&EPA
            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.
                                      n

-------
                        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
    C. 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
                                      IV

-------
                              LIST OF ACRONYMS
AG        -  Attorney General
ARARs    -  Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
ASTSWMO -  Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
CA        -  Cooperative Agreement
CERCLA   -  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
              1980
CERCLIS   -  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
              Information System
CPCA      -  Core Program Cooperative Agreement
DSMOA   -  Department of Defense and State Memorandum of Agreement
ELI        -  Environmental Law Institute
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.

                                        1

-------
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. HRSII, 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-l 1 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 FTE 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
these 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 party 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  Branch
 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
MO
PA
VA
UV
4 AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
5 IL
IN
MI
MN
OH
UI
6 AR
LA
NM
OK
TX
7 IA
KS
MO
NE
8 CO
MT
NO
SO
UT
WY
9 AZ
CA
HI
Cleanup
Enforcement
Authority
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Gen
Yes
HW
Yes
Yes
Yes
HW,GW
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
HW
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Gen
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
GW
GW,HW
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;  Pol. = state practice


                                 46

-------
                                 TABLE  V-l
                    OVERVIEW  OF STATE PROGRAMS
State
C I eanup
Enforcement
Authority
Staffing
Level
Fund
Balance
Public
Participation
Requirements or Policy
Reg i on

  9         NV        HW.GU            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.
            WA         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
WS
X




X X


X X




X
X

X
              amended.

         NY   Abandoned Sites Act of 1979                             X          X                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                US
              Article, Title 7  - Hazardous Material and
              Hazardous Substances

         PA   Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (HSCA)  (Act        X          X          X         X      US
              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

-------
                                           TABLE  V-2
                         STATUTORY AUTHORITIES  AND PROVISIONS
                                                  Cleanup Enforcement  Priority Citizen  Victim  Property
Region State Statute Fund Authority List
3 WV Hazardous Waste Emergency Response Fund X
Act
4 AL Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund X X
FL Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Removal X X
Act
Resource Recovery and Management Act X X
GA Hazardous Site Response Act of 1992 XXX
KY KRS 224.46-580(13) and KRS 224.01-400 XXX
MS Property Transfer Law
Air and Water Pollution Control Act X
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1974 X X
Pollution Emergency Fund X
NC Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Act X X
Inactive Hazardous Sites Response Act of X X X
1987
SC Hazardous Waste Management Act XXX
TW Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1983 XXX
5 IL Environmental Protection Act X X
Responsible Party Transfer Act
IN Responsible Property Transfer Law
Hazardous waste Act X x X
Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund X
Environmental Management Act X
MI Environmental Response Act X X
MN Environmental Response and Liability Act X X X
OH Solid and Hazardous Waste Disposal Law X X
WI Hazardous Substance Spill Statute X
Abandoned Containers Statute X
Environmental Repair Statute XXX
6 AR Remedial Action Trust Fund XXX
Emergency Response Fund Act X X
LA Hazardous Waste Control Law ER,CS X
Inactive and Abandoned Hazardous Waste ER X
Site Law
Environmental Quality Law X X
Liability for Hazardous Substance Remedial X
Suit comp Transfer



ws


X
X
X



ws x
X

X
X

X
X



x x
x x x
X






X

x x

             Action
ER: EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND REMOVALS      WS: WATER SUPPLIES
CS: CERCLA SHARE                      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
OK
TX
7 IA
KS
MO
NE
8 CO
MT
ND
SD
UT
WY
9 AZ
CA
HI
NV
Water Quality Act X
Hazardous Waste Act ER.CS X
Hazardous Waste Fund Act ER
Hazardous Waste Disposal Act ER.CS
Environmental Quality Act X X
Texas Property Code x
Solid Waste Disposal Act XXX
Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and X
Control Act
Environmental Quality Act X X X X WS X
Groundwater Protection Act
Groundwater Hazard Documentation Law x
Environmental Response Act X X
Hazardous Waste Management Law XXX X
Voluntary Cleanup Law x
Environmental Protection Act X X
Hazardous Waste Sites Act CS X
Comprehensive Environmental Cleanup and X X X
Responsibility Act
State Participation in CERCLA X
Hazardous Waste Management Act X
Water Pollution Control Law X
Environmental Quality Restoration Fund X 0
Hazardous Waste Management Act X
Regulated Substance Discharge Law X X
Hazardous Substances Mitigation Act XXX
Environmental Quality Act ER X X X
Environmental Lien Authority
Environmental Quality Act X X X X
Health and Safety Code X
Hazardous Substance Account Act X X XXX
Environmental Response Law X X X X WS
Water Pollution Control Law X
Rev. Stat. "Hazardous Waste Statute" ER.CS X
   10     AK   Hazardous Substance Release Control Law
              Oil and Hazardous Substance Releases Law
 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 Propertv
  Region  State                 Statute                  Fund    Authority    List     Suit    Comp  Transfe

