous Waste
Remedial Fund
KS Environmental
Response Fund
State Water Plan
Fund
MO Hazardous Waste
Remedial Fund
NE None
CO Natural Resource
Damage Recovery
Fund
Hazardous
Substances
Response Fund
MT Environmental
Quality
Protection Fund
Hazardous
Waste/CERCLA
Special Revenue
Account
ND Environmental
Restoration Fund
SD The Regulated
Substances
Response Fund
UT Hazardous
Substance
Mitigation Fund
WY Trust and Agency
Account Fund
AZ Water Qua Iity
Assurance
Revolving Fund
CA Hazardous Waste
Control Account
$84,180,587 $47,849,513 $132,030,100 $84,180,587 $45,929,145 $130,109,732
$0
$0
$2,500,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$24,113 $100,210 $124,323
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,000 $627,255 $631,255
$21,916 $851,556 $873,472
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $400,000 $400,000
$7.272,900
$88,600,000
$0
$0 $2,500,000 $7,700,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $160,000 $160,000 $0 $42,000 $42,000
$0 $269,000 $269,000 $489,000 $904,000 $1,393,000
$2,000,000 $500,000
$0
$0 $7,700,000
$0
$0
$0 $675,000 $675,000
76
-------
TABLE V-8
EXPENDITURES AND OBLIGATIONS FROM STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
Region State Fund
9 CA Hazardous
Substance Cleanup
Bond Fund
HI Environmental
Response
Revolving Fund
NV Hazardous Waste
Management Fund
Expended Expended Total Obligated Obligated Total
For NPL For non-NPL Expended For NPL For non-NPL Obligated
$0 $32,456 $32,456 $0 $0 $0
$0 $250,000 $250,000
$0
$0
$0
$250,000 $250,000
$1,600,000
$23,700 $23,700
$915,525 $915,525
$900,000
$0 $0 $0
$0 $70,400 $70,400
10 AK Oil and Hazardous
Substance Release
Response Fund
ID Hazardous Waste
Emergency Account
Hazardous Waste
Training,
Emergency and
Monitoring
Account
OR Orphan Site $5,468,504
Account
Hazardous $13,277,665
Substance
Remedial Action
Fund
WA State Toxic $1,189,918 $25,875,384 $27,065,302
Control Account
Local Toxic $6,685,622 $2,904,361 $9,589,983 $3,349,541 $11,988,428 $15,337,969
Control Account
Total: $166,300,336 $148,964,714 $711.672,918 $108,278,328 $283,593,936 $459,264,744
77
-------
TABLE V-9
Uses of State Cleanup Funds
SUMMARY
States are authorized to use their Funds for:
• Emergency Response (48 States);
• Removals (48 States);
• Remedial Action (45 States);
• Studies (44 States);
• CERCLA Match (45 States);
• O&M (39 States); and
• Victim Compensation (6 States).
78
-------
TABLE V-9
USES OF STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
Region State
Fund
SI ER RM SD RA OM NR CM AD LG VC
CT Emergency SpiII Response Fund
Urban Site Remedial Action
MA Bond Fund
Environmental Challenge Fund
ME Uncontrolled Sites Bond Account
Uncontrolled Sites Fund
Landfill Closure and Remediation Bond Account
NH Bond Fund
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund
RI Environmental Response Fund
VT Environmental Contingency Fund
Petroleum Cleanup Fund
NJ Bond Fund
Spill Compensation Fund
Hazardous Discharge Site Cleanup Fund
NY Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund
1986 Environmental Quality Bond Act
PR Environmental Emergencies Fund
DC None
DE Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
MD Subaccount of Hazardous Substance Control Fund
PA Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund
VA Virginia Environmental Emergency Response Fund
UV Hazardous Waste Emergency Response Fund
AL Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
FL Hazardous Waste Management Trust Fund
Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund
GA Hazardous Waste Trust Fund
KY Hazardous Waste Management Fund
MS Pollution Emergency Response Fund
NC Emergency Response Fund
Inactive Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund
Cost Share Trust Fund
SC Hazardous Waste Contingency Fund
X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXX XX
X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X
XXXXXXX
X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X
X X X X X X
X X X X
X X
XX X
X X
X
X X X X
X X
XXXXXX XX
XXXXXX XX
XXXXX XXX X
X X X X X XX
XXXXXX XX
XXXXXX XX
xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXX XX
xxxxxxxxx
X X X X X
XXXXX
XXXXXX
S1:SITE INVESTIGATION ER:EMERGENCY RESPONSE RM:REMOVALS OM:0&M
SD:STUD1ES AND DESIGN RA:REM. ACTIONS NR:NATURAL RESOURCE RESTORATION
CM:CERCLA MATCH AD:PROGRAM ADMIN. LG:GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVT. VC:VICTIM COMP.
79
-------
TABLE V-9
USES OF STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
Region State Fund SI ER RM SO RA OM NR CM AD LG
4 TN Hazardous Waste Remedial Action Fund XXXXXX XX
5 IL Hazardous Waste Fund XXXXXXXXX
IN State Hatch (Superfund) X x
Continental Steel Corporation
Hazardous Substances Response Trust Fund XXXXXX X
MI Act 307 X X X X X X X X
Superfund X
Environmental Protection Bond Fund XXXXXXXXXX
MN Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act XXXXXXXXX
OH Hazardous Waste Clean-up Fund X XXXXX XX
Hazardous Waste Facility Management Fund X X
WI Environmental Fund XXXXXXXXXX
Bonding Authority X X
6 AR Emergency Response Fund XXX X
Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Fund XXXXXX XX
LA Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Fund XXXXX
NM State Grounduater Remediation Account X
Potential Responsible Party Program X XXX
Hazardous Waste Emergency Fund X X
OK Hazardous Waste Fund XX X
TX Hazardous and Solid Waste Remediation Fee Fund (Fund 550) XXXXXX XX
Spi11 Response Fund X X
7 IA Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund XXX XX XX
KS Environmental Response Fund X XX X
State Water Plan Fund XXXXXX XX
MO Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund XXXXXX XX
NE None
8 CO Natural Resource Damage Recovery Fund X
Hazardous Substances Response Fund X XX
MT Environmental Quality Protection Fund XXXXXXX X
Hazardous Waste/CERCLA Special Revenue Account X X XX
ND Environmental Restoration Fund XX XX x
SO The Regulated Substances Response Fund XXXXX XX
UT Hazardous Substance Mitigation Fund X X X X X X
SI:SITE INVESTIGATION ER:EMERGENCY RESPONSE RM:REMOVALS OM:0&M
5D:STUDIES AND DESIGN RA:REM. ACTIONS NR:NATURAL RESOURCE RESTORATION
;M:CERCLA MATCH AD:PROGRAM ADMIN. LG:GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVT. VC:VICTIM COMP.
80
-------
TABLE V-9
USES OF STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
Region State Fund SI ER RM SO RA OM NR CM AD LG VC
8 WY Trust and Agency Account Fund X
9 AZ Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund XXXXXX XXX
CA Hazardous Waste Control Account XXXXXX XX
Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Fund XXXXXX X X
HI Environmental Response Revolving Fund XXXXXXXX
NV Hazardous Waste Management Fund XXXXXXXX
10 AK Oil and Hazardous Substance Release Response Fund X X X X X XX
ID Hazardous Waste Emergency Account X
Hazardous Waste Training, Emergency and Monitoring X X
Account
OR Orphan Site Account X X X X X
Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Fund XXXXXX XX
WA State Toxic Control Account XXXXXX XX
Local Toxic Control Account X X X X X XX
Count: 58 59 60 56 60 49 21 50 48 15 7
SI:SITE INVESTIGATION ER:EMERGENCY RESPONSE RM:REMOVALS OM:0&M
SD:STUDIES AND DESIGN RArREM. ACTIONS NR-.NATURAL RESOURCE RESTORATION
CM:CERCLA MATCH ADrPROGRAM ADMIN. LG:GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVT. VC:VICTIM COMP.
81
-------
TABLE V-10
State Cleanup Policies and Criteria
SUMMARY
19 States have promulgated standards which may be applied to hazardous cleanup.
47 States apply MCLs and/or MCLGs in determining cleanup levels.
43 States apply surface water quality criteria.
34 States report using EPA Guidelines in determining cleanup levels.
40 States reference ambient quality or background levels.
42 States reference risk levels or conduct a risk assessment at specific sites.
82
-------
TABLE V-10
STATE CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Region
1
2
3
4
5
State
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
I llinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Promulgated Water
Cleanup Quality
Standards Criteria
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
MCLs or
MCLGs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Background
Levels
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Risk
Assessment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EPA
Guidelines
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
83
-------
TABLE V-10
STATE CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Region State
5 Ohio
Wisconsin
6 Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
7 Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
8 Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
9 Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
10 Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
:===== ====================
ount :
Promulgated Water
Cleanup Quality MCLs or Background Risk EPA
Standards Criteria MCLGs Levels Assessment Guidelines
XXX X x
X XXX
X X X X X x
XXX X x
X X X X X x
XX X x
X X X X X x
XXX
XXX
XX XX
X XX
X X X X X x
XXX X x
X X X X x
X X X
X X X X X
X XXX
X X X X X x
XXX X x
XX X
XXX X x
X
X X X X X x
X X X X X x
=========== ======== ======= ========== s========= ====rz— — — -.
19 43 47 40 42 34
84
-------
TABLE V-ll
State Public Participation Procedures
SUMMARY
45 States have public participation procedures; 24 of these States have statutory or
regulatory public participation requirements.
3 States are preparing statutes or regulations which will address public participation.
35 States provide public notice during site handling.
23 States solicit public comments.
35 States hold or may hold public meetings or hearings.
85
-------
TABLE V-ll
STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS
Region State
1 Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
Statutory/Regulatory Requirements
Policy/Ad hoc Practices
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Delaware
None.
None.
Public notice of Tier 1 sites and
applications for Tier 1 response action
permits. Public Involvement Plans
prepared upon citizen petition. State
technical assistance grants and public
site inspections available. Local
officials informed.
None.
None.
UST regulations require public notice of
corrective action. Sites must be entered
on town-maintained land records.
None exist, other than what is required
by CERCLA. State is currently preparing
amendments to the Technical Rules which
will provide for greater participation.
Site-specific citizen participation
program at start of RI/FS includes
establishment of local document
repository, creation of contact list, and
mailing. Upon preparation of Proposed
Remedial Action Plan, a mailing, 30-day
comment period, and public meeting. When
ROD is signed. State summarizes and
responds to public comments. Notification
by letter to adjacent property owners and
town and county clerks when adding or
reclassifying site on Registry, and
notice, comments and mailing before
deletion from Registry.
None.
Public must be notified and given
opportunity to comment on proposed
consent decrees, settlement revisions,
and final remedial action plans.
DEP contacts local officials with cleanup
workplan and holds public meetings at
various stages of investigation and
cleanup at State-funded sites.
DEP policy is to keep local officials and
residents informed.
State may hold public hearings in
enforcement actions. RPHs informally
contact local citizens and officials.
Agency meets with town officials, holds
public meetings
Ongoing use of Site Remediation Program
Advisory Group to assist in program
refinements and operations. The Advisory
Group consists of industrial, banking,
realtors, consultants, environmental
groups and other stakeholders to the
program.
State Superfund Management Board, which
oversees remedial program, includes
environmental group and citizen
representatives. DEC has 10 full-time
citizen participation staff.
District of Columbia None.
Notice to persons directly affected.
86
-------
TABLE V-ll
STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS
Region State
3 Maryland
Statutory/Regulatory Requirements
Policy/Ad hoc Practices
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
4 Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
None.
Analysis of Response action and
alternatives in Public Notice followed by
90 day Public Comment period. Public
hearing within 90 day comment period.
None.
None.
30-day comment period on cleanup plan.
Single publication of notice in county
paper. Hearing required prior to issuing
administrative order unless imminent
threat to human health.
None.
None yet, state plans to establish.
None.
None.
3 weeks in newspaper, 45-day comment
period, with public meeting at
Secretary's discretion, notice to those
requesting to be on mailing list, copy
filed with Register of Deeds, copies
placed in local libraries and County
Health Director's Office.
MDE practices early community involvement
and Superfund program has a staff
community relations coordinator
Federal regulations are followed. State
implements additional public outreach
activities.
Uses news releases and proactive
involvement of the media for time critical
events.
Involvement varies on a site-specific
basis. May include door to door outreach
and/or meetings.
None yet, state plans to establish.
There is a Public Information Repository
for NPL and State priority list sites. It
is generally standard practice to hold
Public Meetings for these sites.
Policies require public comment period,
direct mailings, and public meetings
during remediation process. Local
governments and governor notified when
emergency order issued.
South Carolina None.
Tennessee Public meeting required at end of RI/FS
stage for input in development of ROD.
Rulemaking hearings (with required public
participation) must be held prior to
site(s) being added and/or deleted from
State list.
State follows NCP public participation
requirements.
87
-------
TABLE V-ll
STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS
Region State
5 Illinois
Statutory/Regulatory Requirements
Policy/Ad hoc Practices
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Arkansas
Louisiana
NCP rules on public participation apply,
with the additional requirement that the
required public meeting must be a formal
Public Hearing.
None.
Public hearing when State list updated.
New rules provide public hearing during
remedy selection process. System modeled
on CERCLA.
All enforcement actions and funding
actions are approved by Agency Citizen's
Board.
Statute under review.
State list is subject to public notice,
30-day comment period and hearing
requirements. Remedial actions are
subject to public notice, and a public
hearing if requested, within 30 days.
There have been no formal challenges by
the public to State-funded RAs. All files
open to public with limited
confidentiality and enforcement
exception.
Transcripts of public hearings and
comments received on the site listing
become part of the administrative record.
General requirement providing an
opportunity for public meeting and, if
requested, a public comment period prior
to the approval of RI plan and selection
of remedy (R.S. 30:2280).
Community Relations Coordinators are
assigned for qualifying sites.
Coordinators emphasize direct contact in
small groups or one-to-one.
On state funded cleanups, state follows
CERCLA public participation guidance.
State assigns a public information officer
to each site, holds public meetings in
affected community after RI/FS to present
the proposed plan for remedial action.
State's practice is to meet with the
public in their homes or other local
setting, with an emphasis on personal
communication.
Ohio EPA/DERR policy on preferred plans
and Decision Documents (state equivalent
to proposed plan and ROD) require public
comment period, responsiveness summary,
public meeting, and establishment of an
information repository.
Strongly encourage public participation in
cleanup decisions even when not required.
A public hearing is held prior to
decisions to add or delete a site from the
priority list. Public meetings and/or
fact sheets are provided prior to major
milestones or cleanup projects.
Public comment period required for closure
plans when DEQ proposes to treat, store
or dispose of hazardous wastes at
abandoned sites. At complex sites, DEQ
institutes community relations programs
including regular public meetings. Prior
to concluding settlement agreements, DEQ
makes them available to the public and
holds public meetings.
-------
TABLE V-ll
STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS
Region State
6 New Mexico
Statutory/Regulatory Requirements
Pol icy/Ad hoc Practices
Oklahoma
Texas
7 Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Water Quality Control Commission
regulations for non-NPL sites. NCP
regulations for NPL sites.
None.
Statute requires public notice and
comment on site listing and remedy
selection.
Must provide technical advice and
assistance to political subdivisions and
to other persons upon request.
None.
The Missouri Hazardous Waste Management
Law provides appeals through the
Hazardous Waste Management Commission
which may convene a public hearing if
resolution of appeals cannot be
negotiated.
For groundwater contamination. Title 118
requires RPs to submit proposal based on
"detailed site assessment." Public notice
of the proposal is given by newspaper and
radio, with copies available in public
libraries. A 30-day comment period and
any requested hearings run prior to final
review.
Major cases: fact sheet published,
periodic public meetings, public notice of
selected remedy. Small cases: by demand.
TNRCC meets informally with community as
community interest warrants.
None.
State follows NCP public participation
requirements. State is developing a
contingency plan which will include
guidelines on community participation.
Public meetings, availability sessions,
fact sheets, and news releases are
commonly used to provide information to
the public and to solicit input from the
public for decision making.
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
None.
CECRA requires public notice of
administrative orders and consent
decrees. Amendments require notice to
local governing bodies and city
commissioners and, at their request, a
public meeting must be held.
None.
None.
State currently makes increasing use of
technical and non-technical advisory
groups for input on decisions and future
land use.
Agency typically allows for more public
participation than is required by CECRA.
The Division notifies local authorities
with information about the site. Local
communities can become involved in site
activities.
Public notices and public meetings at
major milestones and upon request.
89
-------
TABLE V-ll
STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS
Region State
8 Utah
Statutory/Regulatory Requirements
Policy/Ad hoc Practices
Wyoming
9 Arizona
California
Hawai i
Nevada
10 Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
None.
None.
30 day public comment period, meetings or
hearings are discretionary but state
always does one or both at site listing
and remedy selection stage
Dept. must hold at least one public
meeting before adopting an RA plan and
must review and consider public comments.
Anyone affected by a removal or remedial
action must have opportunity to
participate in Dept's decision making
process. Dept. must develop and make
available to public a schedule of
activities for each site.
Public participation will be defined in
administrative rules. They will include
establishing an Administrative Record,
publishing notice of availability of
Admin. Rec. in newspaper, and soliciting
public comments on proposed action.
Department of Health required to develop
public education program for hazardous
waste issues.
None.
None.
None.
Public notice of DEQ's program for
identifying releases, proposed
settlement agreements, 30-day comment
period for all proposed remedial actions.
Public meetings for proposed remedial
actions if requested by a minimum of 10
people. Public notice provided for final
remedial action.
State follows NCP's public participation
requirements and, on site-specific basis
DEQ involves the public in cleanup
process. Strong public participation by
PRPs and on a site-specific basis.
Public participation is informal and
includes opportunity to review documents
and comment on rulemakings and permitting
decisions. Citizen commissions at some
NPL sites.
Annual newsletters for sites where the
public has expressed an interest
Current policy is to conduct public
participation activities on ad-hoc basis.
Draft policy of 9/20/93 addresses public
notification, public hearing, public
records, advisory groups, and appeal
procedures.
Attempt to involve public depending upon
seriousness of site and/or public
interest. Range from ooor to door contact
and letters to public meetings.
90
-------
Region
TABLE V-ll
STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS
State Statutory/Regulatory Requirements Policy/Ad hoc Practices
10 Washington Early planning and development of a
site-specific public participation plan,
public notices; a site register
(bi-weekly) department publication on
status of sites; public meetings or
hearings; and the participation of
regional citizen advisory committees.
91
-------
TABLE V-12
Liability Standards
SUMMARY
Culpability Standards
• 40 States have strict liability standards.
• 5 States have a liability standard other than strict.
• 7 States do not specify whether liability is strict or not.
Allocation Standards
• 32 States have strict, joint and several liability; 6 of these expressly permit
apportionment.
• 2 States have joint and several, but not strict, liability.
• 4 States have proportional liability.
• 14 States do not specify either joint and several or proportional liability.
92
-------
TABLE V-12
LIABILITY STANDARDS
Region
1
State
Strict
Joint and
Several
Proportional
Other
Not
Spec i f i ed
Connecticut X
Maine X
Massachusetts X
New Hampshire X
Rhode Island X
Vermont X
New Jersey X
New York X
Puerto Rico X
Delaware X
District of Columbia
Maryland X
Pennsylvania X
Virginia
West Virginia
AIabama
Florida X
Georgia X
Kentucky X
Mississippi X
North Carolina X
South Carolina X
Tennessee
Illinois x
Indiana x
Michigan X
Minnesota X
Ohio
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
93
-------
Region
5
6
10
State
Wisconsin
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
TABLE V-12
LIABILITY STANDARDS
Joint and
Strict Several Proportional
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
X
Not
Specified
94
-------
TABLE V-13
Penalties and Damages Available Under
State "Superfund" Statute
SUMMARY
• 25 States provide for punitive damages, compared with 24 in 1991, 23 in 1990, and
22 in 1989.
• 22 States authorize treble damages.
• 1 State authorizes double damages.
• 2 States authorize one and one-half damages.
• 45 States authorize civil penalties (plus West Virginia - only for failing to pay fees).
No additional States have added penalties since the 1991 update.
95
-------
TABLE V-13
PENALTIES AND DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER
Region
State
Punitive Damages
STATE "SUPERFUND" STATUTE
Civil Penalties
$25,000/day
None
$25,000/day; $100,000/day for failure to
notify of a release
None
Up to $25,000/day
$10,000/day
$50,000/day per violation
$25,000/day
$25,000/day
$10,000/day for violating an order
up to $25,000/day per violation
$25,000/violation
$25,000/day (min. $5,000/day)
Up to $25,000/day per violation of an
order
None
$25,000 per violation per day to a
$250,000 max assessed in administrative
order
Up to $25,000/day
$50,000/day
$25,000/day
Up to $25,000/violation; cost of
removal/remediation; cost of
restarting/replenishing killed fish or
game.
$10,000/day for haz. waste violation
$25,000/day with stipulated penalties for
non-compliance with a consent agreement of
$1,000/day
Up to $10,000/day
$50,000/day for the first day of violation
and $10,000/day for continuing violation
1 Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
1 1/2 x State's cost
Treble
Treble
New Hampshire None
Rhode Island Treble
Vermont Treble
New Jersey Treble
New York None
Puerto Rico None
Delaware Treble
District of Columbia None
Maryland None
Pennsylvania Treble
Virginia None
West Virginia
AIabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Illinois
None
None
None
Treble
None
None
None
Treble
1 1/2 times
Treble
96
-------
PENALTIES AND
Region State
5 Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
6 Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Ok Iahoma
Texas
7 Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
8 Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
TABLE V-13
DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER STATE "SUPERFUND" STATUTE
Punitive Damages
Civil Penalties
Treble
Treble
None.
None
None
Treble
Treble; double damages from
non-participating PRPs to participating
PRPs
None
None
Treble
Treble
None
Treble
None
None
Double
None
None
None
$25,000/day/violation
$1,000/day for failure to comply with
admin, request to undertake a response
activity; $25,000/day for viol, of
judicial order
$20,000/day if responsible person fails to
take response actions or does not make
reasonable progress in completing response
action.
$10,000/day per violation
Up to $5,000/day
$25,000/day
$25,000/day for failure to provide
information
$15,000/day for discharge permit
violations; $10,000/day for other
violations; $25,000/day for violations of
compliance orders
None
$25,000
Up to $1,000/day for failure to notify; up
to $10,000/day for air and water
violations.
Hazardous waste $10,000-25,000; water
pollution $10,000; solid waste $5,000
Violations of property transfer or change
of use may be subject to penalty not to
exceed $1000/day for each day of
violation.
None
None
$10,000/day for violation or failure to
comply; $1000/day adminstrative penalties
None specific to Superfund
$10,000/day/incident
$10,000/day for violation of department
orders
97
-------
TABLE V-13
PENALTIES AND DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER STATE "SUPERFUND" STATUTE
Region
State
Punitive Damages
Civil Penalties
8 Wyomi ng
9 Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
10 Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
None
Treble
Treble
Treble
None
None
None
Treble
Treble
$10,000/day for EQA violations;
$25,000/day for willful and knowing
violations
$5,000/day for failure to comply;
$10,000/day for failure to report release-
CERCLA consent orders up to $25,000/day
Up to $25,000/day for violating an
order/agreement
$10,000/day for failure to report a
release; at least $50,000/violation per
day of continuance for failure to comply
with enforcement order
$25,000/day per violation
$500-$100,000 for first violations, no
more than $10,000/day of continued
violation
$10,000/day
Up to $10,000/day/vielation
Up to $25,000/day
98
-------
TABLE V-14
Natural Resource Damages Programs
SUMMARY
25 States report they have natural resource damages (NRD) programs.
Of the States that do not have formal NRD programs, 5 have the authority to
recover damages to natural resources and 8 are able to use monies from their State
funds for natural resource damage assessments or restoration.
California could not provide a total amount of money recovered, but reports that the
total for just three major NRD recoveries by the CA Department of Fish and Game
came to $23,855,533.
14 States report recovering more than $126,944,372 in natural resorce damage claims.
There are 69 NRD claims pending in 14 of the States that report that they have
NRD programs.
6 States reported more than $514,500,000 in pending NRD claims.
99
-------
TABLE V-14
NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES PROGRAMS
Region State
1 Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampsh i re
Rhode Island
Vermont
2 New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
3 Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
4 A I abama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
5 Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Amount Amount
Program Date Recovered Claims Pending Pending
no
yes 1991 $1,000,000 3
yes 1983 $19,000,000 0 $,
no
no
no
yes 7/1/93 $5,000,000 8
yes 1990 $20,000,000
no
yes 1993 $600,000 0 $(
no
yes 1982 $0 0 $(
no
no
no
yes 1988 $0 0 jc
no
no
no
yes 1972 $500,000 0 $0
no
no
yes 1980 $0 0 $0
yes 1993 $0 4
yes 1988 $2,700,000 5 $2,500,000
yes 1990 $3,840,000
no
yes 1990 $200,000 0 $0
100
-------
TABLE V-14
NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES PROGRAMS
Region State
5 Wisconsin
6 Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
7 Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
8 Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
9 Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
10 Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
___——= ====================
Total:
Program
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
=======
Amount Amount
Date Recovered Claims Pending Pending
11/93 $0 1
7/93 $0 1 $0
4/90 $248,839 26 $50,000,000
mid-1970s i
1987 $5,000,000 2
1991 $0 1 $300,000,000
1 $12,000,000
1991 $o o $0
1960s $23,855,533+ 12 $100,000,000
1990 $o o $0
1985 $5,000,000 1
1989 $o 1
1990 $40, 000,000 3 $50,000,000
$103,088,839 70 $514.500,000
101
-------
TABLE V-15
Property Transfer Provisions
SUMMARY
7 States have superlien provisions.
23 States have property transfer provisions, up from 18 in 1991.
• 16 States have deed recordation provisions for hazardous substance sites.
• 16 States require disclosure by sellers to purchasers.
• 2 States require cleanup as a condition of transfer of property.
15 States maintain databases to assist purchasers and other parties to transactions to
perform environmental due diligence.
102
-------
TABLE V-15
PROPERTY TRANSFER PROVISIONS
Region
1
2
3
4
5
State
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Record Disclose Examine Cleanup
No Super on before before before Data
Law Lien Deed Transfer Transfer Transfer base
X X X X X
XX X
X X
X
X X
X
X XXX
X X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
XX X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
XX X
X X
103
-------
TABLE V-15
PROPERTY TRANSFER PROVISIONS
Region
5
6
7
8
9
10
State
Ohio
Wisconsin
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Record Disclose Examine Cleanup
No Super on before before before Dati
Law Lien Deed Transfer Transfer Transfer base
X
X
X
X X X X x
X
X
X
X X x
X
X X x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x x
X
X X
x x
Count:
26
16
16
15
104
-------
TABLE V-16
Federal-State Partnerships
SUMMARY
• 48 States had Site-Specific agreements (more than doubling the 1991 total of 22).
• 48 States had Core Program agreements (a slight increase from the 1991 total of 45).
• 18 States had Superfund Memoranda of Agreement (the same number as in 1991.)
• None of the States in Regions I, II, or IX had a Superfund Memorandum of
Agreement.
105
-------
TABLE V-16
FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIPS
Region
1
2
3
4
5
State
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Site-Specific
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CORE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SM(
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
106
-------
TABLE V-16
FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIPS
Region
5
6
7
8
9
10
State
Wisconsin
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Site-Specific
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CORE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SM02
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
107
-------
TABLE V-17
Voluntary Remediation Programs:
Key Administrative Procedures
SUMMARY
• 12 States have Department oversight.
• 1 State has third party oversight.
• 15 States have Department sign-off.
• 3 States have enforceable consent agreements.
108
-------
TABLE V-17
VOLUNTARY REMEDIATION PROGRAMS:
KEY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
Third Enforceable
Department Party Department Consent
Region
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
10
Program C
Maine
Massachusetts
New Jersey
Delaware
Virginia
North
Carolina
(Consent
Agreement
Program)
North
Carolina
(Independent
Action
Program)
Illinois
Indiana
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Missouri
Utah
Oregon
Washington
>versighl
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
b Oversight Sign-Off
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Agreement
X
X
X
(Consent
Agreement
Program)
Washington
(Independent
Action
Program)
109
-------
TABLE V-18
Voluntary Remediation Programs:
Authorities and Agreements
SUMMARY
• 7 States have specific statutory authority for their voluntary remediation programs
with procedures outlined in the statute.
• 7 States have established programs under the general authority of State Cleanup or
Environmental Protection Acts.
110
-------
TABLE V-18
VOLUNTARY REMEDIATION PROGRAMS:
AUTHORITIES AND AGREEMENTS
Region Program
Authority
Initial
Agreement
Sign-off
Procedures
Maine
New Jersey
Delaware
Virginia
P.L. 1993. Ch. 355
Massachusetts
Amendments to Chapter 21E of Massachusetts
General Law (Chapter 133 of the Acts of
1992).
N.J.A.C. 7:26C. Technical guidance under
N.J.A.C. 7:26E.