    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
CS:  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    Department  of
       Environmental
       Conservation

  NJ    Department  of
       Environmental  Protection
       and Energy
  NY    Department  of
       Environmental
       Conservation
  PR    Environmental Quality
       Board

 DE    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
  Division of Site
  Remediation
                            31
  Sites Management Section    14
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
                            318   NITSDEC Division of
                                 Environ. Enforcement (18)
                                 AG's Office (7)
                             7   EQB Legal Division (1)
                            31   Department of Justice (1)
                                 LIST Division (0.8)
                                 Hazardous Waste Program
                                 (0.2)
Environmental  Response &     32   AG's Off ice (1.5)
Restoration Program
Hazardous Sites Cleanup     127   DER Chief Counsel's Office
                                 (18)
                            24   AG's Office (0.5)
 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
                            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
                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
MN   Pollution Control Agency
OH   Environmental Protection
     Agency
Wl   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

          MT    Department  of  Health and
               Environmental  Sciences
          ND    The Department of Health
               and Consolidated
               Laboratories
          SD    Department  of  Environment
               and Natural Resources
          UT    Department  of
               Environmental  Quality
          WY   Department of
               Environmental Quality
Remedial  Projects
Management Section
Branch Chief,  Project
Management Branch

Superfund Section

Site Response  Section
Division of Emergency  and
Remedial  Response
Emergency and  Remedial
Response Section

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           25

                                Division of Waste            5
                                Management
                                Ground Water Quality
                                Resources
                                CERCLA Branch
                                No superfund program
                            27   DHEQ Legal Office (2)            2.0
49    Office of  General Counsel        2.0
      (1.5)
      AG's Office (0.5)

91    Remedial  Projects                3.0
      Management Section  (3)
21    Office of  Legal  Counsel          7.0
      (6)
      AG's Office (1)
381    AG's Office (7)                  7.0

110   AG's Office (4)                  4.0
107   EPA (5)                         8.0
      AG'S Office (3)
97    Bureau of Legal  Services        3.0
      (3)

 2    DPC&E,
      AG's Office
43    Office of Legal  Affairs          1.0
      and Enforcement  (1)
30    NMED General Counsel (1.5)       1.5
 10    Department of Health (1)        1.0

102   Legal  Services Division          1.0
      (1)

 10    DNR Enforcement and             0.5
      Compliance Bureau (<.5)
 15    DHE Office of Legal             2.5
      Services  (2.5)
 35    AG's Office (5)                  5.0

 10    Department of                   1.0
      Environmental Quality

 18    AG's Office (<14)               14.0
                                  Department  of  Health and         3.0
                                  Environmental  Sciences  (3)
                                  AG's Office (1)                  1.0
                             3    DENR,  AG's Office  (2             2.0
                                  total)
                             30    Division of Environmental        3.0
                                  Response and Remediation
                                  (1)
                                  AG's Office (2)
                                  AG's Office (5)                  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
°f 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
UA   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)
  24    AG's Office (2)




  36    AG's Office <<1)


  17    AG's Office <4)

  98    Department of Justice (1)

 110    AG's Office (3-4)

=====  =============z====s==-===-
3491
                                    0.3


                                    2.0



                                    1.0


                                    4.0

                                    1.0

                                    3.5

                                  =====aaa,
                                   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
Region
1





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 Other
23% 18% (Spill Fund)
X
10% 20% (Other State funds)
20%
X
75%
X (Bond Fund, PRP
reimbursements)
7%
90%
63% 7% (DOD Grant)
X
X

90%
80%
X (Cleanup fund funded by
hazardous waste disposal
fees)
X (Trust funds)

50%
X
X
66%
28% 21% (Fees on generation,
                                                                 treatment and shipment of
                                                                 hazardous waste)
                 Illinois
                                       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
Wyoming
9 Arizona
California
State
General Cleanup
Fund Fund
75% 5%
35% 50%
60%
75%
X
X
50%
X
15% 5%
X
5%
X X
X
10%
10%
X
X
10%
4%
X
58%
X
Federal
Grants
20%
15%
40%
25%
X
X
50%
X
80%
X
75%
X
X
90%
60%
X
X
90%
96%
X
42%
X
Other



(Solid waste disposal
fees)



X


20% (Solid Waste Account)
(Petroleum Storage Tank
Trust Fund)


30% (PRP Cost
Reimbursement)






(Fees, cost recovery, ane
         10
Hawaii

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%
X = 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
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
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
5 Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Final
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
Known and
Proposed Deleted Suspected
NPL Sites NPL Sites State Sites
0 0 1475
1 0 370
6 1 6328
0 0 250
0 0 300
1 0 1291
1 5 18519
2 1 995
1 0
0 2 288
00 0
3 1 463
1 8 3000
2 1 3100
1 0 500
2 1 625
3 4 1015
0 0 800
2 0 1000
2 1 390
1 1 665
0 0 475
1 1 1142
1 2 1400
1 5 1549
4 2 9785
1 0 542
State Sites
Identified as
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
State Inventory
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

-------
                                              TABLE V-5
                                         HAZARDOUS  SITES

                                                               Known and      State Sites
                               Final     Proposed    Deleted     Suspected     Identified as    State Inventory
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
NPL Sites
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
NPL Sites
2
1
0
0
2
1
3
5
2
0
3
3
0
1
1
1
0
0
6
1
0
0
2
3
.
NPL Sites
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
-
0
0
0
1
-
1
State Sites
1200
4000
351
1014
600
-
1200
900
450
1253
370
-
265
-
218
200
-
450
26000
2500
145
1051
220
1235
1029
Needing Attention
771
565
101
184
220
-
83
200
200
163
120
-
265
-
218
31
-
65
350
-
145
1051
50
102
628
or Priority List
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  $967.2M
       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 $3.89M.

 •     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 OF 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 OF 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)
Spill 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
$0
$129,224
$1,565,615
$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
Washington
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
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
Total:
  $1,523,409,842
                                                                      =================

                                                                         $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 Spi 1 1 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
1 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
ID

         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
4


5





6



State Fund A B CR F I P pp R
NC Cost Share Trust Fund s
SC Hazardous Waste Contingency Fund in m s
TN Hazardous Waste Remedial Action Fund s m s m m
IL Hazardous Waste Fund m s s
IN State Match (Super fund) smmmmmmm
Continental Steel Corporation
Hazardous Substances Response Trust m m mm
Fund
Ml Act 307 s
Superfund s
Environmental Protection Bond Fund s m m
MN Minnesota Environmental Response and m s m s
Liability Act
OH Hazardous Waste Clean-up Fund s m
Hazardous Waste Facility Management s am
Fund
WI Environmental Fund s s m s m m m
Bonding Authority s
AR Emergency Response Fund s
Hazardous Substance Remedial Action m m s m s
Fund
LA Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Fund s m m s
NM State Ground water Remediation Account s
Potential Responsible Party Program m s
Hazardous Waste Emergency Fund s m m
OK Hazardous Waste Fund s s
T




m
s

s

m

m


          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
X
m
                                                       70

-------
                                               TABLE  V-7
                               SOURCES  OF STATE  CLEANUP  FUNDS
Region  State
                              Fund
                                                             B
                                                                   CR
                                                                                             PF
  10
MT   Hazardous Uaste/CERCLA Special  Revenue
     Account

ND   Environmental  Restoration Fund

SO   The Regulated  Substances Response fund

UT   Hazardous Substance Mitigation  Fund

WY   Trust and Agency Account Fund

AZ   Water Quality  Assurance Revolving Fund

CA   Hazardous Waste Control Account
     Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Fund