Delaware Hazardous Substance Cleanup Act,
7 Del. Code. Chapter 91
General authority under Virginia Waste
Management Act, Art. 1, Ch. H, Tit. 10.1.
Solid Waste Management Regulations (Amend.
1) and Hazardous Waste Regulations (Amend.
12) provide procedural authority.
Party requests Department oversight to show At completion of work all parties completing
that property has or has not been the site
of a release or threatened release of a
hazardous substance, pollutant or
contaminant. Department will not give
oversight until site accepted.
Party notifies DEP that site is
contaminated, then has one year to classify
site with respect to risk level. Site is
labeled a Tier 1 Category A, B, or C site
or a Tier II site. If site is a serious
risk to public health and environment, it
is a Tier I Category A site and gets direct
DEP oversight and cleanup enforcement. All
other site classes, cleanup under
"voluntary" procedures.
Party submits written application to DEPE.
If site accepted, an MOA, which outlines
process to be used to obtain DEPE sign-off,
must be signed.
Party must enter into an unenforceable
Consent Decree filed in court. Agreement
identifies cleanup procedures and oversight
costs to receive Departmental sign-off.
Similar to enforced Consent Decree, except
it allows termination at any point and has
no penalties provision.
Party submits a request to clean up site.
If Hazardous Waste and State Superfund
programs determine they will not clean the
site, a Consent Agreement is signed. A No
Further Action Letter will be given by the
Department if the party completes cleanup
under the Agreement. Consent Agreement is
not binding.
cleanup action eligible for Certificates of
Completion. Certificates provide that
Department will never initiate enforcement
action against party for known release.
For Tier I Category A sites, DEP oversees
and enforces cleanup and files Completion
Statement. For all other sites, licensed
consultant determines that site is clean and
files a Completion Statement with DEP. DEP
does not review or sign-off on land.
DEPE approves work. Party may receive a No
Further Action Letter.
Department approves work with a Certificate
of Completion of Remedy which has effect of
a No Further Action Letter.
No Further Action Letter is provided at
sign-off in accordance with the Consent
Agreement.
-------
TABLE V-18
VOLUNTARY REMEDIATION PROGRAMS:
AUTHORITIES AND AGREEMENTS
Region
Program
Authority
Initial
Agreement
Sign-off
Procedures
North
Carolina
(Consent
Agreement
Program)
North
Carolina
(Independent
Action
Program)
Specific authority in N.C.G.S. §130A-130.9
Specific authority in N.C.G.S. §130A-130.9
Party must notify Department in writing of
its intent. Department and party sign
Administrative Order on Consent, which
outlines work to be performed. AOC must be
signed before Departmental review of
documents and preparation of Remedial
Action Plan.
Party must notify Department of
contamination. If party submits work
schedule. Department will not report site
to federal Superfund branch.
Report of implementation and completion of
Remedial Action Plan must be submitted to
Department. After approval of report.
Department sends No Further Action Letter to
party indicating satisfaction of terms of
AOC.
After remedial action, party must submit
site data and documents for Department
review. If Department determines
satisfactory assessment and remedial action
conducted, site given No Further Action
status.
K>
Illinois
General authority under the Environmental Site owner or operator must provide project Upon successful completion of preventive or
Protection Act Section 22.2(m) and Part 659
of 35 Illinois Administrative Code.
documents for review and request lEPA's
review and evaluation services in writing.
IEPA determines if site is eligible for
Program. Site enrolled in program when
person requesting lEPA's services signs
agreement and provides partial pre-payment
of IEPA administrative costs.
corrective action at site, IEPA provides a
release from responsibility for further
activities pursuant to Sec. 4(y) of Illinois
Environmental Protection Act.
Indiana
Indiana Code 13-7-8.9
Party submits an application form. If site
is accepted into program, a Voluntary
Remediation Agreement (VRA) is signed. VRA
includes; 1) itemized list of estimated
costs for DEM oversight, 2) dispute
resolution provisions, 3) provisions for
indemnity for parties, 4) record retention
provisions, 5) timetable for DEM review,
and 6) provisions for interagency
coordination.
Party receives Certificate of Completion
from DEM. Governor provides party with
Covenant Not to Sue for liability or claims
resulting from release that was subject of
plan.
-------
TABLE V-18
VOLUNTARY REMEDIATION PROGRAMS:
AUTHORITIES AND AGREEMENTS
Region Program
5 Minnesota
Authority
Initial
Agreement
Sign-off
Procedures
Specific authority under Minnesota
Environmental Response and Liability Act
(MERLA 115B.17 Sub.14)
Party requests Agency oversight to show
that property has or has not been site of a
release or threatened release of a
hazardous substance, pollutant or
contaminant. Agency will not provide
oversight until application filed and site
accepted.
At completion of work, all parties
completing cleanup actions are eligible for
Certificates of Completion. For
non-responsible parties. Certificates
provide no future enforcement action against
party. RP Certificates provide no future
enforcement action against lenders and
successors.
Wisconsin
7 Missouri
Environmental Repair Statute,
Wise. Stat. §144.442
Hazardous Substance Spill Statute,
Wise. Stat. §144.76.
Specific statutory authority under enacted
S.B. 80 (awaiting enactment number)
Before remediation, Department issues
Responsible Party Letter which stipulates
liable parties. If site is low priority,
party may undertake cleanup under voluntary
program. If high priority, enforceable
agreement must be signed and party cannot
remediate in accordance with voluntary
remediation program.
Application to remediate site is submitted
to DNR. Application must include; 1)
location of real property, 2) description
of nature of operations, activities and
dates leading to contamination, 3)
description of nature and extent of
contamination at site, and 4) past and
present owners of site.
If Department approves final report,
Close-Out Letter given. Letter provides no
further action at site, if information
available to Department is complete and
there are no new developments.
Sign-off only if; 1) criteria in agreement
with DNR and plan are met, and 2) party has
remitted all applicable fees. After
criteria are met, DNR issues No Further
Action Letter. DNR reserves right to require
party to conduct additional environmental
assessments or remedial actions if future
monitoring identifies additional
contamination.
8 Utah Rule 315-9 of the Spill Response Rules of
the Utah Hazardous Waste Management Rules
10 Oregon Environmental Cleanup Rules
OAR 340-122-101
Party must enter into enforceable Consent
Agreement, which provides for oversight
costs and outlines procedure to be
undertaken.
Party requests oversight by DEO for
investigation and cleanup activities at
site. Letter Agreement between DEQ and
party to clean site under program is
signed.
Party receives letter indicating they have
completed the 3 phases of cleanup. Letter
has no legal significance.
Party must prepare follow-up report. DEQ
reviews and comments on report. Necessary
revisions are made. DEO prepares No Further
Action Letter.
-------
TABLE V-18
VOLUNTARY REMEDIATION PROGRAMS:
AUTHORITIES AND AGREEMENTS
Region
Program
Authority
Initial
Agreement
Sign-off
Procedures
10
Washington
(Consent
Agreement
Program)
Washington
(Independent
Action
Program)
General authority under Model Toxics
Control Act, Ch. 70.105D RCW
General authority under Model Toxics
Control Act, Ch.70.105D RCW
Party requests Department oversight for
cleanup and enters into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU). MOU addresses all
phases of work and provides cost and
prepayment estimates. MOU preliminary to
enforceable Consent Decree or Agreed Order
for cleanup.
No Department involvement until remedial
action completed. Department can provide
informal technical assistance with
requirements of Model Toxics Control Act.
Consent Decree contains sign-off terms. No
Further Action Letter usually given.
When report approved. Department removes
site from hazardous site list and may issue
No Further Action Letter.
-------
TABLE V-19
State Oversight of
Voluntary Remediation Activities
SUMMARY
• 14 States have voluntary remediation programs.
• 9 States have a voluntary remediation division or program office.
• 5 States' Environmental departments are responsible for private party cleanups.
115
-------
Region
Program
Agency
TABLE V-19
STATE OVERSIGHT OP
VOLUNTARY REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES
Uorkplans and
Department Approval
Oversight Costs
and Schedules
Maine
Department of Environmental Protection
Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection,
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
Investigation work plan must be approved by
Department. Parties receive oversight for
investigation. Cleanup levels determined on
site-by-site basis. Party submits Voluntary
Response Action Plan (VRAP), including
investigation report and response action.
Feasibility study not required. Instead,
party chooses cleanup technology, which must
meet USEPA criteria. Department approves
VRAP if meets standards for non- voluntary
cleanups.
Only Tier I Category A Sites need DEP
approval of work plans. Tier I Category B
or C sites must use DEP- licensed consultants
to clean site and must get permits. Tier II
sites must use licensed consultants, but do
not need permits. DEP will audit set
percentage of cleanups to ensure reliability
of consultant.
Department provides technical assistance,
review and approval of work plans and
reports. Party pays initial non-refundable
fee to enter program. Thereafter DEP
assesses hourly rate up to $50/hour/person.
Party pays cost of cleanup, but no oversight
charge to DEP. RPs must clean sites to DEP
standards within 5 years of notification.
Non-responsible parties have no time limits.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy, Division of Responsible Party
Site Remediation
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, Superfund Program
Process is identical to an enforced action.
Party must submit an investigation of the
contamination which must be approved by
DEPE. DEPE then chooses a remedy identified
in the remediation plan.
Mirrors CERCLA enforced actions procedure
with DNR approval of investigation work
plan, risk assessment and remediation work
plan. Not all remedies must be analyzed;
party demonstrates feasibility of selected
remedy.
Party pays cost of cleanup and hourly
oversight charge to DEPE, but no initial
deposit. There are no time limits. If party
is too slow, it will be eliminated from the
program. A party may terminate at any point.
DNR provides technical assistance, review and
approval of work plans and reports. Party
pays hourly oversight charge and all cleanup
costs. Deposit requirements are included in
Consent Decree. No time limits. Party may
be eliminated from program if Department
deems insufficient progress. Party may
terminate at any point.
-------
Region Program
3 Virginia
Agency
TABLE V-19
STATE OVERSIGHT OF
VOLUNTARY REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES
Uorkplans and
Department Approval
Oversight Costs
and Schedules
Department of Environmental Quality, DEQ reviews work plans but does not approve No charge for DEQ oversight. No time limits.
North
Carolina
(Consent
Agreement
Program)
North
Carolina
(Independent
Action
Program)
Illinois
Waste Division, Office of Environmental
Response and Remediation, Voluntary
Cleanup Program
Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Solid
Waste Management, Superfund Section,
Inactive Hazardous Sites Program
Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Solid
Waste Management, Superfund Section,
Inactive Hazardous Sites Program
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
plans. Risk assessments reviewed if part of
plan. DEQ solicits comment from appropriate
program office and provides guidance to
party. No set procedure or requirements for
work plans.
Party prepares Remedial Investigation Work
Plan, according to USEPA Engineering Support
Branch Standards Operating Procedures
Manual, in 2 phases. Department issues
cleanup goals after first phase and notifies
party when investigation is complete. Party
prepares Remedial Action Plan including
objectives, alternatives, and health and
safety plan. Plan approved by DEHNR after
public comment period.
Investigation and workplans not required
because there is no Department oversight.
After cleanup, party must submit report.
Parties submit an investigation workplan
which must be generated in accordance with
IEPA requirements. IEPA establishes cleanup
objectives to protect human health, the
environment, and State groundwater quality.
Objectives must be achieved before IEPA will
consider remediation complete. Party must
prepare work plan with: a) executive
summary; b) statement of objective; c)
action plan; d) quality assurance plan; e)
health and safety; and f) schedule.
Party may terminate at any point.
Department provides technical assistance,
review and approval of work plans and
reports. No charge for oversight. Time
schedules stipulated in Administrative Order
on Consent (AOC).
Department reviews final cleanup report. No
charge for review. No time limits.
Party requesting review and evaluation
services must pay all costs of investigation
and cleanup and possibly reimburse IEPA for
State costs. Entry into Program requires
partial payment of IEPA administrative costs
in a variable amount from $200 to $5,000. No
time limit unless entry into Program accepted
as an alternative to anticipated enforcement
action.
-------
Region Program
5 Indiana
Agency
TABLE V-19
STATE OVERSIGHT OF
VOLUNTARY REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES
Uorkplans and
Department Approval
Oversight Costs
and Schedules
Department of Environmental Management,
Voluntary Cleanup Program
Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Voluntary
Investigation and Cleanup Unit
oo
Wisconsin
7 Missouri
Department of Natural Resources, Energy
and Remedial Response Program
Department of Natural Resources
Work plan must include; 1) documentation of
investigation, 2) proposed remedial action,
3) quality assurance plan that meets DEM
guidelines for implementation of sampling
and analysis, health and safety, community
relations, data management, and
record-keeping, and 4) a proposed schedule
for implementation of all tasks. No
feasibility study is required. DEM will
approve a cleanup technology if party can
show basis that technology
Parties receive Agency approval and
oversight for site investigation. Cleanup
levels determined site-by-site during or
after investigation. Party must submit
Voluntary Response Action Plan (VRAP),
including investigation report and response
action. No feasibility study; party chooses
cleanup technology and Agency approves.
VRAP must meet the same standards that apply
to non-voluntary response actions.
Party can use any investigation and cleanup
techniques. Department not involved until
final report submitted.
Party must submit all site reports,
investigations, sample collections and
sample analyses, including a Phase I site
assessment. If DNR determines that
remediation is required, party must submit
Work Plan which includes remediation
techniques, safety plans, testing protocols
and monitoring plans. DNR has 90 days to
review and approve plan if it satisfies
remediation criteria.
DEM provides technical assistance, review and
approval of work plans and reports. Party
pays hourly oversight charge. $1000
application fee is applied against oversight
costs. Any remainder of fee is refundable if
site is rejected from program. DEM may
eliminate party from program if time
schedules stated in the Voluntary Remediation
Agreement (VRA) are not met. Party may
terminate at any time.
Party pays hourly oversight charge for
Agency's technical assistance, review and
approval of work plans and reports. Ninety
days of inactivity terminates a party's
participation in the program. No other time
limits. Party may terminate at any time.
No Department oversight.
time limits.
No charges. No
Party must provide $5K deposit before
submitting Plan and $200 application fee. DNR
reimbursed for administration and oversight
costs. DNR bills parties conducting cleanup
at rate established by Hazardous Waste
Commission. DNR must refund unused monies.
Schedule included in Plan. Party may
terminate participation at any time after
providing written notice.
-------
Region Program
8 Utah
Agency
TABLE V-19
STATE OVERSIGHT OF
VOLUNTARY REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES
Uorkplans and
Department Approval
Oversight Costs
and Schedules
10 Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste,
Compliance and Permitting
Department of Environmental Quality,
Environmental Cleanup Division, Voluntary
Cleanup Section
Party submits Phase I investigation plan for
DEQ guidance and approval. Party submits
Phase II investigation report, which
identifies source and extent of
contamination and proposes remediation or no
action, to DEQ for approval. Report also
needs DEQ approval. Party submits Phase III
site cleaning plan. DEQ approves plan if
party shows that the remediation technology
(which party may choose) will be effective.
Party prepares investigative workplan, which
defines nature and extent of contamination,
for DEQ evaluation. Party implements
investigative plan with DEQ oversight.
Formal investigative processes are required
for more complex sites. Party proposes
specific cleanup action which is subjected
to DEQ review and approval based on public
comments.
Party pays costs of cleanup and hourly
oversight charge to DEQ. No deposit
required. Party must meet schedule
stipulated in Consent Agreement. If time
schedule is not followed, DEQ may eliminate
site from program or enforce the cleanup.
Party may not terminate the Agreement.
Party pays cost of cleanup plus $60-70/hour
for DEQ oversight. No time limit. Party can
terminate at any point and site will remain
on DEQ inventory.
Washington
(Consent
Agreement
Program)
Washington
(Independent
Action
Program)
Department of Ecology, Toxic Cleanup
Program
Department of Ecology, Toxic Cleanup
Program
Process identical to enforced action.
Department must approve Investigation Work
Plan. Department must then approve
Remediation Work Plan, including feasibility
study, and choose remedy.
No workplan required. Party must submit
report when cleanup complete. Department
reviews report and examines site.
Prepayment for oversight required. Payment
methods written into initial agreements.
Schedule stipulated in Consent Decree as
"Restoration Time Frame".
Department reviews final report and examines
site. Fee structure for reviews is being
established. No time limits.
-------
TABLE V-20
Voluntary Remediation Programs:
Sites and Cleanup Standards
SUMMARY
In most programs, a number of criteria, including State and Federal standards and
guidelines, background quality, and risk assessment, are applied to determine cleanup
levels.
120
-------
Region Program
1 Maine
Number
of Sites
TABLE V-20
VOLUNTARY REMEDIATION PROGRAMS:
SITES AMD CLEANUP STANDARDS
Covered Sites
Cleanup Standards
Massachusetts
New Jersey
625
Delaware
Any site is eligible, but DEP has discretion in
accepting VRAP (i.e., if site is high priority
enforcement, RCRA, etc.)
Any site with a release of oil or hazardous material
is eligible.
Only non-priority sites based on a ranking system
are eligible. Criteria for ranking are: 1) effect
of contaminant on receptors; 2) media impacted 3)
likelihood of contaminant in each medium affecting
receptors; 4) sensitivity of receptors.
Any site where there is a release or potential
release of a hazardous substance (CERCLA list and
petroleum) if another department (RCRA or UST) does
not have jurisdiction.
Groundwater cleanup levels based on State drinking
water criteria (Maximum Exposure Guidelines), Federal
MCLs, and applicable State surface water criteria.
Soil cleanup on site-by-site basis using State risk
assessment model and leaching to groundwater model.
If site a UST site and only TPH is confirmed on site,
use petroleum decision tree guidance to set soil
cleanup levels. Cleanup levels for Voluntary Program
must be same as for Superfund enforcement.
Party chooses most stringent standard that applies:
protection of surface water; MCLs and State drinking
water standards for areas that are potential drinking
water sources; shallow groundwater standards for
cases with potential for volatile reaction in
occupied buildings. Two sets of soil standards for
each groundwater category. Standard is based upon
frequency, type and intensity of exposure.
Alternative methods include site-specific risk
assessment and standards.
Groundwater Quality Standards offer numerical
criteria based on classification of areas as: 1)
highly protected, 2) potential water supply, 3)
naturally saline. Soil Cleanup Criteria used as
guidance include 3 sets of standards: 1) surface
contact standards for residential sites, 2) surface
contact for nonresidential sites, and 3) subsurface
leachate standards. DEPE will adjust standards to
meet allowable risk set in Industrial Site Recovery
Act and repropose Soil Cleanup Regulations.
Site-specific risk assessment under Delaware
Regulations governing Hazardous Substance Cleanup.
Apply USEPA Risk Assessment Guidance, taking exposure
pathways and land use into account.
-------
Region Program
3 Virginia
Number
of Sites
TABLE V-20
VOLUNTARY REMEDIATION PROGRAMS:
SITES AND CLEANUP STANDARDS
Covered Sites
Cleanup Standards
to
No sites yet accepted
North
Carolina
(Consent
Agreement
Program)
30
North
Carolina
(Independent
Action
Program)
Illinois
5-10 reports reviewed
Agreements at 288 sites,
remediation underway at
70 sites,
remediation completed at
39 sites,
Any site that is not contaminated with petroleum and
is not claimed to be under the jurisdiction of RCRA
or State superfund programs.
Any site not 1) contaminated with petroleum, 2)
permitted or on interim status under RCRA, or 3)
under Department of Environmental Management (OEM)
jurisdiction. DEM has jurisdiction over petroleum
and groundwater contamination sites. Department
handles groundwater sites only if DEM allows
voluntary cleanup.
Any site not; 1) contaminated with petroleum, 2)
permitted or on interim status under RCRA, and 3)
under Department of Environmental Management (DEM)
jurisdiction.
Any site contaminated with hazardous substances or
pesticides except; 1) sites contaminated with
petroleum, 2) sites covered under RCRA or LUST
Regulation, or 3) sites currently subject to
environmental enforcement actions. Sites which
present an immediate and significant risk of human
or environmental harm are eligible. If such a site
is not being effectively remediated by owner or
operator, IEPA will undertake enforcement actions.
Site-specific risk assessment must be performed to
determine cleanup levels. Department uses USEPA
Region 3 guidance "Risk-Based Concentration Tables".
Party must use guidance assessments to determine
acceptable constituent concentrations for specified
risk parameters. Department is in process of
developing its own list of constituent concentrations
for health risk-based cleanup levels.
Cleanup goals consist of; 1) levels derived from
site-specific risk assessment (USEPA Superfund Risk
Assessment Guidelines) for each contaminated medium,
2) teachable levels for soil and sediment
contaminants not exceeding State ambient groundwater
standards, and 3) Federal and State groundwater and
surface water standards. Remedial action designed to
meet all three criteria. If this is infeasible,
Department may place usage restrictions on deed.
Cleanup goals established by the same methodology as
the state's Consent Agreement Program. Remedial
action must be designed to meet all three criteria.
If this is infeasible. Department may place usage
restrictions on deed.
IEPA establishes cleanup objectives for various
environmental media which must all be as protective
as State's groundwater quality standards. These
standards are enforceable and are promulgated in Part
620 of 35 Illinois Administrative Code. For
contaminants not included in Code, IEPA uses other
published lists such as MCl's. IEPA also may allow
site-specific risk assessment (USEPA Superfund Risk
Assessment Guidance) if existing standards are
infeasible.
-------
Region Program
5 Indiana
Number
of Sites
TABLE V-20
VOLUNTARY REMEDIATION PROGRAMS:
SITES AND CLEANUP STANDARDS
Covered Sites
Cleanup Standards
All sites eligible for program. DEM reserves right
to reject site if; 1) the contamination poses threat
to human health or environment, 2) an enforcement
action is pending at site, 3) DEM is working on site
as part of a federal grant, or 4) application for
admission to program is incomplete.
Party proposes cleanup levels under one of three
options allowable by DEPE guidance. DEPE reviews
cleanup levels and reserves right to reject them if
they not protective of human health and environment.
Options are: 1) background levels; 2) site specific
risk assessment according to EPA Superfund Risk
Assessment Guidance; and 3) Tier 2 levels which
provide specific default values and equations, based
on factors such as contamination type and land use,
to determine levels.
Minnesota
335
to
U)
Wisconsin
No accurate figure
available
Missouri
Utah
11 sites pending,
21 in progress,
2 completed
Any site not covered by other state or federal
regulations (e.g. RCRA, CERCLA, LIST). Recent
amendments to Land Recycling Act make state
superfund sites eligible if no emergency situation
exists.
Any site not covered by another regulatory scheme.
High priority sites require Department involvement,
including oversight and a consent decree. Criteria
for determining priority include: waste volume,
contaminant volume, toxicity, proximity to
population, sensitive environmental criteria.
All sites not subject to other regulatory
requirements, such as 1) RCRA corrective action and
violations; 2) Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
(LUST) authority; CERCLA; and 4) Missouri Hazardous
Waste Management law.
Sites contaminated by RCRA hazardous waste, but not
requiring RCRA permits are eligible. Pre-1980 or
abandoned sites may be allowed into program on a
case-by-case basis.
Groundwater cleanup levels based on State drinking
water criteria, MCLs and State surface water quality
criteria. Soil cleanup levels determined on
site-by-site basis using Soil Cleanup Guidance
including equations to determine standards for
relevant exposure pathway. If soil cleanup level not
applicable, levels are determined using BAT,
background levels, literature, and other applicable
criteria. Cleanup levels must be same as those
required for Superfund cleanups.
Cleanup to background or to groundwater standards now
required. Department has numerical groundwater
standards, is creating numerical soil standards.
Risk assessments not allowed.
Cleanup standards conducted to "any use" (also known
as "residential") levels. DNR does not rely on
institutional controls. Cleanup standards developed
on a site-by-site basis, are based on a health risk
assessment, which is considered satisfactory unless
DNR has overriding environmental concerns.
DEO requires cleanup to background levels. Economic
and technical feasibility may alter the level of
cleanup. DEQ is drafting rules that allow site
specific risk assessment, in accordance with EPA
guidance, as alternative to background levels.
-------
Region Program
10 Oregon
Number
of Sites
TABLE V-20
VOLUNTARY REMEDIATION PROGRAMS:
SITES AND CLEANUP STANDARDS
Covered Sites
Cleanup Standards
K)
Washington
(Consent
Agreement
Program)
Washington
(Independent
Action
Program)
20 waiting to enter
program,
60 being cleaned,
10 sites cleaned.
Any site eligible, but sites subject to federal
action usually excluded.
3 negotiating to enter
program, 4 sites being
cleaned
Any site is eligible.
2500 actions submitted,
only a few approved
Any site is eligible.
Cleanups must assure protection of present and future
public health, safety, welfare, and environment.
Party can use: 1) background; 2) site specific risk
assessment; and 3) numerical soil standard codified
in OAR 340-122-045, to determine cleanup standards.
Soil standards must show; a) acceptable methodology,
b) number, nature and source of contaminants, c)
water and sensitive environments will not be
affected, and d) cancer risk level will be under
limit.
Party has 3 options to establish cleanup levels.
Method A, for simple sites, defines levels for 25
substances. Method B levels are set using site risk
assessment, focusing on contaminant interaction.
Method C, for use at industrial sites or when A and B
are impossible to achieve, is similar to Method B
except less stringent lifetime cancer risk limit.
Party has 3 options to establish cleanup levels.
Method A, for simple sites, defines levels for 25
substances. Method B levels set using site risk
assessment focusing on contaminant interaction.
Method C, for use at industrial sites or when A and B
impossible to achieve, similar to Method B except
less stringent lifetime cancer risk limit.
-------
TABLE V-21
Voluntary Remediation Programs:
Public Participation, Liability, and Reopening Provisions
SUMMARY
8 programs have public notice requirements at various stages of the voluntary
cleanup process.
11 State programs reserve the right to reopen a site if previously unavailable
information indicates that a site poses a threat to human health and the environment.
125
-------
TABLE V-21
VOLUNTARY REMEDIATION PROGRAMS:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, LIABILITY, AND REOPENING PROVISIONS
Region Program
1 Maine
Public Participation
Liability Provisions
Reopening Provisions
No public participation requirements. In
all cases Department notifies local
officials. Department holds public
meetings if site is proceeding to cleanup
and meetings requested.
Massachusetts
Notification is given throughout response
action. Public lists of sites are
maintained. Permits are published for
review. If 10 individuals petition, a
public involvement plan, consisting of
public meetings and hearings, is required.
N)
New Jersey No requirements.
Delaware Notice and 20 day comment period required
before Department approval of remedy
selection. Public meeting or hearing may
be held.
Virginia Department will require public notice
before sign-off. Undecided whether
Department or party will provide public
notice.
All parties completing cleanups eligible
for Certificates of Completion.
Non-responsible parties involved in cleanup
protected from liability for cleanup or for
aggravating contamination. No Further
Action letters provide no enforcement
action will be taken if voluntary action
being taken. NFA letters also written if
no cleanup required or pollution source
off-site. Liability protection only for
RPs performing complete cleanup.
None. A Covenant Not to Sue may be entered
into on site-by-site basis.
No release from liability. A No Further
Action Letter is given, but does not
preclude further state action.
No release from liability. Certificate of
Completion of Remedy provides that
Department will not initiate cleanup action
unless new information is discovered.
No release from liability. Only provision
is the No Further Action letter.
The Department reserves the right to reopen
the site if new information shows that the
site poses a threat to human health and the
environment. If voluntary party was
non-responsible party. Department must find
responsible party.
Sites may be reopened at any time; DEP
audits a set percentage of sites within 5
years of completion.
DEPE reserves right to reopen site if new
information indicates site poses threat to
human health and environment.
Department reserves right to reopen site if
previously unavailable information indicates
site poses threat to human health and/or the
environment.
Department reserves the right to reopen the
site if previously unavailable information
indicates that the site poses a threat to
human health and the environment.
Stipulated in the No Further Action letter
given at sign-off.
-------
Region Program
TABLE V-21
VOLUNTARY REMEDIATION PROGRAMS:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, LIABILITY, AMD REOPENING PROVISIONS
Public Participation
Liability Provisions
Reopening Provisions
North
Carolina
(Consent
Agreement
Program)
Notice of development of Remedial Action No release from liability. No Further
Plan provided upon request. 30-day comment Action status guarantees no new cleanup
period after development of Plan. Public
hearing held if public interest warrants.
Party may be required to submit Plan to
local health officials, deed registry,
libraries.
action provided no new discovery.
Department reserves right to reopen site if
new data indicates threat to human health
and the environment.
North
Carolina
(Independent
Action
Program)
Illinois
No requirements.
Public notices and hearings not required.
I EPA may conduct public meetings and
solicit public comments at Program sites
which are subjects of community concerns.
K)
No release from liability. No Further
Action status does not preclude future
state action. Because site listed on state
inventory. Department may decide to enforce
cleanup at any time prior to sign-off.
No release from liability. Upon successful
completion of action, IEPA may issue a
release pursuant to Section 4(y). Section
4
-------
TABLE V-21
VOLUNTARY REMEDIATION PROGRAMS:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, LIABILITY, AND REOPENING PROVISIONS
Region Program
5 Minnesota
Public Participation
Liability Provisions
Reopening Provisions
Wisconsin
7 Missouri
00
8 Utah
10 Oregon
Washington
(Consent
Agreement
Program)
No public participation requirements.