HI   Environmental  Response Revolving Fund

NV   Hazardous Waste Management Fund

AK   Oil and Hazardous Substance Release
     Response Fund

ID   Hazardous Waste Emergency Account
     Hazardous Waste Training, Emergency
     and Monitoring Account
                                                                                                     m      m
OR Orphan Site Account
Hazardous Substance Remedial Action
Fund
WA State Toxic Control Account
Local Toxic Control Account
s mm
s s m m m

m m m m s
s
 Count:
                                                       31
                                                    18
48
35
32
                                                                                               10
                                                                                            10
                                        19
 s = MAJOR  FUNDING SOURCE (>20X)    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
Region
1


State Fund
CT Emergency Spi 1 I
Response Fund
Urban Site
Remedial Action
ME Uncontrolled
Sites Fund
Landfill Closure
Expended Expended Total
For NPL For non-NPL Expended
$0
$0
$175.000
$4,300,000
Obligated
For NPL
$0
$0
$0

Obligated
For non-NPL
$5,000,000
$750,000
$0

Total
Obligated
$5,000,000
$750,000
$0
$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
     Chatlenge 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

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

DE   Hazardous                   $o    $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
Region  State
Fund
Expended      Expended       Total       Obligated     Obligated      Total
 For NPL.     For  non-NPL    Expended      For NPL     For non-NPL    Obligated
         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

        TN    Hazardous Waste
             Remedial  Action
             Fund
                $45,000   $11,883,000   $11,928,000      $900,000   $21,573,000   $22,473,000
                $67,865
                    $0       $67,865
                     $0      $329,476     $329,476      $348,000      $397,000
                     $0       $80,230       $80,230
                    $0
                    $0
                                               $0
                                              $0
                                                                         $0
                    $0      $818,000      $818,000
                    $0      $440,000      $440,000
                                              $0      $967,000
                                              $0
                                                           $0
                    $0
                    $0
                   $0
                                 $0
$0
             $0
$0
                                                                        $0
                    $0    $3,000,000   $3,000,000    $2,100,000    $3,000,000


                $5,594    $2,215,858   $2.221,452           $0      $249,871
        1L    Hazardous Waste      $1,483,300    $1,632,300    $5,952,600    $2,487,200   $4,712,300
             Fund
                                        SO


                                   W67.000


                                        SO
       SO


       SO


 , 100,000


 S249.871



0,748,700
                                                      74

-------
                                                TABLE  V-8
             EXPENDITURES  AND OBLIGATIONS FROM  STATE  CLEANUP  FUNDS
Region  State
                     Fund
Expended     Expended       Total
 For NPL     For non-NPL     Expended
Obligated    Obligated       Total
 For NPL     For non-NPL    Obligated
          IN    State Match
               (Super-fund)
               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

          LA    Hazardous  Waste
               Site Cleanup Fund

          NM    State Groundwater
               Remediation
               Account
               Potential
               Responsible Party
               Program
               Hazardous  Waste
               Emergency Fund

          OK   Hazardous Waste
               Fund
    $6,955            $0        $6,955

                              $84,580

  $100,000    $3,000,000    $3,100,000    $2,700,000    $5,800,000    $8,500,000
        $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      $189,000

                           $1,950,000

        $0      $121,683      $121,683            $0

$1,336,766                 $1,336,766            $0
        $0      $943,977     $943,977
        $0      $154,358     $154,358
        $0       $22,385      $22,385
                 $19,740      $19,740
         $0       $28,000       $28,000
        $0    $5,000,000    $5,000,000
        $0            $0           $0
        $0   $25,600,000   $25,600,000
         $0    $1,456,000    $1,456,000
         $0
                              $761,428

                              $952,397



                            $3,210,455



                  $1,502        $1,502

                      $0            $0
         $0    $1,923,932    $1,923,932
         $0      $154,358      $154,358
$0
                                    $0
                                    $0
                                                         75

-------
                                                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

  6      TX    Hazardous and       $84,180,587   $47,849,513 $132,030,100   $84,180,587  $45,929,145  $130,109,732
               Solid Waste
               Remediation Fee
               Fund (Fund 550)
               Spill Response              $0           $0            $0           $0           $0            ^
               Fund