Department notifies local officials.
Public hearings held if requested.
No requirements. Department encourages
public notice and public meetings by party.
No formal public participation procedures.
Notice and 30 day comment period required
before Consent Agreement is signed.
4-week public notice and comment period
required before work plan approval.
Public notice of agreements.
Comment period.
Public
Certificates of Completion for
non-responsible parties provide no further
state action. For RPs provide no state
action against lenders and successors.
Parties can enter into covenant not to sue.
Non-responsible parties involved in
cleanups protected from liability for
cleanups and for aggravating contamination.
No Further Action letters provide no state
action if voluntary action underway or no
cleanup required. No liability if
contamination from off-site source.
Responsible Party Letter stipulates
responsible parties for contamination.
Close-Out Letter provides same liability
protection as No Further Action Letter.
No Further Action Letter does not release
party from cleanup liability. DNR reserves
right to require party to conduct
additional environmental assessments or
remedial action if future monitoring
identifies additional contamination.
None. DEO may enforce at any time, despite
approval of cleanup phases. Sign-off
letter has no legal significance.
DEQ issues No Further Action Letter if
information is correct and remedy succeeds.
Party may enter a Covenant Not To Sue,
negotiated on site-by-site basis.
No release from liability. Department will
remove site from hazardous site list and
issue No Further Action Letter.
Department reserves right to reopen site if
new date indicates threat to human health
and the environment. If voluntary party was
non-responsible party, Department must find
an RP to clean up reopened site.
Department reserves right to reopen site if
new data indicates threat to human health
and the environment.
If monitoring at or near site indicates
additional contamination (not identified by
environmental assessment or remediated
according to plan). No Further Action Letter
allows DNR to require onwer or responsible
party to conduct additional environmental
assessments or remedial actions.
DEQ reserves right to reopen site if new
information indicates site poses threat to
human health and environment.
DEQ reserves right to reopen site if new
information shows threat to human health and
the environment. Provision is stipulated in
the No Further Action Letter.
Department reserves right to reopen site if
new data indicates threat to human health
and the environment.
-------
TABLE V-21
VOLUNTARY REMEDIATION PROGRAMS:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, LIABILITY, AND REOPENING PROVISIONS
Region Program Public Participation Liability Provisions Reopening Provisions
10 Washington No public participation. Comment period if When report approved, Department removes Department reserves right to reopen site if
(Independent Department removes site from hazardous site site from hazardous sites list and may new data indicates threat to human health
Action list. Receipt of cleanup reports noted in issue No Further Action letter. and the environment.
Program) biweekly publication.
N)
-------
130
-------
CHAPTER VI
STATE SUMMARIES
This chapter presents concise summaries of each State's hazardous cleanup program.
The States are grouped by U.S. EPA Regions. Nine program elements are described in
each of the summaries as follows:
• Sites - numbers of final, proposed, and deleted NPL sites and numbers of
State sites (non-NPL) that are known and suspected, identified as needing
attention, and included on an inventory or priority list.
• Statutory Authorities - legislation providing cleanup, funding, and enforcement
authorities.
• Program Organization and Funding - State agency(s) responsible for
hazardous cleanup activities, including numbers of program and legal staff,
and sources of administrative funding.
• Cleanup Activities - information on numbers of cleanup actions at NPL and
non-NPL sites.
• Cleanup Funding - information on State funds or funding mechanisms, sources
of funds, and fund balance, additions, obligations and expenditures for the
fiscal year 1993.
• Cleanup Polices and Criteria - information on State cleanup policies and
criteria used to determine cleanup levels and/or to select a site remedy.
• Public Participation - information on State regulatory requirements, policies,
and ad hoc practices for public participation in the State cleanup program.
• Enforcement - information on statutory provisions for State enforcement
actions, liability standards, cleanup penalties and damages, natural resource
damages, and property transfer restrictions.
• Federal/State Partnerships - lists existing agreements between the State and
U.S. EPA concerning cleanup grants and procedures; specific agreements are
Superfund Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA), Core Program Cooperative
Agreement (CPCA), and Site - Specific Cooperative Agreement (SSCA).
131
-------
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
132
-------
CONNECTICUT
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 15 Known and Suspected: 1475
Proposed: 0 Identified as Needing Attention: 579
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List: 642
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Public Act 87-561, codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. §22a-114 and §§22a-133a through
-133k (1987, as amended 1989), creates the State superfund program, and authorizes fund
expenditures, cost recovery, and priority list.
The Emergency Spill Response Fund, Conn. Gen. Stat. §22a-451(d) (1982), establishes
the response fund, provides enforcement authorities, and allows for replacement of water
supplies.
The Transfer of Hazardous Waste Establishments Program, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§22a-134
through -134e (1985), creates a property transfer program.
Water Pollution Control Laws, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§22a-432, 22a-433 (1967 and
subsequent amendments), provide authority for administrative cleanup orders.
The Urban Sites Remedial Action Program, Conn. Gen. Stat. §229-133m (1992,
amended 1993), provides funding to clean up urban industrial sites and restricts property
tranfers.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Management,
Permitting, Enforcement and Remediation Division includes 48 staff associated with
remedial activities. The Attorney General's office provides legal support with several
attorneys working part-time on State superfund and enforcement of remedial action orders
(2-3 FTEs). Funds for staff and administration are from the State general fund (59%), a spill
fund (18%), and Federal grants (23%).
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
The State inventory of 642 sites includes 63 sites that have been cleaned up.
Approximately 833 sites are in the discovery stage, under consideration for listing on the
inventory. 211 remedial actions are underway at non-NPL sites. Sixty-three remedial
actions have been completed since the start of the program, 11 have taken place in the last
fiscal year (ending 6/30/93). At 11 NPL sites, remediation is currently underway. Following
RI/FS, 1 NPL site has been categorized as NFA (no further action).
CLEANUP FUNDING
Funding vehicles include the Emergency Spill Response Fund, the State superfund,
and the Urban Sites Remedial Action Fund. Sources for the funds are general obligation
bond funds authorized by Special Acts in 1986, 1987,1989,1991, and 1993. The Emergency
Spill Response Fund is also funded by a generator tax and hazardous waste civil penalties
and criminal fines. This fund is administered in, and primarily used by the Oil and Chemical
Spills Response Division of the Waste Management Bureau. The ESRF may be used for
studies and design, emergency response, removals, remedial actions, and CERCLA match.
133
-------
The State superfund had a balance of S6.78M at the end of the fiscal year (6/30/93).
The fund monies can be used for site investigation, studies and design, removals, remedial
actions, CERCLA match, O&M, and natural resource restoration. The Urban Sites
Remedial Action Fund had a balance of $15M (6/30/93). The fund can be used for the
same activities as the State superfund except CERCLA match.
In order to expend funds from the State superfund, DEP must determine that a
threat is unacceptable, and DEP must be unable to determine the RP, or the RP must be
in non-compliance with or appealing an order.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Cleanup criteria are determined on a site-by-site basis. Water quality criteria and
MCLs are applied where appropriate. Cleanup levels for soil and water are usually based
on the MCL or State Drinking Water Action Level. If no such reference standard exists, the
Department of Health will assist DEP in setting a risk level. Background levels are rarely
applied. Regulations setting cleanup standards for hazardous waste sites will be issued by
November 1994,
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The State has no formal public participation requirements. DEP contacts local
officials with the cleanup workplan and holds public meetings at various stages of
investigation and cleanup at State-funded sites.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Legal authorities available include strict, joint and several liability, orders for
information and site access, subpoena authority, administrative and consent order authority,
injunctive action and cost recovery authority. Civil penalties of $25K/day are available under
the hazardous waste program, 1.5 times punitive damages are available in cost recovery
actions. A property lien provision is also available. The preferred enforcement method is
consent order, followed by administrative order or court action. The State is required to
attempt cost recovery.
Natural Resource Damages
No Natural Resource Damages program has been established.
Property Transfer
Law requires sellers to disclose the presence of hazardous substances on a
contaminated site before transfer and requires that a party to the transfer accept
responsibility for implementing required remedial measures.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
134
-------
MAINE
SITES
NFL Sites State Sites
Final: 9 Known and Suspected: 370
Proposed: 1 Identified as Needing Attention: 160
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List: 370
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Uncontrolled Hazardous Substance Sites Act, Maine Rev. Stat. §§1361 through
1371 (1983, as amended 1985,1987, and 1990) provides for a cleanup fund and enforcement
authorities.
An Act to Assist in the Cleanup of Contaminated Property, P.L. 1991, Chapter 81, L.D.
156 (May 6, 1991) protects innocent landowners from liability for cleanups of spills caused
by others.
P.L. 355, 1993, MRSA §§343-E and 343-F (1993) amended several of DBFs
authorities for regulating hazardous waste and created a new property transfer program, as
well as a program for voluntary cleanup of hazardous waste sites.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau and Solid Waste Control,
Division of Site Investigation and Remediation, has 27 staff. One and one-half positions in
the Attorney General's office are devoted to Superfund-type enforcement activity. DEP is
also working with the Bureau of Health in conducting risk assessments and lab work.
Funding for program comes from Federal grants, State cleanup funds, and the State general
fund.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Maine has 5 remedial actions (RAs) underway at NPL sites. One remedial action
has been completed in the last fiscal year and 1 since the start of the program. Two
removals are underway, 1 completed in the last fiscal year (7/1/92-6/30/93) and 10 since
the start of the program. At non-NPL sites, there are 4 RAs underway. Two RAs at non-
NPL sites were completed during the last fiscal year and 10 have been completed since the
start of the program. Six removals are underway at non-NPL sites; 6 were completed during
the last fiscal year, and 28 have been completed since the start of the program.
CLEANUP FUNDING
Maine has 2 accounts that are used for cleanup funding: (1) The Uncontrolled Sites
Bond Account contained approximately $1.6M, as of 10/93; and (2) The Uncontrolled Sites
Fund contained $3.1M as of 12/92. Both funds can be used for site investigation, emergency
response, removals, studies and design, remedial actions, O&M, and grants to local
government, program administration, natural resource restoration and CERCLA match.
The Uncontrolled Sites Bond Account (USBA) received an additional $1.9M as of
7/1/93; it is funded largely by sales of bonds, and cost recoveries, but also receives smaller
amounts of appropriations, fees, interest, penalties and taxes. As of 8/93, Maine had
expended $1.0M from the USBA and had obligated another $2.4M.
135
-------
The Uncontrolled Sites Fund (USF) received an additional $869K as of 7/1/93; it
is also funded mostly by bonds and cost recoveries, with smaller amounts from
appropriations, fees, interest, penalties and taxes. As of 8/93, Maine had spent $175K of
the USF and had no outstanding obligations from it.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Maine determines cleanup levels on a case-by-case basis. Risk to human health,
future water uses, drinking water standards and toxicity levels are all considered. A risk level
of 10"5 is used for carcinogens. At urban sites or rural areas where drinking water is not
affected, Maine has applied background level cleanup standards for groundwater
contamination.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Maine has no formal requirements for public involvement. DEP policy is to keep
local officials and residents informed. Records are open for public inspection under Maine's
FOIA.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Legal authorities include strict, joint and several liability, orders for information, site
access and remediation, administrative order authority, cost recovery, liens and punitive
(treble) damages. The Commissioner must designate a site for consent decree. Penalty
authority is derived from the hazardous waste statute. DEP also has a property forfeiture
provision.
Natural Resource Damages
Maine's program has existed since 1991 and has recovered $1M. Three NRD claims
are now pending. Recovered funds can be used for program administration and NRD
assessment as well as to restore or replace damaged resources.
Property Transfer
Maine's 1993 amendments impose a duty on auditors to disclose the private requestor
of an audit any discovery of a release or presence of hazardous substances on a site that
may cause significant threats to public health or the environment; and the property owner
then has a duty to disclose their presence to DEP. Maine has superlien authority. State liens
on cleaned up property take priority over any lien filed after the date of the law. State liens
on other property have normal priority.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
For FY93, Maine had SSCAs and a CPCA with U.S. EPA.
136
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 24 Known and Suspected: 6328
Proposed: 6 Identified as Needing Attention: 5867
Deleted: 1 On Priority List: 524
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Oil and Hazardous Material Release Prevention and Response Act, Mass. Gen.
Laws Ch. 21E (1983, as amended in 1986 and 1992), provides for strict, joint and several
liability, site access, information and administrative order authority, injunctive relief, civil
and criminal penalties, cost recovery and treble damages, priority liens, citizen suits,
thresholds for notification of releases, opinions by Licensed Site Professionals regarding the
adequacy of response actions, permit actions for certain response actions, permit and annual
compliance assurance fees, covenants not to sue, contribution protection, a mandatory
dispute resolution mechanism for contribution claims, right-of-entry for private parties
conducting response actions, limitations of liability for secured lenders and fiduciaries,
exemption from liability for innocent homeowners, and authority for the Commonwealth to
acquire property and record restrictive covenants.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Department of Environmental Protection's Waste Site Cleanup Program has 300
full-time staff. The Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup is the lead bureau administering the
Waste Site Cleanup Program. The Bureaus of Waste Prevention and Resource Protection
also have staff dedicated to the program. In addition, twelve attorneys from DEP's Office
of General Counsel and eight attorneys in the Attorney General's office provide
enforcement support. The program is funded through general appropriations (40%),
cleanup funds (50%) and Federal grants (10%).
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
263 remedial actions have been completed at non-NPL sites in Massachusetts. One
remediation action has been completed at an NPL site.
CLEANUP FUNDING
Bonds fund public response actions. Bond revenues totaling $22M remain available
as of 7/93 (out of $85M authorized) and may be used for site investigation, studies and
design, removals, emergency response, remedial actions, CERCLA match, and O&M. Bonds
are repaid by cost recovery, and hazardous waste transporter fees (approx. $6M/yr) are used
for debt service. A total of $10M were expended from the Bond Fund during FY93 (7/1/92-
6/30/93).
The Environmental Challenge Fund (ECF) had a balance of $1.6M as of 6/30/93,
with an annual addition of $5.7M. The ECF receives funds from cost recoveries, fees, fines
and penalties, and can be used to pay for program administration and personnel only. A
total of $4.1M were expended from the ECF during FY93.
137
-------
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Permanent solutions require the elimination of significant risk of harm to health,
safety, public welfare and the environment. Cleanup background is required where feasible.
Temporary solutions are required at all sites until a permanent solution becomes feasible.
Regulations (the Massachusetts Contingency Plan) establish 3 methods for
characterizing risk at disposal sites. One method relies on numeric cleanup standards for 105
chemicals in 3 groundwater categories and 3 soil categories. The other methods establish
cleanup goals based on site-specific conditions and/or quantitative risk assessment. For sites
at which risk assessment is used to determine cleanup standards, any applicable or suitably
analogous Massachusetts health and environmental standard must be met, and Cumulative
Receptor Risk Limits must be achieved. The noncancer risk limit is a cumulative (additive)
excess lifetime cancer risk of 10~5. The Hazard Index is calculated for groups of chemicals
with the same mechanism of toxic action.
Restrictions on site use (Activity and Use Limitations) are required if the
remediation goals are based upon anything less than the most sensitive (i.e., residential) use.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The statute and regulations require public notice of all Tier classifications of disposal
sites and applications for Tier I permits for response actions. Public Involvement Plans are
prepared upon citizen petition. State technical assistance grants and public site inspections
are also available. Local officials are informed of key site activities throughout the cleanup
process. The person conducting the response action is required to implement the required
public participation activities.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Massachusetts has strict, joint and several liability. DEP provides PRPs with an
opportunity to clean up a site; if the party cannot or will not, DEP may clean up the site
and recover costs. Administrative orders have not been used frequently, due to the appeals
process. The rate of voluntary cleanups is high (80%-85%), which program staff attribute
to the state's provisions for priority liens, treble damages and annual compliance assurance
fees, which took effect 10/1/93 and are assessed for every year that a site is in the cleanup
process. The 1992 amendments authorize DEP to issue an order to remedy an imminent
hazard, which is enforceable immediately and not subject to judicial review except in a
proceeding to collect penalties for violations of the order or to obtain reimbursement for
the costs of complying with the order. Penalties are available up to $25K/day per violation.
Natural Resource Damages
Massachusetts' natural resource damages program began in 1983, and a total of $19M
has been recovered by Federal and State trustees at 1 EPA-lead NPL site.
Property Transfer
Massachusetts has no property transfer provision, but does have authority for a super
lien and maintains a database of sites that is publicly available.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIP
For FY93, Massachusetts had SSCAs and a CPCA with U.S. EPA.
138
-------
NEW HAMPSHIRE
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 17 Known and Suspected: 250
Proposed: 0 Identified as Needing Attention: 250
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List: 250
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The New Hampshire Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund Act (HWCF), NHRSA Chapter
147-B (1981, as amended 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1990 and 1991), establishes the State's
Fund and provides for strict, joint and several liability, criminal penalties, cost recovery, and
first priority liens (superliens) on (1) real property where hazardous waste or hazardous
material is located, (2) the business revenues generated from the facility on the real
property where the hazardous waste or hazardous material is located, and (3) all personal
property located at this facility. A lien without priority, effective as of the date and time of
recording and filing, can be established against all other property. NHRSA Chapters 147-A
and 147-B establish its program for voluntary cleanups.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Waste Management Division of the Department of Environmental Services
(DBS) administers the HWCF. The Division has three bureaus. The Waste Management
Division is primarily responsible for Federal and State Superfund work and has 4.5 FTE
staff funded or partially funded by the HWCF. The NH Department of Justice provides
legal support (a total of 3 attorneys work on all environmental issues) and receives an
annual appropriation from the HWCF. Eighty percent of the program's funding comes from
the HWCF and 20% from federal grants.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
The HWCF is used to fund several staff positions within DES, has been used for
emergency removal activities, and for various hydrogeological studies at sites in the
preliminary stages of investigation. New Hampshire has 9 NPL sites where remediation is
underway and 1 NPL site where removal is currently underway. A total of 9 removals at
NPL sites have been completed since the program started.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The HWCF has a balance of $3M (as of 6/93). The HWCF is derived primarily
from quarterly fees paid by generators of hazardous waste and recovered costs. An average
of $1.2M is collected each fiscal year. An estimated $108K had been obligated from the
HWCF as of 6/93. The HWCF can be used for site investigation, operation and
maintenance, studies and design, removals, emergency response, remedial action, program
administration, and grants to local governments.
139
-------
A separate account of $1.8M was appropriated for CERCLA match in 1993. NH Rev.
Statues Ann. 147-B provides for issuing bonds, to be paid from the HWCF, to fund remedial
investigation and cleanup. $760K of those bonds have now been expended, and $735K has
been obligated as of 6/93, all on NPL sites.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Cleanup levels must meet or exceed any Federal standards. The State cleanup
standards and water quality criteria are for petroleum-contaminated virgin soil only and are
as stringent as, or more stringent than, Federal standards. Cleanup levels are established by
policy and selected on the basis of site-specific, regulatory, and risk-based assessments. Risk
levels are set site-by-site, based on the contaminant, affected media and land use. Generally
a 10"6 risk level is used.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements. The State may hold public hearings in enforcement actions.
Presently RPMs informally contact local citizens and government officials.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
The New Hampshire hazardous waste laws provide for strict, joint and several
liability. The State is authorized to issue administrative orders including orders for
information, site access, and site cleanup. The State also has subpoena and consent order
authorities. New Hampshire may take injunctive action to induce a generator to cleanup a
site, may impose criminal penalties, and may bring action to recover costs.
Natural Resource Damages
No program.
Property Transfer
New Hampshire has a first priority lien (superlien) on real property where hazardous
waste and hazardous materials are located, on business revenues generated by facilities on
real property where hazardous wastes and hazardous materials are located, and on all
personal property located at such facilities.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIP
The State has SSCAs and CPCAs with U.S. EPA.
140
-------
RHODE ISLAND
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 12 Known and Suspected: 300
Proposed: 0 Identified as Needing Attention: 60
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List: No list
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Hazardous Waste Management Act, R.I. Gen. Laws, §§23-19.1-1 through 23-19.1-
33 (1978, as amended, 1979, 1984, 1987), provides authorities for the cleanup of
abandoned/uncontrolled/inactive sites. The Environmental Response Fund was established
by amendment, §23-19.1-23 (1984).
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Department of Environmental Management, Division of Site Remediation has
31 full-time professional staff; 16 work on issues related to CERCLA. In-house legal
support is provided by 1 attorney with assistance from 2 attorneys at the Attorney General's
office on criminal cases. Federal grants and a cleanup fund provide funds for staff and
administration.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Eighty State enforcement orders have been issued. Remediation is underway at
about 15 non-NPL sites; removals are underway at about 10. Five remedial actions and 15
removals have been completed at non-NPL sites during the last fiscal year (ending 6/30/93).
Remediation is underway at 7 NPL sites and removals are underway at 1. During FY93 and
since the start of the program, 1 remediation action has been completed at an NPL site.
Approximately 6 removals have been completed at NPL sites, 1 during FY93.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Environmental Response Fund had a balance of $2M as of 6/30/93. The
primary source of the fund is bonds, with smaller contributions from cost recoveries and
penalties and fines. Data on additions, expenditures, and obligations were not provided by
the State.
The fund may be used for site investigation, emergency response, removals, site
evaluation, studies and design, remedial action, CERCLA match, and temporary water
supplies, O&M, program administration, and resident relocation.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Water quality criteria, MCLs/MCLGs, background levels, and risk standard
assessment may be used. Responsible parties propose cleanup objectives for review by the
State. Risk levels used for risk assessment are 10^ to 10"6 for carcinogens and HI < 1 for non-
carcinogens.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The State has no formal requirements or informal procedures for non-NPL site
cleanups. For Federal enforcement sites, the process may include hearings where the public
can become involved. Public informational meetings are conducted upon request.
141
-------
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Legal authorities include "absolute" liability (interpreted as strict, joint and several),
subpoena, administrative orders, injunctive action, civil and criminal penalties, cost recovery,'
and treble damages. Civil penalties of up to $25K/day are also available to the State.
Natural Resource Damages
No program has been established.
Property Transfer
Property transfer provisions consist of disclosure on deed that a site was
contaminated. The provision is part of the State Hazardous Waste Management Act. An
inventory of sites is maintained but is not yet public.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
142
-------
VERMONT
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 8 Known and Suspected: 1291
Proposed: 1 Identified as Needing Attention: 1291
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List: 568
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Water Pollution Control Law, Vt. Stat. Ann. Title 10, §§1282-1283, provides a
contingency fund for emergency responses, studies and design, and remedial actions. Vt.
Stat. Ann. Tit. 10, §§1921-1944 provides a petroleum cleanup fund.
The Solid Waste Management Law, Vt. Stat. Ann. Title 10, §§6601-6618 (1977, as
amended 1981, 1985, and 1987), provides enforcement authorities.
An Act Relating to Administrative Enforcement of Specified Environmental Laws (Act
98), Vt. Stat. Ann. Title 10, §§8001-8221 (1989), provides additional enforcement authorities.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Department of Environmental Conservation, Hazardous Materials Management
Division, Hazardous Sites Management Section has 14 technical staff. That section handles
all hazardous waste work including CERCLA, RCRA, pre-remedial and State list work.
Four attorneys in Attorney General's office, 2 attorneys in DEC's Enforcement Division, and
1 Program Attorney work on hazardous waste cases. Administrative costs come from
appropriations (23%), Federal grants (75%), and the cleanup funds (2%).
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Remedial action is underway at 2 NPL sites, and 1 removal is underway at an NPL
site. Forty-one remedial actions at non-NPL sites were completed during the last fiscal year
and 110 non-NPL sites currently have remedial actions underway. Remedial actions at 568
non-NPL sites have been completed as of 11/93.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Environmental Contingency Fund had a balance of $938K as of 10/31/93, with
$1.2M collected in FY93. There is no cap on the ECF. The only funding source is a
hazardous waste generator tax. During FY93, Vermont expended $295K from the ECF, all
for non-NPL sites.
The Petroleum Cleanup Fund (PCF) had a balance of $606K with $3.7M collected
last year. During FY94, Vermont spent $3.1M from the PCF on non-NPL sites. Vermont's
1993 fiscal year ended 1/1/94, and these figures do not include November and December.
PCF is generated by an annual tank assessment fee required to be paid by UST owners,
which generates $600K per year, and a one cent per gallon motor fuel license fee charged
to distributors of gas or diesel fuel, which generates about $3M per year. It also receives
appropriations, cost recoveries and interest.
143
-------
Both funds can be used for site investigation, emergency response, studies and design,
remedial actions, removals, operations and maintenance, program administration, and
natural resource restoration. However, the PCF can also be used for victim compensation,
and the ECF can be used for CERCLA match and grants to local government. PCF covers
up to $1M in cleanup costs per site, with a $10K deductible, and $1M in third-party claims.
Vermont's CERCLA match is financed out of the ECF. Disbursements for categorical
expenditures specified in the statute cannot exceed $50K without the approval of a
legislative joint fiscal committee.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Cleanup determinations are made on a case-by-case basis. The State uses water
quality criteria, based on the State groundwater statute, MCLs/MCLGs, and background
quality to determine cleanup levels. Currently, the State is developing procedures for
determining cleanup standards on a site-specific basis.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
UST regulations require public notice of corrective action. DEC meets with town
officials and holds public meetings. There is a statutory requirement to notify municipalities
of sites within their borders; site designation must be entered on each town's land record.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
DEC is required to give a "discharging party" an opportunity to clean up. DEC sends
out letters, to be followed by an administrative order in the event of noncompliance. Ninety-
five percent of sites are voluntarily cleaned by RPs. The State has strict, joint and several
liability and treble damages provisions. Liability apportionment is available if an RP can
prove apportionment. DEC has several order authorities, including authority to request
information, subpoena documents, issue administrative orders, issue consent orders, and
issue orders for entry. Civil penalties are $50K per violation in addition to $1K per day for
continuing violation. Penalties and fines to the General Fund; recovered costs go into the
ECF.
Natural Resources Damages
Vermont has no NRD program.
Property Transfer
Vermont does not have a property transfer program.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
For FY93, Vermont has SSCAs and a CPCA with U.S. EPA.
144
-------
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
145
-------
NEW JERSEY
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 108 Known and Suspected: 18,519
Proposed: 1 Identified as Needing Attention: 12,894
Deleted: 5 On Inventory or Priority List: 774
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Spill Compensation and Control Act, N.J.S.A. §§58:10-23 et seq., (1976, as
amended 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1993),
established a Fund for cleanups and provides authority for emergency response, removals,
remedial actions, enforcement, cost recovery, victim compensation, and damages. Additional
authority is provided by the State's Hazardous Discharges Law, N.J.S.A. §§13: Ik-15 through
13:lk-19 (1984).
The Industrial Sites Recovery Act (ISRA) (1993), amended New Jersey's Environmental
Cleanup Responsibility Act, N.J.S.A. §§13:lk-6 through 13:lk-13 (1983), which requires
transferors of industrial facilities to clean up contamination.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Site Remediation Program in the Department of Environmental Protection and
Energy (DEPE) has 640 staff. The Attorney General's Office provides 28 attorneys for legal
support of the program. Funding for staff and administration comes from the Spill
Compensation Fund, PRP reimbursements, Federal grants, and the State's bond fund.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
The State has 5,405 sites undergoing any phase of the remedial process at non-NPL
sites; 8,401 non-NPL sites have been remediated since the start of the program. During
the last fiscal year (7/1/92-6/30/93) 1,425 remedial actions and 1,059 removal actions were
completed at non-NPL sites. The State has overseen the completion of 2,318 removal
actions since the start of the program and 750 removal actions are currently underway.
In FY93, 189 subsites (similar to operable units) at 110 NPL sites were undergoing
some phase of the remedial process. One hundred fourteen subsites at 71 NPL sites have
been completed since the start of the cleanup program. During FY93, 7 NPL sites had
remedial actions completed. Three removals were underway as of 6/30/93 at NPL sites
while 60 have been completed since the start of the program. Three removals were
completed in FY93.
CLEANUP FUNDING
New Jersey's Spill Compensation Fund, generated by a transfer tax, penalties
appropriations, cost recoveries, and interest, had a balance of $44.1M at the end of FY9s!
Funding activities during FY93 consisted of $85.2M in additions, $41.1M in expenditures and
$40.6M in obligations. This Fund is used for all categories of cleanup activities at non-NPL
sites except for grants to local governments and natural resource restoration, and it is used
146
-------
for CERCLA match and operations and maintenance at NPL sites. New Jersey's $239.5M
Bond Fund, with expenditures of $127.3M on cleanup on both NPL and non-NPL sites, had
a balance of $112.2M at the end of the fiscal year. A total of $71.9M of the Bond Fund was
obligated during the fiscal year for site cleanups. The Hazardous Discharge Site Cleanup
Fund, consisting primarily of cost recoveries and interest, had a balance of $5.2M at the end
of the fiscal year. This Fund's activities during FY93 consisted of $25.4M in additions,
$20.2M in expenditures and $12.1M in obligations.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
The State uses water quality criteria, MCLs and MCLGs, background levels, risk
assessment, EPA guidelines, and the State's soil cleanup criteria (SCC) guidelines. For soil
cleanup, the State may use the SCC or determine case-specific levels by risk assessment
using EPA methodology. The risk level used is 10"6. If SCC are determined to be below
background levels, then the cleanup level is background.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Spill Act specifies that actions should "to the greatest extent possible, be in
accordance with the NCP." DEPE policy is generally to follow NCP procedures. The State
is currently preparing amendments to the technical rules which will provide for greater
participation. The State uses a Site Remediation Program Advisory Group to assist in
program refinements and improvement. It includes industry, banking, realtors, consultants,
environmentalists, and other stakeholders.
ENFORCEMENT
per
FORCEMENT
Liability
Liability is strict, joint and several. Civil penalties are authorized up to $50K per day
violation; treble damages may be assessed through cost recovery actions.
Natural Resource Damages
Three staff have been assigned to a formal program, inaugurated July 1,1993. Prior
recoveries were $5M. There are 8 claims currently pending, amounts not disclosed.
Property Transfer
New Jersey's ECRA was the pioneering property transfer law. It required site
assessment, disclosure, and cleanup of industrial sites upon transfer; the law was amended
in 1993 and renamed the Industrial Sites Recovery Act (ISRA). Cleanup and disclosure is
still required, although cleanup may be deferred if the same industrial use is to continue.
Transactions that do not comply are voidable by the State or the transferee.
New Jersey's Spill Act gives the State a priority lien for its cleanup costs.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
New Jersey has a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
147
-------
NEW YORK
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 83 Known and Suspected: 995
Proposed: 2 Identified as Needing Attention: 680
Deleted: 1 On Inventory or Priority List: 935
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Abandoned Sites Act of 1979 (1979, Chapter 282, Environmental Conservation
Law article 27, title 13) mandates statewide inventory and registry of sites, provides order
and cleanup authority, and authorizes the State to provide alternative water supplies.
The State Superfund Act (1982, Chapter 857), establishes the Hazardous Waste
Remedial Fund for cleanup of sites and State CERCLA match. Amendments to the State
Superfund Act (1985, Chapter 38) increased the assessments and fees.
The Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1986 (Ch. 511, Laws of 1986), authorizes
$1.2B in bonds to address inactive hazardous waste sites, $100M of which has been
redirected for use in cleaning up nonhazardous waste landfills.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has approximately 318 staff
working on State and Federal Superfund activities - 296 funded by State and approximately
22 funded by Federal monies. Most of the personnel work in the Division of Hazardous
Waste Remediation. Approximately 18 staff work on State Superfund in the Division of
Environmental Enforcement. Seven attorneys with the AG's office work on cleanup issues.
Eighty-two staff in the Department of Health work on this program as well.
Appropriations for staff are from the State general fund transferred to Hazardous
Waste Remedial Fund. Approximately 92% of funds for staff and administration are from
the cleanup fund, 7% are from federal grants, and 1% are from the State general fund.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Of the 935 sites on the State Registry (including sites designated by counties), 667
have investigation, RI/FS, design construction, IRM (interim remedial measure)), or
remedial action underway. One hundred seven are awaiting cleanup, 33 are awaiting
investigation, and 56 are in a state of deferred action. Sixty-six sites have been cleaned up,
of which 56 require O&M. Of 606 non-NPL and NPL sites delisted, 76 were cleaned up)
and 530 required no action. A total of 142 non-NPL sites have been cleaned up since the
start of the program, and a total of 268 non-NPL removals have been completed since the
start of the program, 35 of which have occurred in the last fiscal year (ending 3/31/93).
Remediation is underway at 304 non-NPL sites, removals are underway at 22 non-NPL sites.
Of 83 NPL sites, remediation is currently underway at 82, and removals are underway at 5.
During this fiscal year 8 NPL construction projects have been completed. Six NPL sites
have been fully remediated since the start of the cleanup program. Thirty-two removals at
NPL sites have been completed since the start of the program, 4 were completed in the last
fiscal year.
148
-------
CLEANUP FUNDING
In 1989, the State began selling EQBA bonds. Of $902.7M remaining in the fund,
$99.7M has been obligated (FY93). A total of S60.9M were paid out this fiscal year; S59.8M
were spent on NPL sites, and $1.1M were spent on non-NPL sites. In addition, $70.7M were
obligated or encumbered this fiscal year; $2M for NPL sites, and $69M for non-NPL sites.
The bond money can be used for site investigation, studies and design, removals, emergency
response, remedial actions, CERCLA match, O&M, victim compensation, grants to local
government, and program administration.
Since 4/1/87, assessments, fees, and an oil transfer surcharge have been placed in
an "Industry Fee Transfer Account," which will be used to pay for one-half of the debt
service on bonds. Waste end fee collections, regulatory fees, and petroleum transfer fee
collections totalled $30.9M in 1992/93.
The Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund had a balance of $2.7M as of 3/31/93.
During FY93, $54M were added to the fund and $52M were paid out. The Fund is used
for debt service of 1986 EQBA bonds. A small portion of the money is used for program
administration.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Cleanup levels are established by water quality criteria, MCLs/MCLGs, background
levels, risk standard assessment, and EPA guidelines. When the cleanup of a site to the
predisposal condition is not possible or feasible, DEC specifies generic soil cleanup
objectives which, if attained, would eliminate all significant threats. Risk levels are set at
itr6.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Statutes and regulations require the DEC to develop a citizen participation program
at the start of RI/FS that includes a site-specific citizen participation plan, establishment of
a local document repository, creation of a public contact list, and a mailing of a description
of the proposed RI/FS field work. When the Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) is
prepared, a description of the PRAP is sent to the people on the contact list inviting
comments. The Department conducts a 30-day comment period, and will hold a public
meeting to describe the PRAP and solicit public comments. The Department summarizes
and responds to comments received during the comment period when the Record of
Decision (ROD) is signed.
In addition, when the Department adds a site to its Registry of Inactive Hazardous
Waste Sites, or reclassifies a site within the Registry, it must mail a notification to adjacent
property owners and to town and county clerks. The Department must also publish a notice
of a proposal to delete a site from the Registry, conduct a 30-day comment period, notify
adjacent property owners by mail, and summarize public comments.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Legal authorities include orders for information and site access, subpoena authority,
administrative order authority, consent order and injunctive action authority. State
149
-------
regulations defining responsible party result in strict, joint and several liability. The statute
makes common law defenses available. Civil penalties of $25K/violation in addition to
$25K/day for continuing violations. The penalty doubles for second violation. Criminal
penalty of up to $25K/day and/or one year imprisonment are available. Penalties double
for a second violation. Cost recovery is also authorized. The preferred enforcement method
is negotiated settlement.
Natural Resource Damages
A Natural Resources Damages unit exists in DEC. This unit is charged with
developing and pursuing NRD claims. The program began in 1990 and recovered over
$20M by April 1993.
Property Transfer
New York is required to maintain a priority list of sites; deed records are required.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIP
The State has CPCAs and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
150
-------
PUERTO RICO
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 9 Known and Suspected: 246 (CERCLIS)
Proposed: 1 Identified as Needing Attention: 246
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List: No list
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Environmental Emergencies Fund Act, Law 81 (1987) provides for a cleanup fund
and authorizes the Environmental Quality Board to respond to emergencies and recover
response costs from liable parties. The Act has no order or injunctive authorities; Puerto
Rico relies on other authorities for these purposes, including the Public Policy Environmental
Act, L.P.R. Ann., tit. 12, § 1121 et seq. (1970, as amended).
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The SARA and Emergency Response Office of the Environmental Quality Board has
7 FTE staff working on cleanup activities. Legal support is provided by one attorney from
the EQB's Legal Division. Federal grants provide 90% of funding for staff and
administration.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
One remedial action is underway at a non-NPL site. No other remedial actions or
removals have occurred except at NPL sites, where 4 remedial actions and 1 removal are
underway.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Environmental Emergencies Fund ended the fiscal year (6/30/93) with $4.19M.
The Fund receives a $1M appropriation each year. It is allowed to receive cost recoveries.
In the fiscal year just ended, $555K was paid out for cleanup activities. The Fund may be
used for emergency response, removals, studies and design, remedial actions, CERCLA
Match, and up to 10% for administrative costs.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Puerto Rico uses water quality criteria, MCLs and MCLGs, background, and EPA
guidelines for cleanup standards. Risk standard assessment may be used at non-NPL sites.
Virtually all cleanup actions are conducted by EPA.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal procedures exist. Public meetings are conducted in accordance with the
NCP for NPL sites or EPA-lead removal actions.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Liability is strict. Civil penalties are authorized up to $25K per day per violation; no
punitive damages are available.
151
-------
Natural Resource Damages
No program.
Property Transfer
No law.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
Puerto Rico has a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
152
-------
REGION III
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
153
-------
DELAWARE
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 19 Known and Suspected: 288
Proposed: 0 Identified as Needing Attention: 89
Deleted: 2 On Priority List: 30
—/•
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Hazardous Substance Cleanup Act, DCA, Tit. 7, §9101-9120 (1990), provides the
authority for emergency response, removals and remedial actions, cost recovery and
damages, and establishes a fund for site cleanup.
The Delaware Regulations Governing Hazardous Substance Cleanup (January 1993)
prohibit site cleanup at a property contemplated for transfer or any other site without the
State's approval or oversight.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC),
Division of Air and Waste Management, Superfund Branch has 31 staff. Legal support is
provided by the Attorney General's office with one attorney assigned to CERCLA work.
The primary source of administrative funds is federal grants (63%); other sources
include the State General Fund (10%), the Cleanup Fund (20%) and a DOD grant (7%).
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Remediation is currently underway at 16 NPL sites. Four NPL sites have been fully
remediated since the start of the program. One remediation action was completed during
the 1993 fiscal year (FY93). Two NPL removals have been completed. Removals are
currently underway at 5 non-NPL sites with 1 non-NPL removal completed since the start
of the program.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund had a balance of $4.00M at the end of the
fiscal year (6/30/93). Additions to the Fund totaled $2.83M in FY93. Expenditures for
activities at non-NPL sites totaled $1.89M. Obligations for non-NPL activities total $3.00M.
The Fund receives petroleum products tax receipts, penalties, cost recovery and
interest. The Fund is available for program administration, site investigation, studies and
design, removals, remedial actions, emergency response, CERCLA match, and O&M. Forty
percent of the Fund is earmarked for cleanup of leaking underground storage tanks.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
The State has adopted cleanup regulations (January 1993) which specify that cleanup
levels will be determined using a risk-based approach on a site-specific basis. Cleanup levels
may be based on current and potential future resource uses and reasonable maximum
exposures under both current and potential use conditions.
154
-------
MCLs may be used as the groundwater cleanup level if the DNREC determines it
is protective of human health and the environment. Otherwise, when the natural background
level exceeds the 10"5 cancer risk level or a hazard index (HI) value of 1, the natural
background level is the cleanup level. When the background level is less than the 10"5 cancer
risk level, then the 10"5 risk level or a level corresponding to the HI value of 1 is the cleanup
level. The same rule applies to soil cleanup levels. Surface water cleanup levels must meet
the State's water quality standards.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The public must be notified and provided an opportunity to comment on proposed
consent decrees, settlement revisions, and proposed and final remedial action plans.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
The Hazardous Substance Cleanup Act establishes strict, joint and several liability
and authorizes cost recovery. DNREC must attempt a settlement prior to initiating
enforcement action, unless an emergency exists. The State has injunctive action and
administrative order authority. Civil penalties of up to $10K/day per violation are available.
The State may recover punitive damages, treble the State's cleanup costs.
Natural Resource Damages
The Delaware Regulations Governing Hazardous Substance Cleanup (January 1993) set
forth compensation and restoration or replacement requirements for natural resource
damages. PRPs are liable for all damages. No claims are currently pending.
In 1990, $600K was recovered at an NPL site under the NCP.
Property Transfer
7 DCA, Ch. 91 §9115 requires the property owner to place a notice of a release of
a hazardous substance, determined by the Secretary to be a threat to public health or the
environment, with the recorder of deeds. The Secretary is required to maintain public
records that identify the property location, the hazardous substance(s), and the remedial
decision record.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a CPCA, SSCAs and a SMOA with U.S. EPA.
155
-------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 0 Known and Suspected: 0
Proposed: 0 Identified as Needing Attention: 0
Deleted: 0 Inventory or Priority List: No list
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1978, D.C. Code §6-701 et seq., (as
amended in 1984, 1989, and 1991), authorizes the mayor to "institute the actions necessary
to terminate" a permit where a person fails to take corrective actions to comply with a
notice of violation and to immediately revoke a permit where there is imminent danger to
public health or the environment. It also provides for injunctions and civil and criminal
penalties.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Regulation
Administration, Pesticides, Hazardous Waste and Underground Storage Tank Division has
22 full-time staff members, 1 of which is an attorney who devotes 20% of her time to the
hazardous waste program.
The District's program is currently funded through Federal grants. They have
authority to set up a fee schedule to fund their hazardous waste and toxic chemical source
reduction program.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Although the District does not have a cleanup fund for hazardous waste, it has an
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund which will be funded by tank registration fees and
penalties.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The District does not have a fund for hazardous waste cleanup. However, it does
have an Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund authorized by the Underground Storage
Tank Management Act of 1990.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
The District has promulgated a standard of lOOppm for petroleum and is in the
process of looking at standards for other substances. Until it promulgates its own standards
the District uses EPA standards and site assessment protocols.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The District has no formal public participation requirements. In each case it gives
notice designed to reach persons directly affected by the site.
156
-------
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
The District has civil penalty authority up to $25K/day per violation, no punitive
damage authority, and no specified liability standards.
Natural Resource Damages
The Distict does not have a natural resources damages program.
Propery Transfer
The District does not have a property transfer provision, but it does require written
notice and posting of a notice on a property where a release occurs and the responsible
party is not known.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
157
-------
MARYLAND
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 9 Known and Suspected: 463
Proposed: 3 Identified as Needing Attention: 343
Deleted: 1 On Inventory or Priority List: 25
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Annotated Code of Maryland, Environment Art., Tit. 7 -- Hazardous Material and
Hazardous Substances, Subtitle 2 - Controlled Hazardous Substances, §§7-201 through 7-
268 (1982, as amended 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1992, and 1993) provides for the
Hazardous Substance Control Fund and enforcement authorities.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Department of the Environment (MDE), Waste Management Administration,
Environmental Response & Restoration Program has 2 divisions involved in the superfund
process: 1) Site Assessment/State Superfund Division, with approximately 20 full-time staff;
and 2) Federal and NPL Superfund Division, with 19 full-time staff. The Attorney General's
office has staff located at MDE; 2 attorneys devote approximately 75% of their time to
CERCLA. The Core function is under the Waste Management Administration's Planning
and Resource Management Program, and has approximately 7 full-time employees.
Funding for the State's superfund program comes from the State cleanup fund and
Federal grants.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
The State has 31 ongoing non-NPL cleanup projects, including sites where the State
oversees RP cleanups. Since the beginning of the State's cleanup program, 1 NPL site has
been fully remediated. Remediation is currently underway at 1 NPL and 2 non-NPL sites.
No remediation actions were completed during FY93. A removal was completed at 1 non-
NPL site during FY93, while 4 NPL and 1 non-NPL sites have removals currently underway.
Since the start of the State's cleanup program, removals have been completed at 3 NPL and
24 non-NPL sites.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Subaccount of the Hazardous Substance Control Fund is funded by bond
issuances and cost recoveries. The balance as of 11/93 was approximately $14M. There is
no cap on the fund. The State could not provide information on additions to, or obligations
or expenditures from the Fund. Authorization from the Board of Public Works is required
prior to expenditure; the Board has allocated funding for 33 projects. Fund monies can be
used for removals, site investigation, emergency response, studies and design, remedial
actions, program administration, O&M and State CERCLA match.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
State hazardous waste regulations were promulgated in the Hazardous Substance
Response Plan - Maryland Register Volume 19, Issue 20 (1992) Volume 20, Issue 9 (1993).
Where appropriate, the State also applies water quality criteria, MCLs/MCLGs, risk
standard assessment, background levels, and EPA guidelines.
158
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
There are no formal requirements. The Community Relations Coordinator or the
site project manager arranges public meetings.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Maryland has strict, and joint and several liability standards, but provides for
apportionment where there is a reasonable basis for determining a party's contribution. The
State has civil penalty authority up to $25K/violation.
Natural Resource Damages
The State's natural resource damages program began in 1982. It follows Federal
guidelines for NRDP 7-220 use of fund; the State does not have any claims pending or
money recovered yet.
Property Transfer
The State does not have a property transfer provision in its superfund law.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
159
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 98 Known and Suspected: 3,000
Proposed: 1 Identified as Needing Attention: 50
Deleted: 8 On Inventory or Priority List: 10
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (HSCA) (Act 1988-108), 35 P.S. §6020.101 et seq.,
establishes a State fund and provides for administrative and judicial enforcement authority,
cleanup procedures, a priority list, replacement of water supplies, property transfer
restrictions, citizen suits, and public participation.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The State Superfund program in the Bureau of Waste Management, Department of
Environmental Resources (DER), has 127 staff. Legal support is provided by the Superfund
Enforcement Division of the DER Chief Counsel's Office with 18 full-time attorneys. The
State Fund provides 100% of administrative costs.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Remediation is currently underway at 25 NPL sites with 8 NPL sites fully remediated
since the start of the program. Six remediation actions were completed at NPL sites during
the 1993 fiscal year which ended 6/30/93. Currently, remediation is underway at 1 non-NPL
site while 27 sites have been fully remediated since the start of the State program.
Removals have been completed at 27 non-NPL sites since the start of the program, 11 of
them during FY93.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund had a balance of $60.50M at the end of FY93.
Additions to the Fund during FY93 totaled $45.58M. $34.80M was generated from a capital
stock and franchise tax. Hazardous waste transportation and management fees provided the
Fund with $2.60M. Minor sources of Fund monies were interest, penalties, and cost
recoveries. Expenditures from the Fund in FY93 totaled $45K for the NPL portion and
$11.88M for the non-NPL portion of the program. Obligations from the Fund in FY93 were
$900K for the NPL portion and $21.57M for the non-NPL portion of the program.
Fund monies may be used for site investigation, studies and design, removals,
remedial actions, program administration, CERCLA match, emergency response, victim
compensation, and natural resource restoration.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
HSCA provides that until the State promulgates its own standards, SARA §121
applies. MCLs and EPA guidelines are used when appropriate. On a case-by-case basis,
DER may apply more stringent standards including background levels, or it may waive or
modify otherwise applicable requirements under HSCA §504.
160
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The State provides public notice of the analysis of a selected response action and
alternatives. The Public Notice is followed by a 90-day comment period. A public hearing
is held within the 90-day comment period.
HSCA also has a citizen suit provision.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
HSCA provides comprehensive order and injunctive authorities, orders for
information and access, criminal and civil penalties, and treble damages. Civil penalties are
a minimum of $5K/day and a maximum of $25K/day. The HSCA provides for NBARs, de
minimis settlements, natural resource damages, legal presumptions of culpability for
contamination, and whistleblower protection.
There is a 120-day notice period before a site may be placed on the State list, to
encourage responsible party (RP) cleanup prior to listing. There is also a 120-day
moratorium on enforcement at multi-party sites if RPs seek to negotiate shares. For
remedial actions extending beyond interim actions, §1301 requires the DER to initiate
action against owners or operators under other state laws (e.g. Clean Streams Law and the
Solid Waste Management Act) before taking HSCA enforcement or cost recovery actions.
Natural Resource Damages
No program or policy exists at present.
Property Transfer
HSCA §512 requires disclosure on the deed or with the recorder of deeds that the
site was or is being used for the disposal of hazardous substances and that the seller disclose
the presence of hazardous substances on the site before transfer.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
161
-------
VIRGINIA
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 23 Known and Suspected: 3100
Proposed: 2 Identified as Needing Attention: 310
Deleted: 1 On Inventory or Priority List: 0
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Waste Management Act, Va. Code §10.1-1400 - 10.1-1457 (1986, as amended
1987,1988,1990, and 1993), establishes the State fund as well as permitting and certification
requirements, management responsibilities, enforcement authority and penalties, pollution
prevention, litter control and recycling, hazardous waste management, siting of hazardous
waste facilities, and transportation of hazardous materials.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Department of Environmental Quality, Waste Division, Superfund program, has
three branches dealing with site cleanup: (1) the Federal facilities program with 4 staff; (2)
the site assessment program with 7 staff; and (3) the Superfund remedial program with 10
staff. The Division also has 3 administrative staff for a total of 24 full-time staff. An Office
of Environmental Response and Remediation was established in 1993 to oversee removal
and remediation at sites under State cleanup authority.
Legal support is provided by 1 half-time attorney in the State Attorney General's
office. Federal grants provide 90% of Superfund program costs and the State General Fund
provides the remaining 10%.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Currently, remedial actions are underway at 5 NPL sites. One remedial action was
completed during the fiscal year (FY93). One NPL site has been fully remediated and
deleted from the list since the start of the program.
The State and U.S. EPA provided detailed inspection of 208 sites in the State.
Twenty-three of these were placed on the NPL. The State acts as a support agency on all
NPL sites, providing the technical review and oversight for all cleanup activities.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Virginia Environmental Emergency Response Fund was established in 1992. It
had a balance of $3 UK as of 5/28/93. $132K was transferred to the Fund from the former
Solid and Hazardous Waste Contingency Fund. During FY93, $112K was added to the Fund
from penalties and interest. Expenditures for emergency response totaled $68K.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
The State uses water quality standard, MCLs, and EPA risk-based guidelines where
appropriate. Background level data and state regulations are applied to support EPA
decisions. For purposes of the State's new voluntary remediation program, health risk-based
cleanup levels are developed on a case-by-case basis.
162
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Federal Superfund regulations for notice and comment concerning the analysis
of NPL site cleanup alternatives are followed. The State initiates additional public outreach
activities when it deems these to be appropriate.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
The State's enforcement authority is limited to sites where waste has been
"improperly managed." In such a case, the State has the authority to issue unilateral
administrative and administrative consent orders, take injunctive action and impose civil
penalties and punitive damages. Civil penalties are up to $25K/day per violation of an
order. Punitive damages available from individuals are $25K for making knowingly false
statements, $250K for knowingly violating the State's statute or regulations, which places
another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. Corporate defendants
are subject to up to $1.00M per offense or an amount equal to 3 times the economic benefit
realized as a result of the offense.
Natural Resource Damages
The State has had the authority to recover such damages under the Act since 1990.
No damages have been recovered by the State to date and no claims are currently pending.
Property Transfer
The State has no property transfer provisions or restrictions.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a SMOA, a CPCA, and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
163
-------
WEST VIRGINIA
SITES
NFL Sites State Sites
Final: 5 Known or Suspected: 500
Proposed: 1 Identified as Needing Attention:
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List: 51
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Hazardous Waste Emergency Response Fund Act, W.Va. Code §20-5G-1 through
20-56-6 (1984), provides a Fund for emergency responses, the State's CERCLA match, and
cleanup authorities.
The Hazardous Waste Management Act, W.Va. Code §20-5E, (1981, as amended 1985,
1989, and 1991), contains property transfer disclosure requirements.
The Groundwater Protection Act, W.Va. §20-5M (1991, as amended 1993) establishes
groundwater standards which may be used by the State to determine cleanup levels.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Site Investigation and Response Section of the Office of Waste Management,
within the Division of Environmental Protection, within the Department of Commerce,'
Labor, and Environmental Resources, employs 12 full-time staff. The State Attorney
General's office provides legal support with one staff member. Federal grants provide 80%
of administrative costs, with the Response Fund providing the remaining 20%.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
There are no State-lead NPL sites. Remediation currently underway at 4 NPL sites.
One NPL site has been fully remediated since the start of the program. No information is
available for cleanup activities at non-NPL sites.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Hazardous Waste Emergency Response Fund had a balance of $2.20M at the
end of fiscal year (6/30/93). Additions to the Fund in FY93 totaled $1.11M. A total of
$329K was paid out for non-NPL activities. A total of $348K was obligated for NPL
activities and $397K for non-NPL activities.
The main source of Fund monies is hazardous waste generator fees. Generator
assessments cease if the unobligated balance exceeds $1.50M at the end of the fiscal year.
Fees are again assessed when the balance reaches $1.00M.
The Fund may be used for program administration, site investigation, studies and
design, operation and maintenance, emergency response, removals, remedial action, and the
CERCLA match. The Fund monies may be used only for hazardous wastes not hazardous
substances.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
The State applies EPA guidelines, water quality criteria, and MCLs where
appropriate. If no standard is available, background levels and EPA risk assessments may
be applied. The State's 1993 Groundwater Protection Act established groundwater standards,
equivalent to MCLs in most cases, which will be applied where appropriate.
164
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements or informal procedures for public participation exist at
present.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Prior to fund expenditure, director must make "reasonable efforts" to secure
agreements from the owner or operator or other RPs to pay cleanup and remedial action
costs. All monies collected pursuant to enforcement action or cost recovery are deposited
in the Fund. No enforcement action or cost recovery has been taken to date. Under the
Fund Act, the State has the authority to recover costs and interest for unpaid or late paid
generator fees up to twice the required fee. Other enforcement actions pertaining to
hazardous substances are taken under the State's RCRA equivalent statute.
Natural Resource Damages
No policy or program exists at present.
Property Transfer
The States Hazardous Waste Regulations Ch. 20-5E, 47CSR35 require disclosure on
the property deed, lease, or any other instrument, that property or surface of property was
used for the storage, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a CPCA and SSCAs with the U.S. EPA.
165
-------
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississipi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
166
-------
ALABAMA
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 12 Known and Suspected: 625
Proposed: 2 Identified as Needing Attention: 125
Deleted: 1 On Inventory or Priority List: No List
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Hazardous Substances Cleanup Fund, Ala. Code §22-30A-l et seq. (1988) provides
enforcement authorities and a cleanup fund.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Special Projects Office in the Office of the Director, Department of
Environmental Management has 22.5 FTE staff working on cleanup activities (2.5 in
management; 6 in the Engineering Section; 9 in Site Assessment; and 5 in Field
Operations). Legal support is provided by 0.3 FTE attorneys in the DEM Office of General
Counsel. Funding for staff and administration comes from the State general fund, the
cleanup fund, hazardous waste disposal fees, and Federal grants.
CLEANUP AcnvrnEs
The State has 1 remedial action underway at a non-NPL site, and has completed 8
since the start of the program including 2 during the last fiscal year (10/1/92-9/30/93). It
has 10 removals underway, and has completed 75 since the start of the program, including
35 during the last fiscal year.
Remedial actions are underway at 6 NPL sites. One remedial action and one
removal have been completed since the start of the program.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund had a balance of $38K at the end of FY93.
Additions to the Fund during the year were $34K. The fund receives monies from cost
recoveries, penalties, appropriations, and some fees. The Fund paid out $80K during FY93
for actions at non-NPL sites. The Fund may be used only at sites that are not on the NPL
at the time the activity starts, and for CERCLA match and O&M; it is primarily used for
small-scale removal actions.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Cleanup standards include water quality criteria, MCLs and MCLGs, background
levels, risk assessments, and EPA Guidelines. Risk levels are generally 10"4 for industrial
and 10"6 for residential areas.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A 30-day comment period on a cleanup plan is required by statute; a single
publication of notice in a county paper is sufficient notice. The 30-day comment period is
required prior to the State's issuing an administrative order unless there is an imminent
threat to human health.
167
-------
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Liability is proportional. Civil penalties are authorized up to $25K per day per
violation, with a maximum of $25K; no punitive damages are available.
Natural Resource Damages
Program commenced in 1988. No recoveries to date; no pending claims.
Property Transfer
No law.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
Alabama has a SMOA, and a CPCA with U.S. EPA.
168
-------
FLORIDA
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 55 Known and Suspected: 1015
Proposed: 3 Identified as Needing Attention: 725
Deleted: 4 On Inventory or Priority List: No list
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Removal Act, §§376.30 through 376.319 (1983,
as amended 1984,1986, and 1988), establishes the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund and
provides enforcement authorities.
The Resource Recovery and Management Act, Fla. Stat. §§403.701 through 403.7721
(1974, numerous amendments), establishes certain enforcement provisions and the
Hazardous Waste Management Trust Fund.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Waste Management,
Bureau of Waste Cleanup contains 5 sections: (1) Hazardous Waste Cleanup (15 staff); (2)
Preliminary Assessment (8 staff); (3) Site Investigation (14 staff); (4) Technical Support (17
staff) and; (5) Enforcement with 6 District staff. In all, approximately 60 staff work in the
Bureau. Legal support is provided by 2 attorneys in DER's Office of General Counsel.
Twelve additional staff are part of an Emergency Response Program, 5 in Tallahassee and
7 in regional offices. The State general fund, a cleanup fund, Federal grants, and trust funds
provide money for staff and administration.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Sixty percent of non-NPL sites are being addressed by RPs, 20% need no action, and
20% are State lead. Remediation is currently underway at 22 non-NPL sites; 27 non-NPL
sites have been fully remediated since the start of the cleanup program, 2 in the last fiscal
year (ending 6/30/93). Fourteen removals have been completed at non-NPL sites since the
start of the program, 2 during the last fiscal year.
Twenty-seven State cleanups at non-NPL sites have been completed, and work is in
progress on 22 non-NPL sites. Over 200 RP cleanups are in the RI phase, and 40 are in the
RA phase. State-lead cleanups are underway at about 40% of NPL sites. Remediation is
underway at 40 NPL sites, 2 remedial actions at NPL sites have been completed in this fiscal
year, and 4 NPL sites have been fully remediated since the start of the program. Twenty
Removals at NPL sites have been completed since the start of the program.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund was set up with a transfer of $11M from
the Coastal Protection Trust Fund. It is now funded by excise taxes, discharge permit fees,
interest, transfers from other funds, cost recovery, and penalties and fines. As of the end of
the fiscal year (6/30/93), the fund balance was $7.5M unobligated funds. Projected revenue
for FY93 is $25M. A tax is levied if the fund balance falls below $5M and suspended if the
balance is over $12M. The WQATF funds emergency response, site investigation, studies
and design, remedial actions, O&M, grants to local government, program administration,
natural resource restoration, and State CERCLA match.
169
-------
The Hazardous Waste Management Trust Fund serves as a holding account for
Federal monies. It contained $863K at the end of the fiscal year. The fund receives money
from cost recoveries, interest, penalties, and transfers and can be used for the same activities
as the WQATF. The State provided no information on additions, expenditures, or
obligations.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Cleanup criteria are site-specific based on risk assessments and any existing standards.
Water quality criteria, MCLs/MCLGs, background levels, risk standard assessment, and
EPA guidelines are used to establish cleanup levels. Risk levels for risk assessment are set
at 10*
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No provisions require citizen participation. Ad hoc citizen involvement varies on a
site-specific basis, and may include door-to-door outreach or public meetings if requested.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Legal authorities include strict, joint and several liability, administrative and consent
order authority, and cost recovery. Punitive damages are not available. Civil penalties of up
to $25K/day are available under the hazardous waste statute. The Department does not
have unilateral order authority. The enforcement process includes warning notices, consent
orders, notices of violations, civil suits, and appeals.
Natural Resource Damages
No NRD program exists, however, fund monies can be used for NRD activities.
Property Transfer
The State has no property transfer provisions.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has SSCAs with the U.S. EPA.
170
-------
GEORGIA
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 13 Known and Suspected: 800+
Proposed: 0 Identified as Needing Attention: 0
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List: List under development
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Hazardous Site Response Act of 1992 (HSRA),O.C.G.A. 12-8-90 et seq. authorizes
a cleanup fund, enforcement authorities, strict, joint and several liability, punitive damages,
property transfer provisions and a priority list.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division,
Hazardous Sites Response Program has 9 FTEs, funded entirely by the Hazardous Waste
Trust Fund. The State Law Department provides legal support with 1 FTE attorney.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
The cleanup program under the Hazardous Site Response Act (HSRA) is just getting
started, although cleanups have been conducted under the State's RCRA authorities for
years. One removal is underway pursuant to the HSRA. Approximately 70 remedial actions
are currently underway under the RCRA statute. Remediation is currently underway at 8
NPL sites.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Hazardous Waste Trust Fund had a balance of $8.26M at the end of the fiscal
year (6/30/93). The Fund receives monies from fees on solid and hazardous waste
management activities and from penalties and interest. Collection of the fees is suspended
when the balance in the Fund equals or exceeds $25M and is not resumed until the
unencumbered balance is less than or equal to $12.5M. The Fund may be used for
emergency response, site investigation, removals, studies and design, remedial action, O&M,
CERCLA match, pollution prevention and program administration.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
The HSRA requires the Board of Natural Resources to adopt regulations establishing
cleanup standards, but those standards have not yet been developed. The State currently
applies water quality criteria, MCLs, and background levels.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No procedures exist for public participation, but the agency plans to adopt regulations
providing for public participation in developing the site inventory and the cleanup process.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
The statute provides for strict, joint and several liability, punitive damages at least
equal to the State's costs and not more than 3 times those costs, penalties up to $50K/day,
cost recovery, site access, and administrative orders.
171
-------
Natural Resource Damages
The HRSA does not address natural resource damages and the state has no program
for collecting NRDs.
Property Transfer
The owner of any site listed on the hazardous site inventory as having a known
release and as needing cleanup must include a notice of that listing in any deed or other
document that creates an interest in or grants a use of the property. The owner of a listed
site must also file an affidavit that the site is listed and must be cleaned up with the clerk
of the superior court for the county or counties in which the site is located.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S.EPA.
172
-------
KENTUCKY
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 18 Known and Suspected: 1000
Proposed: 2 Identified as Needing Attention: 500
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List: 12
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Kentucky Rev. Stat. Ann. §224.46-580(13)(1980) establishes the Hazardous Waste
Management Fund and gives provisions for expenditures. KRS 224.01-400 establishes
enforcement authorities and provides for a priority list, citizen suits, and risk guidance.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Division of Waste
Management, Superfund Branch has funding for 11 full-time staff for Federal Superfund
sites, and 10 staff for State superfund sites.
50% of the funding for Kentucky's program comes from Federal grants; the rest is
funded through the State general fund and the cleanup fund.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
The State is actively involved in about 300 sites. More than $500K was paid out last
year, mainly for drum removals and other emergencies. Remediation actions were
completed at 15 non-NPL sites during the fiscal year, which ended 6/30/93. Since the start
of the State's program, 3 NPL sites and approximately 200 non-NPL sites have been fully
remediated. Remediation is currently underway at 5 NPL sites and approximately 80 non-
NPL sites. Removals were completed at approximately 45 non-NPL sites during FY93, and
removals are currently underway at 10 non-NPL sites. Since the beginning of the State's
cleanup program, removals have been completed at 10 NPL and 80 non-NPL sites.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Hazardous Waste Management Fund had a balance of $5M at the end of FY93.
There is a $6M cap on the fund. A total of $3M was added to the fund during FY93. A
total of $818K was paid out of the fund for non-NPL sites and $967K was obligated for non-
NPL sites. $494K was paid out for emergency removal. The total amount obligated
includes $325K spent for remedial cleanup.
Fees were a significant source of funding, while cost recoveries, interest, and
penalities were also minor sources of funding. The fund may be used for site investigation,
studies and design, removals, emergency response, remedial actions, CERCLA match, O&M,
program administration and natural resource restoration.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Responsible parties are permitted to select either a risk-based standard up to 10"6 or
background levels as the basis for cleanup. The State also uses water quality criteria,
MCLs/MCLGs, risk standard assessment (Hazard Index = 1), and EPA guidelines to set
cleanup standards.
173
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Kentucky has a Public Information Repository for NPL and State priority list sites.
It is standard practice to hold Public Meetings for these sites.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
The State has civil penalty authority for up to $25,000/day. In practice, Kentucky
uses strict, joint and several liability standards.
Natural Resource Damages
Kentucky does not have a natural resources damages program.
Property Transfer
Kentucky's superfund law does not include property transfer provisions.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
174
-------
MISSISSIPPI
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 2 Known and Suspected: 390
Proposed: 2 Identified as Needing Attention: 200
Deleted: 1 On Inventory or Priority List: 109
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1974 (amended numerous times, most recently in
1990), Miss. Code Ann. § 17-17-29(4) and (6), enables State to take response action, but
there is no specific Superfund law.
The Property Transfer Act (1993), requires disclosure before transfer.
The 1988 Amendments to the Air and Water Pollution Control Act, Miss. Code Ann,
§§ 49-17-1 et seq., authorize response actions and creates the Pollution Emergency Fund
(Miss. Code Ann. § 49-17-68).
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Pollution Control, Hazardous Waste
Division has a RCRA and CERCLA section. The CERCLA section has 12 FTE employees.
These positions are funded almost entirely by State general funds and Federal grants. Four
staff attorneys handle all DEQ work.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
At non-NPL sites, Mississippi has 76 remedial actions underway. Three remedial
actions were completed in fiscal year 1993 (7/1/92-6/30/93). Five removals are underway.
In FY93, 250 removals were completed.
At NPL sites, there are 2 remedial actions underway, and 1 site has been fully
remediated since the start of the program. Two removals at NPL sites have been completed
since the start of the program.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Pollution Emergency Response Fund was created in 1988 and has a balance of
$2.7M as of 6/30/93. It added $500K during the fiscal year, and paid out $440K, all to non-
NPL sites. The Fund is authorized to receive money from civil penalties from the pollution
regulatory programs, cost recovery, and any other sources. The Fund may be used for site
investigation, studies and design, removals, and emergency response. Mississippi
appropriates funds on a site-by-site basis for CERCLA match.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
The State considers background level, water quality criteria, MCLs, EPA guidelines,
risk assessment with a generic risk level of 10"6, and U.S. EPA's Hazard Index to determine
cleanup levels. The State selects the most stringent of these criteria as the cleanup level.
175
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Policies require a public comment period, direct mailings, and possible public
meetings during the remediation process. Local governments and the governor are notified
when emergency order issued.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Mississippi has strict and joint and several liability. The DEQ must use its general
enforcement authorities or its authorities in other regulatory statutes to compel RP action
and for enforcement action. The Act provides that any person responsible for creating an
immediate need for remedial or cleanup action involving solid waste shall be liable for the
cost of such action and that the Department may recover its cost of response. The Act gives
DEQ authority to regulate any contamination of the air and waters of Mississippi. The
State has civil penalties of $25K/violation plus the cost of removal/remediation and the cost
of restocking/replenishing killed fish. There are no punitive damages. RPs come forward
and voluntarily sign "Consent Orders." Exparte or Consent Orders are issued at each stage
of the process outlining the work to be done.
Natural Resource Damages
Since 1972 State law has allowed DEQ to recover cost of restocking/replenishing
killed fish and game. Mississippi has recovered $500K. No claims are pending.
Property Transfer
§89-1-501 - 523 was passed in 1993, requiring disclosure before transfer.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
Mississippi has a SMOA, a CPCA and SSCAs with the U.S. EPA.
176
-------
NORTH CAROLINA
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 21 Known and Suspected: 665
Proposed: 1 Identified as Needing Attention: 655
Deleted: 1 On Inventory or Priority List: 155
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §130A-290 et seq..
(1969, as amended 1973, 1975, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989, and 1991)
authorizes the Emergency Response Fund for emergency hazardous waste cleanup, provides
enforcement authorities, and requires recordation of property transfers.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Superfund Section of the Solid Waste Management Division of the Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has 27.75 staff positions. The Federal
Superfund and State Inactive Hazardous Sites programs share 1 attorney from the North
Carolina Department of Justice. Funding for the Section comes from the State general fund
and a Federal grant for site investigations under Federal Superfund, NPL Support Agency
grant, CORE money, and DOD support agency money.
The Emergency Response Fund is administered by the Hazardous Waste Section of
the Solid Waste Management Division.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
During the fiscal year, which ended 6/30/93, remedial actions were completed at 1
non-NPL site. Since the start of the State's cleanup program, remedial actions have been
completed at 1 NPL and 5 non-NPL sites. Remedial actions are currently underway at 3
NPL and 6 non-NPL sites. During FY93, removals were completed at 2 NPL and 9 non-
NPL sites. Removals are currently underway at 8 non-NPL sites.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Inactive Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund (IHSCF) had a balance of $1.38M at the
end of FY93. It received $866K and no funds were paid or obligated from it during FY93.
The IHSCF receives most of its money from appropriations, although no appropriations
have been made to the fund since FY88-89. Penalties also are a significant source of
funding, as the IHSCF receives RCRA penalty money when the Emergency Response Fund
exceeds its $500K cap. Cost recoveries, interest, and transfers are also minor sources of
funding. The IHSCF can be used for site investigation, studies and design, removals,
emergency response, remedial actions, and the cost of recording notices of Inactive
Hazardous Substance or Waste Disposal Sites.
177
-------
The Emergency Response Fund is used only for emergency response and gets all of
its funding from RCRA penalties. It is capped at $500K. Excess funds are transferred to
the IHSCF.
The Cost Share Trust Fund, which is used only for CERCLA match at NPL sites, had
a balance of $1.9M at the end of FY93. It gets its funding from appropriations. The Fund
received $800K during the year and no funds were paid or obligated from it.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
As required by statute, the Secretary of DEHNR will ascertain the cleanup level in
conformance with CERCLA and SARA requirements.
The State uses a health-based risk assessment, with an acceptable risk level of 10"6
and a Hazard Index of 1. Cleanup levels are calculated for each contaminant by
environmental media based on site-specific risks. Water quality criteria, groundwater
standards and other applicable State standards are also used where appropriate.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
State funded enforcement cleanups require: 3 weeks notice in a newspaper, a 45 day
comment period, with a public meeting at the Secretary's discretion, and notice to those
requesting to be placed on a mailing list, with a copy filed with the register of deeds and
copies placed in local libraries and the County Health Director's Office. Public participation
requirements are reduced for RP voluntary cleanup. RP Voluntary Remedial Actions
require notice of the remedial action plan to be sent to those requesting to be placed on a
mailing list.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
The Secretary of DEHNR must seek voluntary action by RPs before issuing orders
or taking action under the Inactive Hazardous Sites Response Act. The State has strict and
joint and several liability standards. There is a cap on liability of $3M for implementation
by RPs that volunteer. The State has authority to issue orders for information. Civil
penalties are available for solid and hazardous waste violations only.
Natural Resource Damages
North Carolina has no natural resources damages program.
Property Transfer
If the State mails an order to a property owner, the owner must register a notice of
an Inactive Hazardous Substances Waste Disposal Site with the grantor index in the deeds
office. At the next property transfer, the notice will appear on the deed. North Carolina
has a general judgment lien provision.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
178
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA
SITES
NFL Sites State Sites
Final: 24 Known and Suspected: 475
Proposed: 0 Identified as Needing Attention: 200
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List: 100
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Hazardous Waste Management Act (1980, as amended 1989), South Carolina
Code Ann. §§44-55-10 through -840 and §44-56-10-330 authorize the Hazardous Waste
Contingency Fund and provides for a priority list, the authority to take or compel action,
and provisions governing property transfer.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
Department of Health and Environmental Control, Environmental Quality Control,
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management employs 27 FTE staff. Two attorneys
within the Legal Office of the Department provide support. Federal grants account for 66%
of staff funding, 19% comes from cleanup funds, and 15% comes from the State general
funds.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
At non-NPL sites, 2 remedial actions were completed during the 1993 fiscal year
(7/1/92-6/30/93), and 13 have been completed since the start of the program. Twelve
remedial actions are underway at non-NPL sites. Seven removals are currently underway,
and 11 removals have been completed since the start of the program.
At NPL sites, 6 remedial actions are underway. One remedial action has been
completed since the start of the program. One removal action is underway, and 6 have been
completed since the start of the program, 1 in FY93.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Hazardous Waste Contingency Fund is an umbrella for two (2) separate
accounts, the permitted sites (RCRA) and uncontrolled sites (Superfund). The latter
account comprises approximately 75% of the Fund. Roughly 80-90% of revenues come from
fees. Appropriations and cost recovery also contribute. The Fund balance for FY93 was
$16.9M. In FY93, $3.5M was added to the Fund. A total of $3M was paid out to all to
non-NPL sites and $5.1M was obligated, $3M of which went to non-NPL sites. The Fund
may be used for site investigation, emergency response, removals, studies and design,
remedial actions, O&M, and CERCLA match. The State must exhaust available Federal
and RP funds before using the Fund.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Site-by-site cleanup decisions are to be consistent with the NCP. Generally, the State
applies MCLs for groundwater cleanup and background levels for soil cleanup. The State
may also apply water quality criteria and EPA guidelines where appropriate. If no standard
exists, a risk standard assessment may be used. Risk levels of 1(F and 10"6 are applied for
risk assessment.
179
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements or informal provisions.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
South Carolina employs strict and joint and several liability. Statue explicitly adopts
CERCLA §107 and implicitly CERCLA in toto. To date, South Carolina has only sought
negotiated agreements. State requires Department to exhaust RP and Federal funds before
using its own. DHEC procedure is to serve RPs notices with deadlines and to inform EPA
at the same time. South Carolina can levy civil penalties of $25,000/day with stipulated
penalties for non-compliance with a consent agreement of $l,000/day. Treble damages.
Natural Resource Damages
No program.
Property Transfer
HWMA requires that property that has been used as a strategic disposal facility must
record this on the deed.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
South Carolina has a SMOA, a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
180
-------
TENNESSEE
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 14 Known and Suspected: 1142
Proposed: 1 Identified as Needing Attention: 157
Deleted: 1 On Inventory or Priority List: 157
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1983 (as amended 1986,1988, 1989, 1990,
and 1991), Part II, TCA §68-212-201 £l seq.. establishes a State superfund program,
authorizes the Hazardous Waste Remedial Action Fund, provides authority to take or
compel remedial actions, establishes a priority list and requires notice to register deeds for
any site listed.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), Division of
Superfund (created 1/86) has five regional offices with a total of 49 full-time staff. Legal
support is provided by 1.5 attorneys in DEC and one half-time attorney in the AG's office.
Staff and administrative costs are funded from the Hazardous Remedial Action Fund,
Federal grants and fees assessed on hazardous waste generators, treaters, and shippers.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Remediation is currently underway at 2 NPL and 5 non-NPL sites. 53 non-NPL sites
have been fully remediated since the start of the State cleanup program. 4 remedial actions
were completed and 5 are underway at non-NPL sites during the last fiscal year, which
ended 6/30/93. Removals are currently underway at 6 non-NPL sites. Approximately 50
removals have been completed since the start of the program with 10 removals completed
during FY93.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Hazardous Waste Remedial Action Fund had a balance of $6.26M at the end
of FY93. $2.47M was added to the fund in FY93. Expenditures for NPL sites totaled $5K.
Expenditures at non-NPL sites totaled $2.22M. A total of $250K was obligated at non-NPL
sites.
Significant sources of fund monies include appropriations and fees on transporters
and generators. Cost recovery, interest, and penalties are minor fund sources.
The Fund may be used for program administration, emergency response, site
investigation, removals, remediation, studies and design, O&M, and CERCLA match.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
The State has no statutory cleanup standards. MCL or other federal standards and
EPA guidelines are applied if available. If no standard is available, background levels or
levels derived from EPA health risk assessment guidance are used. Risk levels of 10"4 to
10"6 are applied on a case-by-case basis depending on the media, the contaminant, and the
population and/or the ecology at risk of exposure.
181
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A public meeting is required at the end of the RI/FS stage for input in the
development of the ROD. Rulemaking hearings must be held prior to any site(s) being
added or deleted from the State site priority list.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
The state statute provides for joint and proportional liability and requires each liable
party to pay an equitable portion taking various factors into consideration. The state AG
is responsible for apportioning liability. Strict, joint, and several liability applies for
compliance with state orders for remedial actions.
The Commissioner of DEC is authorized to issue orders for site information, access
and remedial response, assess civil penalties up to $10,000/day per violation, and impose
punitive damages of up to 150% of the State's costs.
Natural Resource Damages
The State policy, established in 1980, provides for the Commissioner of TDEC to
take action to assess damages with the assistance of other State departments. Currently, the
State DOE-Oversight Division is working with other trustees to assess damages and releases
from the Oak Ridge Reservation. No damages have been recovered to date, and there are
no claims pending.
Property Transfer
TCA 68-212-209 requires disclosure on the property deed or with the recorder of
deeds that the site was or is being used for disposal of hazardous substances. The State
maintains a database of properties known to be contaminated and property sites on record
as such.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
182
-------
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
183
-------
ILLINOIS
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 31 Known and Suspected: 1400
Proposed: 1 Identified as Needing Attention: 147
Deleted: 2 On Inventory or Priority List: No List
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Environmental Protection Act (1970, amended every year from 1983-1993),
established the Hazardous Waste Fund and provides for enforcement, cost recovery, and
punitive damages.
The Responsible Property Transfer Act, Public Act §86-679 (1988), mandates
environmental disclosures by transferors.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Remedial Project Management Section in the Bureau of Land, Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, has 91 FTE staff. Legal support is provided by 3 FTE
attorneys in the IEPA Division of Legal Counsel with additional assistance available from
the Attorney General's Office. Staff and administration funding is 83% supported by
Federal grants, with 7% from the State's general fund and 10% from other sources.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Remedial actions are underway at 82 non-NPL sites; 122 have been completed since
the start of the program, including 17 in fiscal year 1993 (7/1/92-6/30/93). Removals are
underway at 59 non-NPL sites; 350 have been completed since the start of the program,
including 16 in FY93. Of the non-NPL sites, a substantial number of the remedial actions
and removals have been conducted under Illinois' voluntary cleanup program. In December
1992, an Illinois court voided the State's Remedial Action Priority List.
At NPL sites there are 7 remedial actions underway; 6 sites have completed remedial
action. Two removal actions are underway at NPL sites; 12 have been completed. One
remedial action and 1 removal at NPL sites were completed in FY93.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Illinois Hazardous Waste Fund had a balance of $6M at the end of the fiscal
year (6/30/93). It received income of $8.47M during FY93, primarily from the fees
collected for transport and disposal of hazardous wastes, but also from penalties and cost
recoveries. Expenditures were $5.95M; and $10.75M was obligated. Funds were used for
site investigation, studies and design, emergency response, removals, remedial actions,
CERCLA match, O&M, program administration, and other purposes.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Water quality criteria, MCLs and MCLGs, and Illinois groundwater quality standards
are applied to determine cleanup levels. Only cleanup of groundwater contamination is
covered by regulation; the other cleanup standards are applied by policy. Cleanup levels
are based on the protection of groundwater, using promulgated State standards as well as
184
-------
health advisories and/or MCLs. If necessary, cleanup objectives may be based on the
protection of human health from other exposures as well as groundwater. Cleanup
objectives are set by a technical committee and are evaluated by an administrative
management committee, which makes the final recommendation. An ARARs manual has
been published by the state. Risk-based cleanup goals may be proposed by responsible
parties. The State views risks of 10~* as unacceptable and further remediation is required.
Risks between 10"* - 10"6 are evaluated on a site specific basis.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
At NPL sites, NCP rules apply and the required public meeting is conducted as a
formal public hearing with a court reporter and transcript. By policy, community relations
coordinators are assigned to sites; coordinators emphasize direct contact in small groups, or
one-to-one communication.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Liability is strict, joint and several. Civil penalties for violations of the Act are
authorized up to $50K for the first day of violation, and $10K for each subsequent day of
violation. Treble damages are available.
Natural Resource Damages
Programs commenced in 1993. No recoveries to date; 4 pending claims.
Property Transfer
The Illinois Responsible Property Transfer Act mandates environmental disclosures
by transferors.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
Illinois has a SMOA, a CPCA, and SSCAs with the U.S. EPA.
185
-------
INDIANA
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 36 Known and Suspected: 1549
Proposed: 1 Identified as Needing Attention: 82
Deleted: 5 On Inventory or Priority List: 60
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Hazardous Waste Act, Environmental Management Act, Hazardous Waste Land
Disposal Tax Act, Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund Act, Indiana Code §13-7
Chapter 8.7-1, etseq., (1981, as amended 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1991); Ind. Code
§§13-7-12-1 to -3; and Ind. Code §§6-6-6.6-1 - 3, together establish a cleanup fund and
authorize enforcement actions.
The Responsible Property Transfer Law, Ind. Code §13-7-22.5 (1990), provides for full
environmental disclosures for transfers of real property which is listed on CERCLIS, subject
to SARA Title HI, or which contains a regulated underground storage tank.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Project Management Branch in the Office of Environmental Response, Indiana
Department of Environmental Management has 21 FTE staff (34 are authorized). Legal
support is provided by 6 attorneys in the IDEM Office of Legal Counsel; the Attorney
General's Office provides 1 FTE attorney. Staffing and administration are funded 75% from
the State general fund, 5% from cleanup funds, and 20% from Federal grants.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Remedial actions are underway at 8 of the non-NPL State sites. No remedial actions
have been completed since the start of the program. Twenty five removals are underway
at non-NPL sites. Eighteen removals have been completed since the start of the program
including 5 during fiscal year 1993 (7/1/92-6/30/93).
Remedial actions are underway at 15 NPL sites; 2 have been completed since the
start of the program. Three removals are underway at NPL sites; 18 have been completed
since the start of the program. One removal was completed in FY93.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Hazardous Substances Response Trust Fund is funded by taxes, penalties, cost
recovery, punitive damages, interest, and appropriations. Taxes are the most significant
source of funds. The Fund had a balance of $9.8M at 6/30/93, the close of the fiscal year.
Income to the Fund was $2.5M during the fiscal year. Expenditures were $3.1M ($3M of
which was for non-NPL sites) and $8.5M was obligated ($5.8M for non-NPL sites). The
Fund may be used for site investigation, emergency response, removals, studies and design,
remedial actions, O&M, and CERCLA match.
186
-------
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Water quality criteria, MCLs and MCLGs, and EPA guidelines are applied where
appropriate. Indiana interim groundwater standards require the application of MCLs where
an aquifer is or may be a source of public drinking water. The State uses risk assessment
on a site-specific basis, with guidance specifying risk levels between 10"4 - 10"8.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
On State-funded cleanups, State's policy is to follow CERCLA guidance. The
voluntary remediation program requires a public comment period before the Commissioner
can approve a proposed work plan.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Liability is strict, joint and several. Civil penalties are authorized up to $25,000 per
day per violation, and treble damages are available.
Natural Resource Damages
The State's natural resource damages program commenced in 1988 and has recovered
$2.7M. There are 5 claims currently pending, seeking $2.5M. IDEM cooperates with the
Department of Natural Resources to perform pre-assessment screens and damage
investigations.
Property Transfer
Indiana law requires site examination and disclosure by the transferor of releases and
other relevant conditions on sites subject to the Responsible Property Transfer Law,
effective 1/1/90.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
Indiana has a SMOA, a CPCA, and SSCAs with the U.S. EPA.
187
-------
MICHIGAN
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 78 Known and Suspected: 9,785
Proposed: 4 Identified as Needing Attention: 9,785
Deleted: 2 On Inventory or Priority List: 9,785
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Michigan Environmental Response Act (MERA or Act 307), Mich. Comp. Laws
Ann. §§299.601 etseq. (1982, as amended 1984,1990), authorizes the Department of Natural
Resources to clean up contaminated sites. The 1990 amendment provides the State with
enforcement, liability, and cost recovery capabilities and provides for citizen suits and
restrictions on property transfers.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Environmental Response Division in the Department of Natural Resources has
responsibility for cleanup activities. It employs 381 staff. The MERA program has 111 staff
(116 authorized); the Environmental Cleanup Bond Program has 82 staff (85 authorized);
Federal Superfund support has 39 staff (41 authorized); and LUST has 35 staff as
authorized. The remainder are associated with enforcement staff, laboratories, management,
contracting, and administration. The Attorney General's Office provides legal support with
7 FTE attorneys. Funding for staff and administration comes 50% from the State's cleanup
fund, 35% from the State's general fund, and 15% from Federal grants.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
The State has 2,600 remedial actions underway at non-NPL sites. Prior to last year
it had completed 11 remedial actions, with 23 completed last year. Removals are underway
at 104 sites, with 373 completed since the start of the program including 148 last fiscal year.
These figures exclude actions at LUST sites.
Remedial actions are underway at 60 NPL sites; 2 sites have been fully remediated
since the start of the program, 1 during FY93. Twenty removals were completed at NPL
sites last year.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Environmental Protection Bond Fund had a balance of $8.4M at the end of the
fiscal year (6/30/93), with additions of $55.3M, expenditures of S21.3M, and obligations of
$25.6M during the year, all for non-NPL cleanups. The Fund relies primarily on the sale
of bonds, with cost recoveries and penalties providing some funds. The Bond Fund can be
used for site investigation, emergency response, removals, studies and design, remedial
actions, CERCLA match, O&M, natural resource restoration, program administration, and
grants to local governments.
The Act 307 fund had a balance of $9.8M at the end of FY93, with FY93
appropriations of $22.9M, of which $7.9M was spent on non-NPL cleanup activities. In
addition, the DNR obligated $5M for non-NPL cleanups from these funds. Act 307 funds
may be used for site investigations, emergency response, removals, studies and design,
remedial actions, O&M, CERCLA match, and program administration.
188
-------
The State's "superfund" is funded solely by appropriations, which totaled $656K in
FY93, all of which was spent, leaving a balance of $0 at the end of FY93. These funds are
used for site investigations and hazardous waste research at universities.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
The State has promulgated hazardous site remedial standards, and also uses water
quality criteria, MCLs and MCLGs, background levels, risk assessment, and EPA
Guidelines. The promulgated standards are numerical concentrations for identified
contaminants. A risk level of 10"6 was used to develop the standards. The State uses a
three-tiered scheme for cleanup. Type A sites are cleaned up to background, or detection
limits. Type B sites use risk-based cleanup standards (usually the promulgated standards)
consistent with a presumed residential land use. Type C sites use cleanup criteria based
upon site-specific evaluation of risk exposures consistent with restricted uses of the site.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A public hearing is required when the State list is updated. Public hearings also
occur during the remedy selection process; the State models its system on CERCLA.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Liability is strict, joint and several. Civil penalties are authorized up to $1K per day
for failure to comply with a written request of the director to undertake a response activity;
penalties are up to $25K/day for violation of a judicial cleanup order. Treble damages are
available.
Natural Resource Damages
The State has a natural resource damages program, started in 1990. The program
has recovered S3.84M in damages.
Property Transfer
MERA affects property transfers, in that if a transferor does not disclose
contamination, it will lose a defense to liability. Super liens are not provided for in the law,
but the State has requested a court to impose them in individual cases.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a SMOA, a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
189
-------
MINNESOTA
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 42 Known and Suspected: 542
Proposed: 1 Identified as Needing Attention: 184
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List: 184
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Minnesota Environmental Response & Liability Act (MERLA), Minn., Stat.
§§115B.01 - .24 (1983, as amended 1984,1985, 1986, 1987, 1990, 1992 and 1993), establishes
the State Fund and provides for strict, joint and several liability, injunctive relief, civil
penalties, cost recovery, and citizen suits. The 1991 amendment clarifies that lenders are not
liable solely because they are owner or because they have a capacity to influence an
operation. The Hazardous Substance Injury Compensation Fund §§115B.25 - .37, is
available for victim compensation. The 1992 Amendment requires disclosure before transfer,
and a record in the deed.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Ground Water and Solid Waste
Division has three sections dealing with Superfund with a total of 110 FTE staff. The Site
Response Section is primarily responsible and handles hazardous waste sites. The Program
Development Section handles preliminary assessment and listing, and the Solid Waste
Section handles sanitary landfills. Legal support is from attorneys in the Attorney General's
Office who work full-time for the State program. Funding comes from the States' cleanup
fund (60%) and from Federal grants (40%).
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
At non-NPL sites, Minnesota has completed 46 remedial actions since the start of the
program, 20 in fiscal year 1993 (7/1/92-6/30/93), and 137 remedial actions are currently
underway. Minnesota has completed 200 removals, 92 in FY93, and 2 are underway.
At NPL sites 11 remedial actions are currently underway. Remedial actions have
been completed at 14 sites since the start of the program, 10 of these in FY93. Two
removals have been completed since the start of the program.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The MERLA fund balance was S5.25M at the end of fiscal year 1993. An average
of $4.3M/yr is collected through appropriations, cost recovery and penalties/fees, waste end
taxes, and interest. The Fund paid out $7M in FY93, $6.9M of it for non-NPL sites, and
obligated $1.46M in FY93, all for non-NPL sites. The Fund may be used for remedial
actions, site investigation, studies and design, removals, emergency response, program
administration, natural resource restoration, O&M, and CERCLA match. MPCA must
obtain Pollution Control Board approval (Determination of Inadequate Response) before
expending funds. MPCA must seek RP or Federal funding before using State funds. Victim
compensation is available from the Hazardous Substance Injury Compensation Fund.
190
-------
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Cleanup decisions are made on a case-by-case basis using criteria similar to the NCP.
The MPCA seeks a permanent cleanup and uses ARARs. A 10-5 cancer risk factor, or
Hazardous Quotient <0.2 for individual non-carcinogen contaminants or <1.0 for multiple
contaminants are used in the absence of applicable standards. Other criteria applied include
recommended allowable limits (RALs) for drinking water contaminants, State groundwater
cleanup levels, water quality criteria, MCLs/MCLGs, and EPA guidelines. Most restrictive
criteria are applicable at each site.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Entire process is public with notification of RPs and approval of all State actions at
a public meeting of the Pollution Control Agency Board. As a matter of policy, a public
relations officer is assigned to each site and MPCA conducts public meetings after
completion of the RI/FS to explain the proposed plan.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Minnesota has strict and joint and several liability. State can collect up to $20K/day
if a party fails to make sufficient response action. No punitive damages are available.
MERLA requires the State to seek RP cleanups prior to use of MERLA Fund. All cost
recovery and penalties/fines are returned to the MERLA Fund. MERLA requires RPs to
conduct MPCA-requested response actions.
Natural Resource Damages
No program at this time. The State has hired ecologists and is considering its
approach. The MERLA Fund can be used for natural resource damage restoration.
Property Transfer
Minnesota requires disclosure before transfer and a record on the deed.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIP
Minnesota has a SMOA, a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
191
-------
OHIO
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 34 Known and Suspected: 1200
Proposed: 2 Identified as Needing Attention: 771
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List: 100
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Solid and Hazardous Waste Disposal Law, Ohio Rev. Code §3734.01 - .9 (1980,
as amended 1988), contains provisions for two cleanup Funds, enforcement authorities and
citizen suits.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Division of Emergency and Remedial Response in the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (OEPA) administers the cleanup program. The program employs 107
FTE staff and receives its funding from State cleanup funds, Federal grants and solid waste
disposal fees. The Attorney General's Office supplies 3 attorneys.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
At non-NPL sites, Ohio has completed 1 remedial action since the start of the
program and has 16 currently underway. The State has completed 21 removals since the
start of the program, 15 in fiscal year 1993 (7/1/92-6/30/93), and has 20 more underway.
At NPL sites, 15 remedial actions are underway. 5 remedial actions have been
completed since the start of the program, 1 in FY93.17 removals are underway, and 37 have
been completed since the start of the program. 8 NPL removals were completed in FY93.
CLEANUP FUNDING
Ohio has two Funds available for cleanups. The Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund has
a balance of S13.26M (6/93). A total of $10.24M was added in fiscal year 1993.
Approximately 20% of this total was obtained from cost recovery and 80% from
appropriations. The Fund paid out $8.84M during FY93 and obligated an additional $76 IK,
The Fund is used for day-to-day activities. The Fund may also be used to build additional
hazardous waste facilities and to buy sites. The Hazardous Waste Facility Management Fund
has a balance of S21.45M. $10.13M was added in FY93 from fees, appropriations and
penalties. Recovered costs may return to the Fund. This Fund paid out $11.17M and
obligated an additional $952K during 1993. This Fund is used for CERCLA 10% matching
funds, State level-of-effort contracts and non-investigatory emergency response actions.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Ohio uses MCL wherever possible. Otherwise the State uses risk assessments, water
quality criteria, background, and EPA guidelines. Cumulative carcinogenic risk must be
reduced to 10^ to 10"6, where 10"6 is the point of departure. The State also conducts
ecological risk assessments. Cleanup criteria are also based on best available treatment
technology. The State has a "How Clean is Clean" policy which is a cleanup to risk-based
levels or background.
192
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
There is limited statutory authority; general rules in the Ohio Administrative Code
apply. The current policy is to be consistent with NCP, and requires a public comment
period, responsiveness summary, public meetings, and establishment of an information
reporting system.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
The statute is silent on the liability standards; OEPA has argued for strict, joint and
several liability. The statute authorizes judicial search warrants for site access, administrative
orders, injunctive actions, civil penalties, cost recovery, liens, criminal penalties in limited
circumstances, and citizen suits. Civil penalties up to $10K/day are available, but there is
no provision for punitive damages. The State is prohibited from taking action if U.S. EPA
is pursuing a claim. The State must attempt to reach a consent agreement with an
owner/operator before OEPA may do the work. Ohio does not mix State and federal claims.
Ohio prefers to use CERCLA §107 for cost recovery.
Natural Resource Damages
Since 1990, the State has recovered S200K.
Property Transfer
No law.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
Ohio has a SMOA, a CPCA, and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
193
-------
WISCONSIN
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 39 Known and Suspected: 4,000
Proposed: 1 Identified as Needing Attention: 565
Deleted: 1 On Inventory or Priority List: 565
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Environmental Repair Statue, Wis. Stat. § 144.442 (1987) creates the
Environmental Fund (EF), requires a State ranking system and authorizes DNR to take
emergency and remedial actions, recover costs, and obtain RP lead cleanups.
The Abandoned Containers Statute, Wis. Stat. §144.77 (1983), authorizes the DNR to
use money appropriated for the EF to remove and dispose of abandoned containers that
have hazardous substances.
The Hazardous Substance Spill Statue, Wis. Stat. §144.76, (1978) authorizes the DNR
to use money appropriated for the EF to respond to discharges of hazardous substances;
requires development of a contingency plan.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
Within the Department of Natural Resources, the Emergency and Remedial
Response program has 97 full-time staff and deals with Federal Superfund, State response
and State tank programs.
Legal support comes from 3 full-time attorneys in the DNR's Bureau of Legal
Services and on a case-by-case basis from the Attorney General's Office. Funding comes
from Federal grants and the State cleanup fund.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Wisconsin has 120-150 remedial actions underway at non-NPL sites. State has
completed 80-100 remedial actions at non-NPL sites since its start of the program. Twenty
remedial actions were completed during fiscal year 1993 (7/1/92-6/30/93), 90 since the start
of the program. Twelve removals are currently underway at non-NPL sites. Four hundred
removals have been completed since the start of the program, 10 in FY93.
Remedial actions are underway at 39 NPL sites. Twenty removals have been
completed at NPL sites since the start of the program, and 2 are currently in progress.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Environmental Fund (EF) had a balance of $3.53M at the end of FY93. The
EF added $4.11M during FY93 from appropriations, fees, cost, recoveries, interest, penalties,
private funds and taxes. EF may be used for emergency response, site investigation,
removals, O&M, CERCLA match, studies and designs, remedial action, natural resource
restoration program administration, and to a limited extent, for grants to local governments.
Remedial action may be subject to prior administrative hearing and judicial review. EF paid
out $3.13M in FY93. Additionally, S3.21M was obligated in FY93, $189K of which was for
O&M match for NPL sites.
194
-------
There is also $20.5M in bonding available which may be used for CERCLA match
and for cleanup actions taken under the authority of the Environmental Repair Statute,
which from a practical application point of view is only for landfill-type cleanups. In FY93,
$1.95M was paid out from the bonding authority.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Wisconsin uses water quality criteria, MCLs/MCLGs and background levels.
State promulgated groundwater standards are in place. Draft promulgated soil
standards are being considered and should be in effect in approximately 6 months. The State
response process for identifying, investigating, building remedies and closing out cases
should be effective by March, 1994.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
State list is subject to public notice, a 30-day comment period and hearing
requirements. Remedial actions are subject to public notice, and a public hearing if
requested within 30 days. There have been no formal challenges by the public to State-
funded RAs. All files are open to the public with limited confidentiality and enforcement
exceptions.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Wisconsin has strict, joint and several liability under the Abandoned Container and
Spill Laws but under the Environmental Repair Statute the standard is explicitly not strict
(it is joint and several). The burden of proof is on the State. Civil penalties of up to
$5,000/day are available, but there are no punitive damages.
Natural Resource Damages
No formal program. State addresses natural resource damages are handled on an
ad hoc basis.
Property Transfer
No program, but there is currently a legislative proposal action pending.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
Wisconsin has a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
195
-------
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
196
-------
ARKANSAS
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 10 Known and Suspected: 351
Proposed: 0 Identified as Needing Attention: 101
Deleted: 1 On Inventory or Priority List: 7
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Remedial Action Trust Fund Act (RATFA), Ark. Code Ann. §§8-7-501 et seq.
(1985, as amended 1987), establishes the Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Trust
(HSRAT) Fund, which replaced the Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund (enacted
in 1983). RATFA also establishes a state priority list of hazardous waste sites.
The Emergency Response Fund Act (ERFA), Ark. Code Ann. §§8-7-401 et seq. (1985),
establishes the Emergency Response Fund (ERF). Both RATFA and ERFA provide for
proportional liability, civil and criminal penalties, treble damages, cost recovery, and
superlien authority.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Superfund Branch of the Hazardous Waste Division is located in the Department
of Pollution Control and Ecology. The Branch is staffed by two employees, with legal
support available upon request from Department attorneys. The program receives funding
from the State's HSRAT fund and from Federal grants.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Arkansas has 2 remedial actions now underway at NPL sites, and 1 removal underway
at an NPL site.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The HSRAT Fund, with a balance of $6.1M as of 6/30/93, is derived primarily from
annual fees (approximately $600K/year) on hazardous waste generators within Arkansas or
those accepting waste generated outside the State for transport/storage/disposal. The
HSRAT Fund also receives significant revenues from penalties, and smaller amounts of
funding through appropriations, cost recoveries, interest and the Emergency Response Fund.
During FY93 $1.57M was added to the HSRAT Fund, and $1.34M was paid out, all for NPL
sites; no further obligations have been made. The HSRAT Fund can be used for site
investigations, studies and design, emergency responses, removals, and remedial actions at
State-listed sites, and for CERCLA match, but it cannot duplicate CERCLA. Funded sites
must be on the State Priority List. Ten percent of the HSRAT revenues are deposited into
the Environmental Education Fund. It can also be used for program administration.
The ERF had a balance of $139K as of 6/30/93, with additions of $129K during
FY93. The ERF can be used only for emergency responses, removals, and site
investigations. It is funded by civil penalties and is capped at $150K; funds accruing above
this level are deposited in the HSRAT Fund. From the ERF, $121K was paid for non-NPL
sites and $1.5K has been obligated for non-NPL sites during FY93.
197
-------
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Waste cleanup standards in DPC&E Regulation No. 23, plus State air and water
quality regulations, MCLs/MCGLs, risk assessments, EPA guidelines and background levels
are all used by Arkansas as standards for hazardous waste cleanups.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A public hearing is held prior to decisions to add or delete sites from the State
priority list. Transcripts of public hearings and comments received on sites become part of
administrative records. Public meetings and/or fact sheets are provided prior to major
milestones on cleanup projects.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Both RAFTA and ERFA provide for strict, joint and several liability unless
proportional liability is proved by a preponderance of the evidence. RATFA provides State
authority to issue administrative orders for information, site access, and remediation.
Although injunctive action is not expressly provided for, Arkansas may proceed under its
RCRA-type law. RATFA authorizes civil penalties of up to $25K/day and criminal penalties
for violating the Act, making false statements, or violating an order. RATFA also provides
for treble punitive damages, cost recovery, and superliens. ERFA also provides for
administrative orders, treble damages, civil and criminal penalties, cost recovery and
superliens. Action by the legislature in the 1990 legislative session impedes use of the
superlien provisions which, however, were not repealed.
Natural Resource Damages
Arkansas' NRD program was just started in November, 1993, by the signing of a
memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Dept. of Interior. No amount has yet been
determined for the value of the State's 1 pending claim.
Property Transfer
No provision.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
Arkansas has a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA in place for FY93.
198
-------
LOUISIANA
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 12 Known and Suspected: 1014
Proposed: 0 Identified as Needing Attention: 184
Deleted: 0 On Inventory: 1287
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Hazardous Waste Control Law (La. Rev. Stat. Am. Title 30, §§2171-2206), the
Inactive and Abandoned Hazardous Waste Site Law (La. Rev. State §§2221-2226), and
Chapter 12 entitled Liability for Hazardous Substance Remedial Action (La. Rev. Stat. Am.
§§2271-2280), together establish several funds and provide strict, joint and several liability,
information-gathering, administrative order authority, injunctive relief, cost recovery, liens,
citizen suits, restrictions on property transfers, and treble damages. Site access, restrictions
on property transfers, and civil and criminal penalties are provided by the Environmental
Quality Law's general enforcement provisions, La. Rev. Stat. Title 30.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Inactive and Abandoned Sites Division in the Department of Environmental
Quality's (DEQ's) Office of Legal Affairs and Enforcement is the lead agency. The Division
has 43 of its 45 authorized positions currently filled. One DEQ lawyer provides enforcement
support. About 50% of the Division's $2.9M budget is federally funded. The remaining 50%
comes from the State's general fund.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
At NPL sites, Louisiana has 11 remedial actions (RAs) underway, and 1 RA
completed during the last fiscal year. It has no removals underway at NPL sites, but 1 was
completed during the last fiscal year (7/1/92-6/30/93), and 7 have been completed since
the program started. At non-NPL sites, it has 75 RAs underway, 20 completed in the last
fiscal year, and 27 completed since the start of the program. Nine removals are underway
at non-NPL sites. Twenty-two removals have been completed at non-NPL sites since the
start of the program, 8 of those during the last fiscal year.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The primary cleanup fund is the Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Fund (HWSCF). The
HWSCFs balance was $3M as of 10/93. A portion of the taxes on hazardous waste
generation, as well as sums recovered through judgments and settlements, are the sources
of the HWSCF. Appropriations from general outlay are made only for specific capital
expenditures for cleanups. The HWSCF can be used for emergency responses, removals and
remedial actions, studies and design, and O&M. DEQ must demand payment from PRPs
once the work is done. During FY93, $943K was added to the HWSCF, and all of that was
expended for non-NPL sites during FY93. An additional $1.9M has been obligated for non-
NPL sites. For CERCLA match, Louisiana uses capital outlay.
199
-------
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
DEQ is required to select remedies, based on cost effectiveness, that reduce exposure
or potential exposure so as not to pose any significant threat to public health or the
environment. On a site-specific basis, DEQ selects cleanup levels using water quality criteria,
MCLs/MCLGs, background levels, risk assessments and EPA procedures and guidance and
aims for permanent remedies. Risk levels range from 10"4 to 10"6.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
La. Rev. Stat. §2280 requires an opportunity for a public meeting and, if requested,
a public comment period prior to approval of an RI plan and selection of a remedy. A
public comment period is required for closure plans when DEQ proposes to treat, store, or
dispose of hazardous wastes at abandoned sites. At complex sites, DEQ institutes community
relations programs that include regular public meetings and fact sheets. Prior to concluding
settlement agreements, DEQ makes them available to the public and holds public meetings.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
The State has administrative order and injunctive authority, costs recovery, liens,
treble damages, and has strict, joint and several liability. Parties may prove proportionality,
however. Civil penalties of $25K/day can be recovered for each day that a PRP does not
provide requested information. Double damages can be recovered by participating PRPs
from non-participants, and the state can recover treble damages from non-participants if the
State cleans up. Louisiana will negotiate a settlement with PRPs or issue a remedial demand
order wherever possible.
Natural Resource Damages
Louisiana does not have a natural resource damages program.
Property Transfer
Louisiana can impose a superlien and has a statutory requirement that sites be
recorded on deeds. Disclosure of sites and examinations of sites prior to transfer are not
formally required but are implied by court precedent. The state maintains a database of
sites.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a SMOA, CPCAs and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
200
-------
NEW MEXICO
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 10 Known and Suspected: 600
Proposed: 2 Identified as Needing Attention: 220
Deleted: 1 On Inventory or Priority List: 410
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Hazardous Waste Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. 74-4-1 to 74-4-13 (1988, as amended 1989
and 1991) establishes the Hazardous Waste Emergency Fund for emergency response and
removals, the State CERCLA match, and certain enforcement authorities.
The Water Quality Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. 74-6-1 et seq. (1993) provides additional
enforcement authorities.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
Within the Environment Department (NMED), the Superfund Section of the
Groundwater Protection and Remediation Bureau has 30 staff. The NMED General
Counsel's office provides legal support with ten attorneys. Approximately 1.5 FTE of legal
staff work on hazardous waste cases. The New Mexico program is funded by general
appropriations and federal grants.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
At NPL sites, New Mexico has 6 remedial actions (RAs) underway, 1 completed in
the last fiscal year (6/30/93) and 1 completed since the start of the program. At non-NPL
sites, New Mexico has 13 RAs underway, 20 completed during the last fiscal year, and 50
completed since the start of the program. For removals at non-NPL sites, New Mexico has
16 underway, 10 completed during the last fiscal year, and 45 completed since the program
started.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Hazardous Waste Emergency Fund (Emergency Fund) is funded by
appropriations and cost recoveries. The Emergency Fund had a balance of $15K as of
11/1/93, with additions of $21K during the past fiscal year. Approximately $20K was spent
on non-NPL sites during the past fiscal year. The Emergency Fund can be used for
emergency responses and the state's CERCLA match.
The State Groundwater Remediation Fund (SRF) is funded entirely by
appropriations. The SRF had a balance of $55K as of 6/30/93, with additions of $210K
during the past fiscal year, and $154K was paid out of the SRF during the past fiscal year.
The SRF can be used only for program administration.
The Potential Responsible Party Program (PRPP) Fund receives mostly private funds
for oversight of voluntary cleanups, plus some penalties. It had a balance of $33K as of
June 30, 1993, with additions of $55K and expenditures of $22K during the past fiscal year.
The PRPP Fund can be used only for State oversight of private investigations and
remediations at sites for which PRPs have paid into the Fund, and expenditures cannot
exceed what has been paid for each site.
201
-------
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
The State uses background levels, EPA guidelines, risk assessments, State surface
water and groundwater standards, water quality criteria, MCLs, and soil remediation
guidelines to establish cleanup levels. The State uses an additional lifetime cancer risk level
of 10~6 in its risk assessments.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The State follows CERCLA/NCP procedures at NPL sites. At non-NPL sites, it
follows the regulations of the Water Quality Control Commission.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Enforcement authorities include orders for site access and information, administrative
and consent order authority, injunctive actions, civil penalties and cost recovery authority.
No punitive damages are available. Statutory standard is "persons responsible for hazardous
waste cleanup," interpreted as joint and several liability. The preferred enforcement method
is sending a notice of violations with a time period for compliance and a proposed penalty
or seeking an injunction.
Natural Resource Damages
New Mexico's NRD program began in July 1993 and has 1 claim currently pending.
It has 4 staff and funding for 3 years. More claims are expected to be filed within the next
six months.
Property Transfer
New Mexico has no law governing transfers of hazardous waste sites, but it does
maintain a database of priority sites which may be available to the public beginning in
January 1994.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
For FY93, New Mexico had a SMOA, a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
202
-------
OKLAHOMA
SITES
NFL Sites State Sites
Final: 10 Known and Suspected:
Proposed: 1 Identified as Needing Attention:
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List:
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Environmental Quality Act, Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 27A, §2-1-101 through §2-11-503
(1993), establishes the Environmental Trust Revolving Fund (§2-3-403).
The Hazardous Waste Disposal Act, Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 63, §1-20-2001 through §1-20-
2014, establishes a RCRA-type program.
The Hazardous Waste Fund Act, Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 63, §1-20-2015 et seq., provides
funding for the RCRA program and authorizes use of RCRA fund for hazardous waste
emergencies.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Department of Health's Solid Waste Management Service has 10 full-time
employees. Legal support is provided by 1 Department of Health attorney. Sources of
funding for program administration are the State general fund (15%), State cleanup funds
(5%), and Federal grants (80%).
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Remedial actions are currently underway at 8 NPL and 6 non-NPL sites. Two
remedial actions have been completed at NPL sites since the start of the cleanup program;
no remedial actions have been completed at non-NPL sites. No removals are currently
underway at NPL or non-NPL sites. Thirty-three removals have been completed at non-
NPL sites since the start of the cleanup program, 8 during the last fiscal year (7/1/92-
6/30/93).
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Hazardous Waste Fund, with a balance of $260K as of 6/30/93, is available for
removals, emergency response, and CERCLA match. Its sources are appropriations and
fees. Additions to the fund during FY93 totaled $200K. During FY93, $28K from the Fund
were spent on cleanup activities.
The Environmental Trust Revolving Fund was established 7/1/93. No figure for its
balance is yet available. Its primary source is a tax on motor and diesel fuels and blending
materials, and it is authorized for use for CERCLA match. There have been no
expenditures or obligations from the fund.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Cleanup levels are determined on a site-by-site basis based on risk calculations and
State modeling. Oklahoma has issed guidance for water quality criteria and risk
assessments, with a risk level of 10"6, which are contaminant-specific.
203
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Oklahoma has no formal requirements or informal provisions for public participation.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Oklahoma does not have specified liability standards because it has no
recovery/reimbursement procedures. Orders for site access are provided under general
authorities granted to the Department of Health. The State has the authority to issue
subpoenas, administrative orders and consent decrees under a general procedures law. The
Hazardous Waste Disposal Act authorizes injunctive action and both civil and criminal
penalties for RCRA-type hazardous waste violations.
Natural Resource Damages
Oklahoma's natural resource damages program is under development.
Property Transfer
Oklahoma has no property transfer provisions.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
204
-------
TEXAS
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 27 Known and Suspected: 1200
Proposed: 3 Identified as Needing Attention: 83
Deleted: 1 On Inventory or Priority List: 38
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Control Act, Tex. Water Code §26.261
(as amended 1991), establishes the Spill Response Fund.
The Solid Waste Disposal Act, Tex. Health and Safety Code Ann. Art. §4477-7 (as
amended 1991 and 1993), establishes the Hazardous Waste Disposal Fee Fund (Fund 550)
and a priority list. A 1991 amendment changed the fee structure, placing fees on products
containing hazardous materials. A 1993 amendment added a treble damages provision.
Texas relies on other statutes for certain authorities. The Texas Water Code §26.121
and §21.266 and Texas Administrative Code §335.4 and §335.8 provide general authority for
voluntary cleanups. The Texas Health and Safety Code §361.184, §361.187, and §361.189
includes public participation provisions. The Texas Property Code, Ch. 5 includes property
transfer provisions.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Pollution Cleanup Division of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission (TNRCC) has 102 full-time employees. Legal support is provided by 1 attorney
in the TNRCC Legal Services Division. Funding for program administration is from State
cleanup funds and from Federal grants.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
The State has screened approximately 800 sites for eligibility. Of those 800, 38 State
sites have been ranked, and 45 are candidates for ranking. Approximately 1200 sites are
awaiting screening.
Remedial actions are currently underway at 14 NPL sites. Seven remedial actions
have been completed at NPL sites since the start of the cleanup program, 2 of these during
FY93 (7/1/92-6/30/93). Although no remedial actions are currently underway at non-NPL
sites, and there is no history of remedial actions at non-NPL sites, Texas is currently
performing RI/FSs at a significant number of sites.
No removals are underway at State-lead NPL sites; there is no history of removals
at State-lead NPL sites. Eight removals are currently underway at State sites. A total of
118 removals have been completed at non-NPL sites since start of program, 70 of these
during FY93.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Remediation Fee Fund (Fund 550) had a balance
of $30.1M as of 8/31/93. Additions to the fund during FY94 (including funds from federal
cooperative agreements) are projected to total $112.29M. The fund is available for site
investigation, studies and design, removals, remedial actions, CERCLA match, operations
and maintenance, and program administration. Its major source of funding is fees on
hazardous waste disposal and on products including batteries and motor oil. Minor (< 20%)
205
-------
sources of funding include cost recoveries, interest, and penalties. The State projects FY94
expenditures of $132.03M from Fund 550, $84.18M for NPL sites and S47.85M for non-NPL
sites. It has made obligations of $130.11M from Fund 550, $84.18M for NPL sites and
S45.93M for non-NPL sites. Expenditure and obligation figures for FY93 are not available.
The Spill Response Fund had a balance of $292K as of 8/31/93. There were no
additions to the fund during FY93. It is available for removals and emergency response.
Its major source is appropriations; penalties are a minor (< 20%) source. There were no
expenditures or obligations from the fund during FY93.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Under Risk Reduction Standard 2 (TWC Rules, Ch. 335), TNRCC has promulgated
preliminary remediation goals for over 150 chemical constituents which are to serve as
starting points to determine cleanup levels and may require modification where exposure
pathways that were not evaluated during development of the goals are of concern. Goals
are determined through use of conservative, default exposure assumptions and standardized
equations. Values are determined for each chemical by setting cumulative risk for ingestion,
inhalation of volatiles, and inhalation of particulates at 10'6. Soil values to protect
groundwater are set at 100 times groundwater cleanup levels. Risk Reduction Standard 3
cleanup levels for air, surface and groundwater, and soil are determined through a site-
specific process, use 10"6 as a goal, and require concentration to be consistent with risk
between 10"6 and 10"4. The State may also apply water quality criteria, MCLs, background
levels, and EPA guidelines.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Texas Health and Safety Code requires public notice and comment on site listing and
remedy selection. TNRCC also meets informally with community as interest warrants.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Comprehensive order and injunctive authority, civil penalties of up to $25K/day, cost
recovery, liens, de minimis settlement, mixed funding, and treble damages are available.
The State uses strict, joint and several, and proportional liability standards. Proportional
standard used only when the preponderance of evidence proves divisibility of liability.
Natural Resource Damages
The Texas Natural Resource Damages program was begun 4/90 and is funded by
Fund 550. A total of $249K have been recovered to date. Twenty-six claims are pending;
they total $50M.
Property Transfer
The Texas Property Code requires that sellers of up to 4 units of residential property
disclose certain information to purchasers, including the presence on the site of radon, lead-
based paint, or seismic faults, the location of the site in a 100-year floodplain, or the
existence at the site of any condition which could materially affect the physical health or
safety of an individual.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a SMOA, a CPCA, and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
206
-------
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
207
-------
IOWA
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 19 Known and Suspected: 900
Proposed: 5 Identified as Needing Attention: 200
Deleted: 2 On Inventory or Priority List: 67
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Environmental Quality Act, Iowa Code Ch. 455B (1972, as amended 1979, 1981,
1984, 1987, and 1991), establishes the Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund, provides cleanup
and enforcement authorities for abandoned sites, establishes a priority list, allows for citizen
suits and victim compensation, and restricts property transfers. Significant amendments
concerning cleanup authority for abandoned and uncontrolled sites enacted in 1979, 1981,
and 1987. A 1984 amendment establishes Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund.
The Groundwater Protection Act, Iowa Code Ch. 455E (1987), establishes procedures
and criteria for cleanup.
The Groundwater Hazard Documentation Law, Iowa Code Ch. 558.69 (1987, as
amended 1988), establishes disclosure requirements for real property transfers.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
A subdivision of the DNR's Solid Waste Section is connected with the State super-
fund program. It is responsible for enforcement/remedial activities and the Registry of
Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites. Staff consists of 9.75 FTEs. Legal
support is provided by DNR attorneys for administrative actions; the AG's office institutes
all legal proceedings. Seventy five percent of funds for staff and administration are from
Federal grants, 5% are from a cleanup fund, and 20% are from a solid waste account.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
The State could not provide data on cleanup activities. Remediation is currently
underway at 9 NPL sites.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Hazardous Waste Remedial (HWR) Fund has a balance of $1M (fiscal year 93,
ending 6/30/93) with $154K/year collected through fees on the transport, treatment, and
disposal of hazardous waste, and cost recoveries. Approximately $255K were added to the
fund this year. Approximately $124K were paid out; $24K were spent on NPL activities and
$100K were spent on non-NPL activities. No monies were obligated or encumbered.
The HWR Fund can be used for administration, site investigation, emergency
response, removals, remedial actions, O&M, CERCLA match, and development of
alternatives to land disposal. Seventy-five percent of the Fund must be used for remediation
at non-CERCLA sites and for CERCLA cost share.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Cleanup decisions are made on a site-by-site basis pursuant to State regulations,
which provide cleanup goals for groundwater, soils, and surface water. State hazardous waste
narrative standards are Groundwater Action Levels based on lifetime health advisories,
negligible risk levels, and MCLs. Risk assessment is used to determine applicable cleanup
levels if groundwater contamination exceeds Action Levels.
208
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The State must provide technical advice and assistance to political subdivisions and
to other persons upon request.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Liability is strict and the EQA preserves any legal or equitable rights, remedies or
defenses. The State maintains that this preserves common law rules of joint and several
liability. The State must try to negotiate a settlement with RPs prior to using Fund monies
for cleanup. The State can issue orders and seek injunctions against RPs to clean up sites.
The State can collect up to $lK/day for failure to notify, up to $10,000 for water or air
violations, and treble damages for willful failure to clean up. Penalties are available for
violations of air and water pollution laws.
Natural Resource Damages
EQA provides that a person having control over a hazardous substance is strictly
liable for reasonable damages to natural resources, including costs of assessment. No NRD
program exists within the agency.
Property Transfer
Law requires that a property owner must disclose on the deed or with the recorder
of deeds that the site was or is being used for the disposal of hazardous substances, and a
seller must disclose the presence of hazardous substances on a site before property transfer.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has SSCAs and a CPCA with the U.S. EPA.
209
-------
KANSAS
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 13 Known and Suspected: ±450
Proposed: 2 Identified as Needing Attention: 200
Deleted: 3 On Inventory or Priority List: 396
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Environmental Response Act (ERA), K.S. Ann. §65-3452 et seq. (1988), amends
Kansas' hazardous waste law, enacted in 1981 and amended 1984 and 1985. The Act
establishes the Environmental Response Fund (ERF) and provides enforcement authorities
for cleaning up hazardous substances as well as hazardous wastes.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Bureau of Environmental
Remediation (BER) is responsible for Federal and State superfund cleanups, LUST,
emergency response, above ground storage tanks, mine land reclamation, and landfill
remediation. Fifteen of its 92 employees are assigned to superfund duties. In addition, 2.5
Department lawyers work on superfund. Administrative costs are covered by appropriations
from the State's general fund as well as a cleanup fund and Federal grants.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Currently, remediation actions are underway at 193 non-NPL sites and removals are
underway at 6 non-NPL sites. Two hundred-twenty non-NPL sites have been fully
remediated since the start of the program, 15 have been completed during the last fiscal
year. Of 5 removals completed since the start of the State program, 1 was completed this
fiscal year. No information on NPL sites was provided by the State.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Water Plan Special Revenue-Contamination Remediation account is the primary
cleanup account. The fund balance at the end of the fiscal year (6/30/93) was $1.4M. This
fiscal year (6/30/93) $3.1M were added to the fund. Total monies obligated or encumbered
were $489K for NPL activities and $904K for non-NPL activities. The State Water Plan
Special Revenue Fund receives all of its funding from water use fees. The account is used
for studies and design, removals, emergency response, site investigation, remedial actions,
CERCLA match, program administration, and O&M.
The Environmental Response Fund is currently being financed with cost recovery
collection from potential responsible parties, penalties, and transfers from the State Water
Plan fund. FY93 ending balance of the fund was $486K. A total of $160K were paid out for
non-NPL sites, and a total of $42K were obligated or encumbered for non-NPL sites. The
fund can be used for site investigation, studies and design, remedial actions, and program
administration, however the fund is primarily used for oversight of responsible party
cleanups.
210
-------
The Hazardous Waste Perpetual Care Trust Fund receives annual additions of $10K.
It is designed primarily for activities at RCRA facilities, which pay fees to support it.
However, up to 20% of the Fund may be used for emergencies at facilities closed prior to
1981. Current balance of the fund was not provided by the State.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
BER uses groundwater cleanup target concentrations which the Bureau of Water has
established. Groundwater regulations are under development. The State uses relevant State
guidance (Kansas Action Levels), MCLs/MCLGs, and background levels.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The State generally follows the National Contingency Plan public participation
procedures, which require public meetings when contamination migrates beyond property
boundaries. Meetings for on-site contamination are optional. The State is developing a
contingency plan which will include guidelines on community participation.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
The ERA authorizes strict liability and issuance of orders and injunctions against RPs
to effect site cleanups. Civil penalties for violation of an ERA order are not available,
however. Penalties are available under hazardous waste, nuisance, or water laws, and the
State can use these authorities for enforcement (including cleanup of groundwater and soil).
These penalties include $10K to $25K for hazardous waste, $10K for water pollution, and
$5K for solid waste violations.
Natural Resource Damages
The Natural Resources Damage and Fishkill program began in the mid 1970s under
the Water Pollution Act. At least one natural resource damages claim is currently pending.
Property Transfer
No property transfer provisions have been established.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has SSCAs and CPCAs with the U.S. EPA.
211
-------
MISSOURI
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 23 Known and Suspected: 1253
Proposed: 0 Identified as Needing Attention: 163
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List: 51
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Law, Mo. Rev. Stat. §§260.350 - 260.552
(1977, as amended in 1980, 1983, 1985, 1987, and 1988) authorizes the Hazardous Waste
Remedial Fund and provides for a priority list, strict liability, site access, administrative
order authority, civil and criminal penalties, and punitive damages. Legislation passed in
1993 (S.B. 80) provided authority for establishing a Voluntary Cleanup Program. Regulations
are being developed; appropriations for staffing and administration to implement the
program were not included in the Bill.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Environmental Quality,
Hazardous Waste Program has 5 sections: Superfund, Permitting, Budget and Planning,
Federal Facilities, and an Enforcement Section that handles only RCRA sites. The State's
Superfund Section has 21 technical and administrative staff. The Federal Facilities section
has 13 FTEs. About 10 lab technicians located in the Environmental Services Program
handle much of the field work. Other support agencies include the Division of Geology and
Land Survey and the Missouri Department of Health. The Attorney General's office handles
all litigation with 5 attorneys. Funding for staff and administration come from a cleanup
fund and Federal grants.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
To date DNR has completed approximately 319 PAs and 170 Sis. Currently, 44
non-NPL sites are undergoing remediation and/or removal, 43 are RP cleanups with State
oversight, and 1 is a State-funded cleanup. A total of 45 remedial actions and/or removals
at non-NPL sites have been completed since the start of the program, 2 were completed in
the last fiscal year (ending 6/30/93). Six of 23 remedial actions underway at NPL sites are
State lead, and the State plans to take the lead on new sites added to the NPL.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund has a balance of $5.8M (fiscal year 93, ending
6/30/93) primarily provided by taxes on hazardous waste generators based on tonnage and
the method of handling waste. There is a $1.5M/year cap on this tax. Fees on landfilled
waste also contribute, though the amount is now about $400K/year. Cost recovery,
penalties/fines, interest, donations, and appropriations are all potential contributors.
Approximately $2.5M were added to the fund during the fiscal year, $2.0M were paid out,
and $500K were obligated or encumbered. The Fund may be used for site investigation,
emergency response, removals, studies and design, remedial actions, CERCLA match, and
program administration.
212
-------
The Fund may be used for program administration, emergency actions, removals,
studies and design, and remedial actions. It may also be used for the non-Federal share of
O&M costs and to meet the State's CERCLA match. The Fund can be used for health
studies, acquisition of property, and to study the development of a hazardous waste facility
in the State.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
The Department sets cleanup levels on a site-by-site basis. State water quality criteria,
MCLs/MCLGs, risk standard assessment, and EPA guidelines may be used to set criteria.
The State Health Department provides site-specific "any-use soil level" recommendations,
which are utilized in conjunction with RCRA. Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) criteria are used for soils.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Law provides for appeals through the
Hazardous Waste Management Commission, which may convene a public hearing if a
resolution of appeals cannot be negotiated. Public meetings, availability sessions, fact sheets,
and news releases are commonly used to provide information to the public, and to solicit
input from the public for decision making.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Strict liability standards and treble damages are available to the State. The State
seeks RP cleanup first. If RPs are recalcitrant or insolvent, and if the site is small, the State
will fund removal-type actions. If the cleanup is costly, the State will try to use EPA
authority and funds. The State has had substantial success in convincing PRPs to conduct
cleanups. Violations of property transfer or change of use laws may be subject to a penalty
of $lK/day.
Natural Resource Damages
Missouri does not have a natural resource damages program. Natural resource
damages can be pursued under water pollution and other laws. Claims include opportunity
costs. While settlements have established that damages have occurred, the cost has not been
specifically noted in the settlements.
Property Transfer
Property transfer provisions exist under Missouri's Hazardous Waste Management
Law (Section 260.465 RSM.) The law requires disclosure on the deed that a site has been
used for the disposal of hazardous substances. Sellers must disclose the presence of
hazardous substances on the site before transfer, and changes of property use must be
approved by the State. The State must maintain a database of sites.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a SMOA, a CPCA, and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
213
-------
NEBRASKA
SITES
NFL Sites State Sites
Final: 7 Known and Suspected: 370
Proposed: 3 Identification as Needing Attention: 120
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List: No List
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Environmental Protection Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. §81-1501 through §81-1533) does
not cover Superfund sites specifically. However, Nebraska uses NCRR Vol. 8 Tit. 118 of
its regulations, promulgated under §81-1505, to prohibit pollution of groundwater and set
standards for cleanups.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Superfund Section of the Integrated Waste Management Division of the
Department of Environmental Quality has 10 FTE staff. Legal support is provided by 1
DEQ attorney. Administrative support costs are covered by Core grants and EPA funding
(90%), and also from general state funds (10%).
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
One removal and 3 remedial actions are underway at NPL sites.
CLEANUP FUNDING
No Superfund.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Cleanup standards are assessed on a site-by-site basis. Tit. 118 sets standards for
groundwater cleanup, which are applied where appropriate, and water quality criteria, which
are also applied where appropriate.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Tit. 118 requires RPs to submit Remedial Action proposal based on "detailed site
assessment." Public notice of the proposal is given by newspaper and radio, with copies
available in public libraries. A 30-day comment period and any requested hearings run prior
to final review.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Tit. 118 authorizes Nebraska to issue administrative order and injunctions against
RPs generating groundwater pollution. The State may also seek judicial civil penalties.
Citizen suits may be pursued against solid waste disposal violations in cities of 1st (largest)
Class. Strict liability applies for groundwater pollution only. There are no civil or punitive
damages.
214
-------
Natural Resource Damages
No program.
Property Transfer
No program.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
Nebraska has a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
215
-------
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
216
-------
COLORADO
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 16 Known and Suspected: 420 (CERCLIS)
Proposed: 3 Identified as Needing Attention:
Deleted: 1 On Inventory or Priority List:
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Hazardous Waste Sites Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§25-16-101 etseq. (1985, as amended
1988 and 1990), establishes the Hazardous Substance Response Fund and the Natural
Resource Damages Fund. Enforcement by Colorado is based on authorities in its other
environmental statutes, such as the Water Quality Control Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§25-8-101
et seq., and the Hazardous Waste Management Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§25-15-101 et seq.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
Within the Office of Environment of the Department of Health, the Hazardous
Materials and Waste Management Division contains 17.5 full-time staff working on
Superfund. Fourteen staff in the Attorney General's office provide legal support. Funding
for program administration comes from Federal grants (60%), from PRP response cost
reimbursement (30%), and from the State cleanup fund (10%).
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Remediation is currently underway at 17 NPL sites. (This figure includes remedial
action at proposed NPL sites). Two NPL sites have been fully remediated since the start
of the cleanup program. There is no history of action at non-NPL sites (natural resource
damages cases excluded).
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Hazardous Substances Response Fund, with a balance of $11.6M as of the end
of the fiscal year (6/30/93), is available for CERCLA match, operations and maintenance,
and program administration. Significant (>20%) sources of the fund include cost recoveries
and fees; a minor source is interest. Additions to the fund during FY93 totaled $3.16M.
Obligations from the fund during FY93 totaled $7.7M; expenditures totaled $2.5M.
The Natural Resource Damages Fund had a balance of $1.6M as of 6/30/93. Its
sources are natural resource damages settlements and interest, and it may be used for
natural resource restoration in accordance with CERCLA. Additions to the fund during
FY93 totaled $1M. There have been no expenditures from the fund.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Cleanup levels are determined using water quality criteria, MCLs, background levels,
risk assessment, and State ARARs, including hazardous waste remedial standards
promulgated as part of its RCRA-type program. The State uses a risk level of 10"4 to 10"6.
217
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Colorado has no formal public participation requirements. The Colorado Attorney
General follows NCP guidelines in natural resource damages cases. The State currently
makes increasing use of technical and non-technical advisory groups for input on decisions
and future land use.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
The State cleanup fund statute contains no enforcement authorities. Colorado may
use other statutes (e.g., Water Quality Control Act, Hazardous Waste Management Act) for
cleanup of some sites. State has used its hazardous waste law at Rocky Flats and Rocky
Mountain Arsenal.
Natural Resource Damages
The State's natural resource damages program was begun in 1987 and has recovered
approximately $5M to date. The State Attorney General has filed 7 NRD lawsuits, of which
5 have been settled, with remedial action underway. Two others are being addressed under
Federal Superfund. The amount of pending claims is not specified. The State collects
damages in settlements and segregates them for authorization by natural resource trustees
as remediation is completed.
Property Transfer
The State has no property transfer provisions.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a SMOA, a CPCA, and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
218
-------
MONTANA
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 8 Known and Suspected: 265
Proposed: 0 Identified as Needing Attention: 265
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List: 265
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Comprehensive Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act (CECRA), Mont.
Code Ann. §§75-10-701 through -724, (1989, as amended 1991 and 1993), provides
enforcement authority, establishes the Environmental Quality Protection Fund, and provides
a priority list.
State Participation in CERCLA, Mont. Code Ann. §§75-10-601 through -626 (1983,
as amended 1987 and 1993), establishes the Hazardous Waste/CERCLA Special Revenue
Account and gives the state bonding authority.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Superfund Section of the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
(MDHES) Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau has 25 full-time employees. Legal support
is provided by 3 assistant Attorneys General assigned to the agency. Funding for program
administration is provided by the State cleanup fund and by Federal grants.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
RI/FS activities are currently underway at 4 NPL and 25 non-NPL sites. RI/FS
activities have been completed at 3 NPL and 13 non-NPL sites. No NPL sites have been
fully remediated; however, 5 RODs involving operable units at 4 NPL sites have been fully
implemented. Fifteen non-NPL sites have been fully remediated since the start of the
cleanup program; 4 remediation actions have been completed at non-NPL sites during the
last fiscal year (7/1/92-6/30/93). Removals are currently underway at 3 NPL and 5 non-
NPL sites. Fifteen removals have been completed at NPL sites since the start of the
cleanup program; 42 removals have been completed at non-NPL sites.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Environmental Quality Protection Fund (EQPF), with a balance of $1.5M as of
the end of the last fiscal year (6/30/93), is available for site investigation, studies and
design, removals, emergency response, remedial actions, operations and maintenance,
program administration, and natural resource restoration. The fund receives 6% of the
interest earned by the State's Resource Indemnity Trust Fund, whose source is a mineral
extraction tax; this amounts to about $400K each year. Another major (> 20%) source of
funds is cost recovery. Minor (<20%) funding sources include penalties, settlements, and
natural resource damages. Additions to the fund during FY93 totaled $675K. During FY93,
$4K from the EQPF were spent at NPL sites, and $627K at non-NPL sites.
The Hazardous Waste/CERCLA Special Revenue Account, with a balance of $1.5M
as of 6/30/93, is available for CERCLA match, site investigation, remedial actions, and
program administration, as well as for activities authorized by the Montana Hazardous
219
-------
Waste Act, which is the State's equivalent of RCRA. The account receives 18% of the
interest earned annually by the Resource Indemnity Trust Fund. The statute establishing
the account provides bonding authority, but this authority has not been used. Other
authorized funding sources whose contributions to the fund are not significant include cost
recoveries, interest, and penalties and damages. Additions to the account during FY93
totaled $1.1M. During FY93, expenditures from the account totaled $873K, of which $22K
was spent on CERCLA match.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
CECRA requires cleanup that assures present and future protection of public health,
safety and welfare, and the environment and that is consistent with all applicable and well-
suited environmental requirements, criteria, and limitations. The State uses water quality
criteria, MCLs, background levels, risk assessments, and EPA guidelines. Site-specific
criteria may also be imposed. The State selects cleanup levels through an ARARs-type
process and uses a risk level of 10"6 for risk assessments. It is required to select cleanups
that use permanent solutions, are cost-effective, and that use alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
CECRA requires public notice and comment for administrative orders on consent
and consent decrees. New amendments to CECRA require notice to local governing bodies
and city commissioners and, at their request, a public meeting must be held. The agency
typically allows for more participation than is required by CECRA.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
MDHES is required to make a good-faith effort to have RPs clean up before
expending State cleanup funds. The State can issue a unilateral order, negotiate a consent
order, institute a civil action, or clean up a site using State funds. Penalties available to the
State include administrative penalties of $lK/day and civil penalties of $10K/day. Double
damages are also available. Montana uses strict, joint and several liability standards; PRPs
have the right to demonstrate the need for proportional liability.
Natural Resource Damages
Montana's natural resources damages program, which is separate from the Superfund
Section, was started in 1991, has a staff of 9, and has not recovered any funds. The State
sued the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) in 1983 for natural resource damages
resulting from ARCO's mining and mineral processing activities at 4 NPL sites in the Upper
Clark Fork River Basin. To support this pending lawsuit, the State completed an NRD
assessment in 1993 at a cost of $5M; it is seeking S300M or more in damages.
Property Transfer
Montana has no property transfer provisions but plans to have a publicly available
database with the locations of hazardous waste sites by 1994.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
220
-------
NORTH DAKOTA
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 2 Known and Suspected: 72 (CERCLIS)
Proposed: 1 Identified as Needing Attention: 0
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List: No List
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
North Dakota does not have its own State superfund law. Its Hazardous Waste
Management Act (HWMA), N.D. Cent. Code §§23-20.3-01 to -10 (1981, as amended 1983,
1987 and 1991) provides authority that can be used in conjunction with cleanups, but it is
limited. Its Water Pollution Control Law, N.D. Cent. Code §61-28-01 etseq. (1967), provides
most enforcement authority used by North Dakota. A bill enacted by the 1989 legislature
and effective 7/1/89 created the Environmental Quality Restoration Fund. N.D. Cent. Code
§§23-31-01 to -03. This fund provides cost recovery authority but no liability standard. It
applies to all environmental programs.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The State does not have a formal superfund program. The lead agency is the Division
of Waste Management, in the Department of Health & Consolidated Laboratories'
Environmental Health Section. There are 5 staff in the Hazardous Waste Program within
the Division. The Division's legal support is an Assistant Attorney General assigned to the
Department who works on all environmental programs. No employees work solely on
superfund. The Hazardous Waste Program operates on EPA grants.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
There are 72 sites on the North Dakota CERCLIS list of which 51 require no further
action. At 1 NPL site, a remedial action has been completed during the last fiscal year
(ending 6/30/93). One remedial action is currently underway at an NPL site.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Environmental Quality Restoration Fund will receive cost recovery monies and
contributions from settlements. The fund may be used for emergency response, removals,
remedial action, O&M, and administrative expenses. The fund balance is $79K (as of
6/30/93, end of fiscal year). An additional $50K was added in November of 1993. No
monies were paid out or obligated or encumbered.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Cleanup levels will be determined on a site-by-site basis. Federal guidelines will be
used where applicable.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Division notifies local officials with information about a site. Local communities
can be involved in site activities.
221
-------
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
The Water Pollution Control Law, which protects surface water and groundwater, and
which governs activities that may pollute such water, is the primary enforcement statute.
It authorizes administrative orders, injunctive relief, and civil and criminal penalties.
The HWMA authorizes administrative orders, injunctive relief, civil and criminal
penalties.
Natural Resource Damages
No program has been established.
Property Transfer
No program has been established.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State currently has no partnerships.
222
-------
SOUTH DAKOTA
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 3 Known and Suspected: 218
Proposed: 1 Identified as Needing Attention: 218
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List: 218
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Regulated Substance Discharge Law, S.Dak. Codified Laws Ann. §§34A-12-1 to
-15 (1988, as amended 1989), establishes a cleanup fund and provides for strict liability,
administrative order authority, injunctive relief, cost recovery, and liens.
The Hazardous Waste Management Act, S.Dak. Codified Laws Ann. §§34-11-1 to -23
(1983, as amended in 1988), provides for civil and criminal penalties, information orders,
and site access.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources is the lead agency. State
activities have been PAs, and supporting EPA in the Superfund processes performed with
EPA funding. The Division of Environmental Regulation, Groundwater Quality Program has
3 FTEs dedicated to these activities. The Attorney General's office provides legal support
as needed.
Federal grants provide 90% of the funds for staff and administration, and the State
general fund provides 10%.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
South Dakota categorizes hazardous sites as "open" or "closed." Open sites are any
known sites that are in any stage of activity or are awaiting activity. Closed sites have been
fully remediated or have been determined to require no action.
Currently 218 sites are open, 546 sites have been closed. A total of 183 sites were
closed during the fiscal year (ending 6/30/93). Remediation is currently underway at 1 NPL
site and a removal is underway at 1 NPL site. Since the start of the program, 1 NPL
removal was completed.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Regulated Substances Response Fund had a balance of $1.72M at the end of the
fiscal year. The legislature authorized a one-time transfer of $350K to the fund in 1989. A
temporary fee increase on pesticides also provided $150K in earlier years. Current funding
sources are penalties, fees, cost recovery, and interest. A total of S664K were added to the
fund this fiscal year. No monies were paid out or obligated this fiscal year.
The fund may be used for administrative activities, emergency response, removals,
investigations, studies and design, remedial action, CERCLA match, and managerial
activities, with some restrictions.
223
-------
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
The State uses State surface and groundwater standards for cleanup levels, where
appropriate. State soil cleanup criteria are applied to petroleum, pesticide and fertilizer
contamination. MCLs/MCLGs, background levels, water quality criteria, and EPA guidelines
are also used to establish cleanup levels.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
At major milestones and upon request public participation activities may include
public notices and public meetings.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
The law authorizes orders and injunctive actions to cause the responsible person to
conduct corrective action following the discharge of a regulated substance. The law defines
liability for expenditures by the Department as strict, and provides for a lien on property
cleaned up by the Response Fund. The State may levy a civil penalty of $10K/day per
incident.
Natural Resource Damages
The State has no official NRD Program.
Property Transfer
The State has no property transfer provisions.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a SMOA and CPCAs with the U.S. EPA.
224
-------
UTAH
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 12 Known and Suspected: 200
Proposed: 1 Identified as Needing Attention: 31
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List: 13
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Hazardous Substances Mitigation Act, Utah Code Ann. §19-6-301 to -321 (1991),
provides enforcement authority, establishes the Hazardous Substance Mitigation Fund
(HSMF), and provides for a priority list.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The CERCLA Branch of the Department of Environmental Quality, Division of
Environmental Response and Remediation has a staff of 30. Legal support is provided by
1 attorney in the Division of Environmental Response and Remediation and 2 attorneys in
the Utah Attorney General's Office. Funding for program administration is provided by the
State general fund (4%) and by Federal grants (96%).
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Remedial actions are currently underway at 6 NPL and 19 non-NPL sites. One NPL
and 11 non-NPL sites have been remediated since the start of the cleanup program. Three
of the non-NPL sites were remediated during the last fiscal year (7/1/92-6/30/93). The
State does not distinguish between remedial actions and removals.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Hazardous Substance Mitigation Fund (HSMF) had a balance of S425K as of
6/30/93. It is available for site investigation, studies and design, removals, emergency
response, CERCLA match, and operations and maintenance. Its sole source is
appropriations. During FY93, $400K from the fund were expended at non-NPL sites; no
funds were expended at NPL sites. Also during FY93, $675K were obligated for action at
non-NPL sites; no funds were obligated for action at NPL sites. Additions to the fund
during FY93 totaled $250K.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
The State has adopted a flexible cleanup policy which addresses sites on a case-by-
case basis and requires that the source of contamination must be eliminated or controlled.
Residual levels are evaluated according to other background contaminants, environmental
considerations, technical feasibility, and economic considerations. The State uses MCLs and
other EPA guidelines where applicable. The State's Corrective Action Cleanup Standard
Policy has been promulgated in the Administrative Code. Risk assessments are based on
EPA guidelines (10"6 to 10"8 risk range).
225
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Utah has no formal public participation requirements. The State follows NCP public
participation requirements. DEQ involves the public in the cleanup process on a site-
specific basis. Strong public participation by PRPs and on a site-specific basis.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
The State uses strict and proportional liability standards. Joint and several liability
is explicitly not authorized. No punitive damages are available. Civil penalties of up to
$10K/day are available.
Natural Resource Damages
Utah does not have a formal natural resources damages program. There is 1 claim
pending, however; the State is seeking $12M.
Property Transfer
Utah does not have property transfer provisions.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a SMOA, a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
226
-------
WYOMING
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 3 Known and Suspected: 140 (CERCLIS)
Proposed: 0 Identified as Needing Attention:
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List:
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Environmental Quality Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§35-11-101 through -1428 (1973, as
amended 1991 and 1993), establishes Wyoming's Environmental Quality Council and
provides enforcement authority, citizen suit provisions, and property transfer provisions. The
Act does not establish a cleanup fund, but it authorizes the use of funds from the Trust and
Agency Account Fund to address hazardous waste emergencies. Wyoming relies upon its
other environmental statutes for enforcement authorities.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
Wyoming does not have a formal superfund program. Responsibility for hazardous
waste issues is distributed among the several divisions of the Department of Environmental
Quality, including the Solid and Hazardous Waste Division and the Water Quality Division.
State officials could not provide a figure for the number of staff working full-time on
hazardous waste issues. Legal support is provided by 5 attorneys in the Attorney General's
office. Funding for program administration comes from the State general fund and from
Federal grants.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Remedial actions are underway at 2 Wyoming NPL sites. No Wyoming NPL sites
have been fully remediated. No removals are currently underway at NPL sites. At least 2
removals have been completed at NPL sites. State officials could not provide information
on activity at non-NPL sites.
CLEANUP FUNDING
Although Wyoming has no cleanup fund, DEQ is authorized to use funds from the
Trust and Agency Account Fund to remedy and abate hazardous waste emergencies. The
State could not provide information about the financial status of this fund (e.g., balance,
additions, obligations, expenditures).
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Cleanup levels are established on a site-by-site basis using Federal standards, such
as MCLs and ACLs, where appropriate. The State has standards for inorganic and organic
compounds in water and establishes site-specific cleanup criteria based on groundwater and
surface water protection standards. If no appropriate standard exists, background levels and
risk-based levels are applied. The State uses risk levels of 10"6 for carcinogens and 1.0 HI
for non-carcinogens.
227
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Wyoming has no formal requirements for public participation. Information obtained
by DEQ under the EQA is available for public review. Citizens may comment on
rulemakings and permitting decisions. Wyoming also makes use of citizen commissions at
significant sites.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Civil penalties of up to $10K/day are available for violations of the EQA; for willful
and knowing violations, penalties of up to $25K/day are available. No punitive damages
are available. The State uses a joint and several liability standard, but there is no statutory
provision for this standard.
Natural Resource Damages
Wyoming has no natural resource damages program, but it is authorized to use
penalties collected under the EQA for natural resource damages.
Property Transfer
The presence of hazardous substances on a site must be recorded on the deed to the
property. Although the State may use judgment liens to recover State costs on cleanups,
there is no superlien provision.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
228
-------
REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
229
-------
ARIZONA
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 11 Known and Suspected: 450
Proposed: 0 Identified as Needing Attention: 65
Deleted: 1 On Inventory or Priority List: 25
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Environmental Quality Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. (ARSA), Tit. 49, Ch. 281 to 287
(1986, as amended 1987, 1990, and 1992), establishes the Water Quality Assurance
Revolving Fund and provides for strict, joint and several liability, administrative orders,
abatement and remedial actions, injunctive actions, civil penalties, cost recovery, and treble
damages. The 1992 Amendments, ARSA, Tit. 49, Ch. 290 §10, Ch. 291 §8 and Ch. 300 §5,
identify sources of Fund monies, authorize uses of the Fund, set forth remedial action
criteria, and provide additional enforcement authority. ARSA, Tit. 49, Ch. 295 (1992)
provides for environmental lien authority.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Remedial Projects Section in the Office of Waste Programs (OWP), Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ), has 26 full-time staff. The State Attorney General's office
provides 3 staff for legal support.
The Fund covers 58% of administrative costs, with Federal grants providing the
remaining 42% of the funding.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Remedial actions are currently underway at 4 NPL sites with 1 site completed since
the start of the program. Removals are currently underway at 5 NPL sites with 4 sites
completed in the 1993 fiscal year (FY93).
Remedial actions are underway at 7 non-NPL sites with 6 actions completed since
the start of the program and 2 completed in FY93. Removals are currently underway at 4
non-NPL sites. Fifty removals have been completed since the start of the program and 11
removals were completed in FY93.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund had a balance of $3.74M at the end
of the fiscal year (6/30/93). Additions totalled $4.52M during FY93. Expenditures for NPL
and non-NPL sites totaled $7,272,900. The State could not provide information on
expenditures or obligations for the non-NPL portion of the program.
Currently, the Fund consists of monies from cost recoveries and a variety of fees
including fertilizer license, pesticide registration, water quality assurance, industrial discharge
registration, aquifer protection permit application, solid waste landfill registration and
hazardous waste facility fees. Appropriations are generally a significant source of Fund
monies, although no money was appropriated in FY93. Penalties, taxes, bonds interest and
transfers are minor sources of Fund monies.
The Fund is used to pay for program administration, site investigation, studies and
design, removals, remedial actions, emergency response, CERCLA match, grants to local
government, and operation and maintenance.
230
-------
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Remedial actions must assure the protection of public health and welfare and the
environment, allow the maximum beneficial use of State waters, and be cost effective over
the period of potential exposure to hazardous substances.
The State applies hazardous waste cleanup standards (40 CFR, Parts 260-280, RCRA
standards adopted by reference), MCLs, and State water quality standards where
appropriate. If there is no standard available for a specific contaminant, background levels
and health-based guidance levels (HBGLs) are used. HBGLs are unenforceable risk
assessment-based guidelines which may be used as cleanup levels when a party voluntarily
agrees to use them or EPA adopts them as ARARs. Site-specific risk assessments use a 10"6
level for chronic effects and the oral reference dose for acute effects.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The State has a 30-day public comment period for site and program actions.
Associated meetings and hearings are discretionary, but one or both are held as standard
practice.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Strict, joint and several liability applies to the State's cleanups. The preferred
approach to assignment of liability is to work with steering committees which apportion
liability. Civil penalties are $5K/day, plus 3 times the remedial action costs for failure to
comply with an order. Treble damages are authorized.
Natural Resource Damages
Although the State has no written policy, all cleanup settlements, signed by the
State's Director (since July 1991), contain a clause reserving the right to claim or assess
natural resource damages. No damages have been recovered and no claims are pending.
Property Transfer
The State has environmental lien authority (ARSA §49-295) and the responsible
party must pay all costs before the State will remove the lien. The lien is not superior to
prior recorded liens. The Arizona Real Estate Department has a unenforceable policy which
advises realtors to disclose material defects, including actual or potential contamination, to
potential lawyers.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
231
-------
CALIFORNIA
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 96 Known and Suspected: 26,000
Proposed: 6 Identified as Needing Attention: 350
Deleted: 1 On Inventory or Priority List: 26,000
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Hazardous Substance Account Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code §§25300 et seq.
(1981, as amended 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992) which
includes the Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act of1984, §§25385 through 25386.6, and
the Hazardous Substance Cleanup Financing Authority Act, §§25392 through 25395 (1984),
establishes site mitigation program and provides cleanup fund.
Property transfer disclosure requirements are included in §25359.7, ch. 6.8 of the Cal.
Health & Safety Code.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (Department), Site Mitigation Program
is staffed with 235 people in 4 regional offices and headquarters. The Department's Office
of Legal Counsel and Criminal Investigation has 25 attorneys assigned to the Site Mitigation
Program, and the Attorney General's Office provides another 5-6 attorneys. The
Department also works with the California Water Resources Quality Control Board and the
Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The Regional Water Quality Control Boards also
undertake their own cleanups in cases of "classic" groundwater contamination.
Funding for the Department's Site Mitigation Program comes primarily from the
Hazardous Waste Control Account, Federal grants, hazardous waste disposal fees, cost
recovery, reimbursements, and activity fees. The budget for site mitigation activities is
$59M, of which $5.4M is for direct site cleanup.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
The State Inventory List is being evaluated to exclude any invalid sites and will
probably end up with less than 26,000 sites listed. Since the start of the State's cleanup
program, 4 NPL and 232 non-NPL sites have been fully remediated. Remediation is
currently underway at 40 NPL and 232 non-NPL sites. During FY93, remediation actions
were completed at 1 NPL and 13 non-NPL sites. Since the start of the State's program,
removals have been completed at 61 NPL and 340 non-NPL sites. During FY93, removals
were completed at 4 NPL and 74 non-NPL sites. Additionally, 2,216 emergency response
incidents have been funded, since the start of the State's program, for a total of $8.3M.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Hazardous Substances Account has joined with the Hazardous Waste Control
Account (HWCA), which had a balance of $14M at the end of the fiscal year (6/30/93).
During FY93, the HWCA received $107M and paid out $88.6M. Fees were the major
source of funding, with cost recoveries and taxes making minor contributions. The fund may
be used for site investigation, studies and design, removal and remedial actions (prohibited
until RPs are given notice and opportunity to clean up), emergency response, O&M, State
CERCLA match, program administration, and enforcement against RPs.
232
-------
The Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Fund had a balance of $12.9M at the end
of FY93. This account is funded by bond issuance. This fund can be used for site
investigation, studies and design, removals, emergency response, remedial actions, CERCLA
match, O&M, and grants to local government.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Site-specific cleanup levels are based on acceptable risks, future land use, and the
NCP's 9 balancing criteria. The State sets risk levels at 10"4 to 10~7, with 10"6 as a point of
departure. Remedial action plans must be based upon, among other things, the effect of
contamination on beneficial uses of resources, the effect of alternative remedial action
measures on groundwater, site-specific characteristics, and cost effectiveness. The State has
promulgated MCLs for many water contaminants and a number of other standards,
including air toxics. The State also uses background levels, risk standard assessment, and
EPA guidelines to determine cleanup levels.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Department must hold at least one public meeting before adopting a remedial
action plan, and must review and consider public comments. Anyone affected by a removal
or remedial action must be provided with the opportunity to participate in the Department's
decision making process. The Department must develop, and make available to the public,
a schedule of activities for each site.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
The State has strict and proportional liability standards. The Department generally
pursues CERCLA standards as well to recover its costs. The State has civil or
administrative penalty authority for up to $25K/day for violating an order/agreement and
criminal penalties up to $25K/day and/or imprisonment for up to 1 year. Treble punitive
damages are available. There is a citizen suit provision under Proposition 65. A PRP may
seek judicial review of a final remedial action plan. An RP must be given notice and
opportunity to assume cleanup responsibility and fail to comply, in order for the State to
undertake a cleanup or enforcement activity. Recent legislation allows cooperating RPs to
sue non-cooperating RPs for 3 times their share of cleanup costs. The cooperative RPs get
1/2 of the award and the Department gets 1/2 of the award.
Natural Resource Damages
The Department of Toxic Substances Control and the Department of Fish and Game
have been delegated as the State's Trustees for natural resources. The Department of Toxic
Substances Control is currently developing its program. The Department of Fish and Game
has been working with natural resource damage assessment law since the early 1960s. They
restore damaged natural resources using reimbursable funding from RPs and the
Department of Fish and Game's Pollution and Abatement Account. They could not provide
a total amount of money recovered, but the total for just 3 major NRD recoveries came to
$23,855,533. The Department of Fish and Game is currently pursuing 12 NRD claims,
233
-------
which total over $100M. Currently, approximately 25 full-time staff manage the
Department's NRDA activities, which include: identifying and quantifying NRDs; identifying
feasible restoration alternatives and their costs; calculating compensation; and coordinating
with Federal and State co-trustees.
Property Transfer
California requires disclosure before the transfer of property.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a CPCA and 2 SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
234
-------
HAWAII
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 2 Known and Suspected: 2,500
Proposed: 1 Identified as Needing Attention:
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List:
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Environmental Response Law, Haw. Rev. Stats. §§128D-1 et seq. (1988, as
amended 1991), establishes a fund for removals and remedial response actions and provides
for strict, joint and several liability, administrative order and site access authority, civil and
criminal penalties, reporting requirements, cost recovery, and provision of alternative water
supplies.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office (HEER) in the
Environmental Management Division of the Department of Health has 15 full-time
employees. One attorney from the Attorney General's Office works 25% for HEER.
HEER gets approximately 90% of its funding from Federal grants and 10% from the State
general fund.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
The HEER Office is currently developing and entering site specific information into
a database. They expect complete data base to be finalized in FY94. The State cannot
provide site-specific information until then.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Environmental Response Revolving Fund had a balance of $223K at the end of
the fiscal year (6/30/93). During FY93, $255K was added to the fund and $33K was paid
out for non-NPL sites. Significant sources of funding include appropriations, penalties and
a new oil tax. Cost recoveries and interest are also minor sources of funding. This fund
may be used for site investigation, studies and design, removals, emergency response,
remedial actions, CERCLA match, O&M, and natural resource restoration.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
The HEER Office is developing risk management criteria and cleanup policies and
has adopted the NCP as interim rules. The HEER Office also plans to promulgate fate and
transport screening methods for determining remediation levels in FY94. Currently, the
State selects cleanup standards on a site-by-site basis, using EPA risk assessment methods.
Water quality criteria, MCLs/MCLGs, and background levels are used where appropriate.
Consistent with the NCP, the State uses a risk range between 10"4 and 10"6.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public participation will be defined in administrative rules. They will include
establishing an Administrative Record, publishing notice of availability of the Administrative
Record in a newspaper, and soliciting public comments on the proposed action. The
Department of Health is required to develop a public education program for hazardous
waste issues.
235
-------
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Liability is strict, joint and several, and includes liability for natural resource
damages. Civil penalties are available for $10K/day for failure to report a release and at
least $50K/day per violation for failure to comply with an enforcement order. Punitive
damages for failure to perform removal or remedial actions are treble. Cost recovery
actions must be commenced within six years of completion of response actions.
Natural Resource Damages
Hawaii's superfund statute allows the State to recover NRDs and use the
Environmental Response Revolving Fund for restoration, rehabilitation, replacement or
acquisition of natural resources that were damaged or destroyed due to a release. No
money has been recovered since the start of the program in 1990, and no claims are
pending.
Property Transfer
Hawaii does not have a property transfer provision.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a CPCA with U.S. EPA.
236
-------
NEVADA
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 1 Known and Suspected: 145
Proposed: 0 Identified as Needing Attention: 145
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List: -
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Nev. Rev. Stat. §§549.400-459.600 (1981, as amended 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1991),
known as the "Hazardous Waste Statute," primarily covers operating facilities. It gives
authority for spill cleanup by either the State or responsible parties. It also establishes the
Hazardous Waste Management Fund. The 1991 amendment strengthens the ability to
require and perform site assessments.
The Water Pollution Control Law, Nev. Rev. Stat. §445, provides for additional
enforcement authorities.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Bureau of Corrective Actions, part of the Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources' Division of Environmental Protection, oversees the State's Superfund,
RCRA, and UST programs. The Bureau has a full-time staff of 24. The Attorney General's
Office supplies 2 attorneys to the Division.
The cleanup fund provides 80% of the funding for the Corrective Actions program;
another 20% comes from Federal grants.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
The authorized RCRA regulatory program, and statutory authority under the Water
Pollution Control Law are the primary mechanisms used to require and oversee remedial
actions. The Bureau of Federal Facilities handles federal facilities. There are currently
remedial actions underway at 145 non-NPL sites and removals underway at 2 non-NPL sites.
Since the start of the State's cleanup program, removals have been completed at 2 non-NPL
sites, and 1 removal was completed at a non-NPL site during FY93. Ongoing cleanups for
sites with RPs include hydrocarbon contamination, hazardous waste releases, emergency
response actions, abandoned sites, and problems related to mining.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Hazardous Waste Management Fund had a balance of $6M at the end of the
fiscal year (6/30/93). During FY93, approximately $250K was paid out from the fund for
non-NPL sites. The State could not provide information about obligations from the fund.
Most of the additions come from waste volume fees. Cost recoveries and penalties are also
minor sources of funding, but the State has not been aggressively pursuing cost recoveries
recently. The fund monies may be used for site investigation, studies and design, removals,
emergency response, remedial actions, CERCLA match, O&M, and natural resource
restoration.
237
-------
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
The State has adopted regulations which establish standards for soil and groundwater
contaminated by petroleum products. The Contaminated Soil and Ground Water Policy of
6/25/92 set remediation standards for other releases. Water quality criteria,
MCLs/MCLGs, and risk standard assessments are used to set these standards.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A draft public participation policy (9/20/93) states that the Corrective Action Bureau
will, at a minimum, strictly adhere to NDEP public participation requirements, which
address public notification, public hearings, public records, advisory groups, appeal
procedures, and input to regulatory and statutory development. In addition, the Bureau of
Corrective Actions will conduct public outreach to educate the regulated community and the
general public about its programs.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Liability is strict for those in possession of hazardous material involved in a spill.
Administrative order authority, including orders for information and site access, subpoena
authority, injunctive action, criminal penalties, and cost recovery are available. Cost
recovery is generally secured in consent agreements. Civil penalties of $25K/day per
violation are available.
Natural Resource Damages
Nevada does not have a natural resource damages program.
Property Transfer
Nevada does not use property transfer provisions.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
238
-------
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
239
-------
ALASKA
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 7 Known and Suspected: 1051
Proposed: 0 Identified as Needing Attention: 1051
Deleted: 0 On Inventory or Priority List: 1051
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Oil and Hazardous Substance Releases Law, Alaska Stats. §§46.08.005 to .900
(1986, as amended 1989), authorizes a fund and provides for administrative and consent
order authority, injunctive relief, civil and criminal penalties, and cost recovery.
The Hazardous Substance Release Control Law, Alaska Stats. §§46.09.010 to .900
(1986), covers enforcement and other provisions.
The Liability and Cost for Oil and Hazardous Substances Discharge Law, Alaska Stats.
§§46.03.822 et seq. (1989), was enacted in response to the Exxon Valdez spill and provides
for strict, joint and several liability.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Department of Environmental Conservation, Spill Prevention and Response
Division, Contaminated Sites Remediation Section is responsible for cleanup activities at
historically contaminated sites. This section has 42 FTEs devoted to State and Federal
Superfund activities. Funding for staff and administration is provided by the Response Fund
(68%) and Federal grants (32%). The Office of the Attorney General provides legal support
with less than 1 FTE.
Spill emergency response is handled by the Division's Government Preparedness and
Response Program.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
DEC has developed a site ranking system distinct from the Federal HRS. Sites are
included on the list if they have contamination exceeding action levels and are not
associated with a permit or other program.
The State completed cleanups at 44 non-NPL sites during fiscal year 1993 (ending
6/30/93) and has completed cleanup at 150 non-NPL sites since the start of its program.
Cleanups are currently being conducted at 350 non-NPL sites. Sixteen removals were
completed during FY93 and 207 removals have been completed at non-NPL sites since the
program began.
Remediation is currently underway at 6 NPL sites; 1 site has been remediated since
the start of the program.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The legislature allocated $1.6M for cleanup activities from the Oil and Hazardous
Substance Release Response Fund for fiscal year 1993 ending 6/30/93. The State could not
provide a balance for the Fund at the end of FY93. Fund monies may be used for site
investigation, emergency response, removals, remedial actions, and the State's share of
Federal oil discharge cleanups and CERCLA match. These monies derive from a 5
-------
Monies from forfeited performance bonds, cost recovery and penalties are placed into
a "mitigation account" which is separate from the Fund but available for the same purposes.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
The State uses MCLs/MCLGs, water quality criteria, EPA guidelines, risk
assessment, background levels, and promulgated standards for cleanup of petroleum in soils
in addressing contaminated sites. State guidelines provide for cleanup to background or for
performing a leaching assessment that ensures the proposed cleanup standard will not affect
groundwater.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Department attempts to involve the public depending on the seriousness of the
site and on public interest.
Citizen advisory panels are formed for major cleanups. National Contingency Plan
public participation guidelines are followed. The legislature has established a Citizens'
Oversight Council on Oil and Hazardous Substances.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
Liability is strict, joint and several. Civil penalties are $500 to S100K for first
violations, and no more than $10K/day that a violation continues. Individuals are subject
to criminal penalties of $10K/day, up to one year imprisonment, or both, for knowingly
falsifying documents used for purposes of compliance monitoring.
Natural Resource Damages
The State has reached settlements for natural resource damages.
Property Transfer
No provisions pertain to property transfer.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
241
-------
IDAHO
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 8 Known and Suspected: 220
Proposed: 2 Identified as Needing Attention: 50
Deleted: 1 On Inventory or Priority List: No List
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Idaho has no State superfund law. The Idaho Hazardous Waste Management Act
(HWMA), Idaho Code §§39-4401 to -4432 (1983, as amended 1984, 1986, 1987, and 1988),
establishes two funds, but provides minimal legal authority for site cleanups. The Act also
provides for citizen suits.
The Environmental Protection and Health Act (EPHA), Idaho Code §§39-101 to -130
(1972, as amended 1993) provides enforcement authority for the Division of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) to administer air quality, water quality, and health related programs, to
promulgate regulations, and current enforcement.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
Two divisions within the Division of Environmental Quality in the Department of
Health and Welfare share CERCLA responsibilities: the Division of Planning and
Evaluation, which handles Core grant funding and support services; and the Division of
Community Programs, which handles pre-remedial activities and site-specific remedial work.
Between the two divisions, 17 FTE work primarily on Superfund. Four deputy Attorney
Generals are assigned to handle cleanup cases for the DEQ. Program support is provided
by Federal grants and monies collected from responsible parties.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
At non-NPL sites, the State has completed 1 remedial action since the program
started, and currently has 3 underway.
At NPL sites, 4 remedial actions are underway and 2 have been completed since the
beginning of the program. One remedial action has been completed in fiscal year 1993
(7/1/92-6/30/93). One removal is currently underway. Five removals have been completed
since the start of the program, 1 in FY93.
CLEANUP FUNDING
Funding for cleanups is generally obtained by legislative appropriations. The
HWMA, however, establishes the Hazardous Waste Training, Emergency, and Monitoring
Account. This Account had a balance of $2.9M at the end of FY93. Almost $3.12M was
added during FY93, and $916K was paid out, all for work on non-NPL sites. The HWMA
authorizes use of this Account for necessary removal and remedial actions, but program staff
caution that this is primarily a hazardous waste management fund, not a cleanup fund.
Additions come primarily through appropriations and waste disposal fees.
242
-------
The HWMA also establishes the Hazardous Waste Emergency Account, which can
be used for emergency response. This Account had a balance of $235K at the end of FY93.
$43.7K was added in FY93, and $23.7K was paid out, all of it for NPL sites. The Account's
primary sources of monies are penalties and cost recoveries. It is not relied on heavily by
the DEQ.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Idaho currently uses EPA guidelines. The DEQ is in the process of promulgating
water quality standards and air toxic standards.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Idaho has no formal program, but attempts to fulfill EPA guidelines. For example,
a full-tune on-site community relations person has been contracted for the Bunker Hill NPL
site. This person coordinates monthly public meetings, manages media contact, and deals
with community health concerns. The State is in process of promulgating water quality and
air toxic standards.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
For emergency conditions, the State has injunctive and order authorities under the
Idaho Environmental Protection and Health Act. The State can receive $10K/day in civil
penalties, but no punitive damages are available. State has essentially no enforcement
authorities under the HWMA.
Natural Resource Damages
Idaho has received $5M since the program started in 1985. One claim is currently
pending.
Property Transfer
No law.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
Idaho has a CPCA and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
243
-------
OREGON
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 9 Known and Suspected: 1235
Proposed: 3 Identified as Needing Attention: 102
Deleted: - On Inventory or Priority List: 63
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Environmental Cleanup Law, Or. Rev. Stats. §§465.200-.420, 465.995 (1987, as
amended 1989, 1991), establishes the Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Fund
(HSRAF) and a priority list, and provides for strict liability, administrative order authority
for cleanup, injunctive relief, civil penalties, cost recovery, liens, and punitive damages.
Amendments establish the Orphan Site Account within HSRAF and modify the inventory
provisions for State sites (ORS §465.215-.245). Amendments of 1991 require classification
of the secured creditor exemption and extend defenses to liability for contamination caused
solely by acts of God and war, and third parties to "knowing purchasers."
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The State has recently reorganized so that the lead agency is now the Waste
Management and Cleanup Division (WMCD) in the Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ). The Program has 98 budgeted FTEs. One FTE from the Oregon Department of
Justice (AG) handles litigation and advises the WMCD as requested.
Funding for staff and administrative costs is provided by the HSRAF and by Federal
grants.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Remediation is currently underway at 127 non-NPL sites of which 74 are voluntary
cleanup projects with State oversight provided by the Voluntary Cleanup Section. Twenty
non-NPL sites have been fully remediated to date, with 4 of those being voluntary cleanups.
Removals are underway at 15 non-NPL sites, including 5 in the enforcement program and
10 in the voluntary program. Fifteen non-NPL removals were completed during the last
fiscal year (ending 6/30/93), and 33 have been completed since the start of the program.
Seven non-NPL sites have been remediated in FY93. Nine remedial actions and 2 removals
are underway at NPL sites.
CLEANUP FUNDING
HSRAF has a budgeted balance of $2.51M for the 91-93 biennium ending 6/30/93,
with an annual average of $5.39M collected from cost recovery, penalties and fines, and a
monthly fee on the operator of the State's only hazardous waste and PCB disposal facility.
The HSRAF can be used for emergency response, site investigations, removals,
studies and design, remedial actions, O&M, program administration and State CERCLA
match.
The Orphan Site Account has a budgeted balance of $2.96M for the 91-93 biennium
(6/30/93). Orphan Site Account bonds totalling $7.3M were issued and a second bond sale
for $5M is planned for 1/94. For purposes of bond debt retirement, HSRAF collects equal
amounts from hazardous substances fees, petroleum fees, and solid waste tipping fees.
244
-------
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
State regulations require cleanup to the "lowest feasible concentration." Cleanup
must be protective and cost-effective. Background is the State's preferred cleanup level.
Oregon has adopted numeric standards for soil cleanup of 76 compounds at "simple"
sites. These soil cleanup standards allow greater residual contamination in industrial zones.
The State also applies water quality criteria, MCLs/MCLGs, and other EPA guidelines,
where appropriate. At complex sites, the State may use a risk assessment standard with a
risk level of 10"6 for each contaminant and a Hazard Quotient/Hazard Index = 1.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The law mandates public notice of DEQ's program for identifying releases, proposed
settlement agreements, and all proposed remedial actions, with a 30-day comment period.
Public meetings are required for proposed remedial actions if requested by a minimum of
10 people. Public notice is provided for final remedial action.
Regulations for the statute were promulgated, as mandated, with significant input
from a 22-member committee composed of citizens, local governments, environmental
groups, and industry.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
The statute establishes strict liability for owners, operators, and any person who
caused or contributed to a release of a hazardous substance. Liability is joint and several.
However, transporters and off-site generators are generally not liable.
The statute authorizes administrative orders, injunctive relief, cost recovery, liens and
treble damages. WMCD favors an approach that seeks voluntary cleanup from PRPs prior
to issuance of orders; use of the Fund is the agency's last choice.
Natural Resource Damages
Responsible parties are liable under State law for natural resource damages. Only
limited attention has been given to this issue by the agency. One claim is pending.
Property Transfer
No provisions pertain to property transfer.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a SMOA, CPCA, and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
245
-------
WASHINGTON
SITES
NPL Sites State Sites
Final: 52 Known and Suspected: 1029
Proposed: - Identified as Needing Attention: 628
Deleted: 2 On Inventory or Priority List: 401
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
The Model Toxics Control Act, Wash. Rev. Code ch. 70.105D (1988), authorizes
funding for two accounts, provides enforcement authorities, establishes a priority list, and
provides for citizen suits, replacement water supplies, and public participation procedures.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Department of Ecology, Waste Management Division, includes the Toxics
Cleanup Program which has 145 staff. Thirty-five of the positions are federally funded — the
remaining are supported by the State Toxics Control Account. The Attorney General's
office, handling settlements, has approximately 3-4 FTEs working on cleanups.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
The State spent $25.88M from the State account on cleanups at non-NPL sites and
an additional $2.90M on non-NPL sites from the Local account. Construction of remedial
actions is underway at 102 non-NPL sites and 33 removals are underway at non-NPL sites.
The State completed remediation at 8 non-NPL sites during FY93 at 40 sites since the
program began. In addition, 6 removals were completed during FY93 (ending 6/30/93),
bringing to 36 the number of removals completed during the life of the program. Eighty-
eight remedial actions and 4 removals are underway at NPL sites. 10 remedial actions have
been completed since the start of the program, 4 in FY93. Three NPL removals have been
completed to date, 2 in FY93.
CLEANUP FUNDING
The Department administers two accounts which are replenished biennially: (1) the
State Toxics Control Account and (2) the Local Toxics Control Account.
The State account receives 47% of the revenue from a tax on the wholesale value of
hazardous substances, plus cost recovery, penalties and fines. The balance in the State
account was $4.83M at the end of the fiscal year (6/30/93). The State account received
$24.34M in FY93. The Legislature must appropriate fund monies for cleanup.
The State account can be used for site investigation, emergency response, removals,
studies and design, remedial actions, O&M, State CERCLA match, and program
administration. The State account funds related activities in other agencies in addition to
various divisions with Ecology. Part of the cleanup fund is set aside for LUST hardship
cleanups. Penalties and fines are earmarked for best management practices and recycling,
not cleanup.
The Local account receives 53% of tax revenue from the tax on the wholesale value
of hazardous substances to help local governments pay for site cleanups, waste planning,
reduction and recycling. The balance in the Local account at the end of FY93 was $41.48M
and $21.26M was added to the account in FY93.
246
-------
CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Cleanup levels must be at least as stringent as all applicable State and Federal laws.
The State has established health-based cleanup standards for soils, groundwater, air, and
surface water. WDOE uses water quality criteria, MCL/MCLGs, background levels, EPA
guidelines, and standard State formula for risk assessment. Risk levels of 10"5 for total
carcinogens, W6 for individual carcinogens, and Hazard Quotient = 1 for all individual
carcinogens are used.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Early planning and development of a site-specific public participation plan is
required. The WDOE must establish regional citizens' advisory committees, notify the public
of the development of investigation or remedial plans and of the availability of an RI/FS
and Cleanup Action Plan, give concurrent public notice of all compliance orders,
enforcement orders, and notices of violation. Provisions include public notice and hearings
on consent decrees. The Model Toxics Control Act authorizes public participation grants to
affected persons or not-for-profit public interest organizations.
ENFORCEMENT
Liability
The Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) provides for strict, joint and several liability,
subpoena authority, site access authority, enforcement order authority, injunctive action, civil
penalties (up to $25K/day), cost recovery, and treble damages. Citizen suits and contractor
indemnification are also authorized. Private rights of action (contribution claims) are now
provided for under the MTCA.
Natural Resource Damages
The State statute authorizes the State to collect natural resource damages. Ecology
is the designated natural resources trustee and has 1 FTE assigned to pursuing NRDs under
CERCLA/SARA authority. The State has collected approximately $40M as a joint trustee
with the Federal trustees and tribes in 3 settlements. Three claims are pending for up to
$50M.
Property Transfer
The State has no property transfer provisions.
FEDERAL/STATE PARTNERSHIPS
The State has a SMOA, CPCA, and SSCAs with U.S. EPA.
247
•Cl U'. r.OVMNMFNI ITtlNMNO OFI-XF 1'1'M 300 571* /OU076
------- |