  7      IA    Hazardous Waste        $24,113      $100,210      $124,323           $0           $0            JQ
               Remedial Fund

         KS    Environmental               $0      $160,000      $160,000           $0      $42,000       $43 Don
               Response Fund
               State Water Plan             $0     $269,000      $269,000      $489,000     $904,000   $1,393 000
               Fund

         MO    Hazardous Waste                                $2,000,000      $500,000
               Remedial Fund

         NE    None

 8       CO    Natural  Resource             $0           $0           $0           $0            $o           »..
              Damage Recovery
               Fund
              Hazardous           $2,500,000           $0   $2,500,000    $7,700,000            $o   $7,700 000
              Substances
              Response Fund

         HT    Environmental            $4,000     $627,255     $631,255
              Quality
              Protection Fund
              Hazardous              $21,916      $851,556     $873,472
              Waste/CERCLA
              Special  Revenue
             Account

        ND    Environmental               $0            $0          $0           $0           $o
             Restoration Fund

        SD   The Regulated               $0            $0           $0           $0           $o
             Substances
             Response Fund

        UT   Hazardous                   $0     $400,000      $400,000           $0     $675,000      $675 nnn
             Substance                                                                                    '   °
             Mitigation Fund

        WY    Trust and Agency
             Account  Fund

9       AZ    Water Quality                                  $7,272,900
             Assurance
             Revolving Fund

        CA    Hazardous Waste                               $88,600,000
             Control Account
                                                      76

-------
                                             TABLE  V-8
            EXPENDITURES  AND  OBLIGATIONS  FROM STATE CLEANUP  FUNDS
Region
9


State Fund
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

         UA    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
1 CT

MA

ME


NH

RI
VT

2 NJ


NY

PR
3 DC
DE
MD
PA
VA
WV
4 AL
Fund
Emergency Spi 1 1 Response Fund
Urban Site Remedial Action
Bond Fund
Environmental Challenge Fund
Uncontrolled Sites Bond Account
Uncontrolled Sites Fund
Landfill Closure and Remediation Bond Account
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
None
Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
Subaccount of Hazardous Substance Control Fund
Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund
Virginia Environmental Emergency Response Fund
Hazardous Waste Emergency Response Fund
Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
SI
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


X


X
X
X
X
X
X
ER


X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X


X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
RM SD RA OM NR CM AD LG
XXXXXX
X X X X X
X X X X X
X
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
X X X X X XX
X
X X X X XX
X X X X XX
xxxxxxxx
X X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X XX
X X
X
X X X X XXX
XXX XX

X X X X XX
X X X X XX
XXX XXX
XXX XX
X X X X XX
X X X X XX
vc









X

X

X


X




X



         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
XXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxx

XXXXXX      XX

xxxxxxxxx

X   X   X  X              X
X   X   X   X   X
XXXXXX
SI:SITE  INVESTIGATION  ER:EMERGENCY  RESPONSE  RM:REMOVALS  OM:0&M
SD:STUDIES AND DESIGN  RArREM. ACTIONS  NR:NATURAL RESOURCE RESTORATION
CMsCERCLA 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  SD  RA  OM  NR  CM  AD   LG  VC

     4      TN    Hazardous Waste Remedial Action  Fund                      XXXXXX       XX

     5      IL    Hazardous Waste Fund                                      XXXXXXXXX

           IN    State Match (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 LiabiIity 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 Groundwater 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
                Spill  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

          SD    The Regulated  Substances Response Fund                    XXXXX           XX

          UT    Hazardous Substance Mitigation Fund                       X   X   X   X        X       X
SIrSITE INVESTIGATION  ER:EMERGENCY RESPONSE  RM:REMOVALS  OMrO&M
SD:STUDIES AND  DESIGN  RA:REM. ACTIONS  NR:NATURAL  RESOURCE RESTORATION
CM: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  SD  RA  OM  NR  CM  AD  LG  VC
8 UY Trust and Agency Account
9 AZ Water Quality Assurance
CA Hazardous Waste Control
Hazardous Substance Clei
: Fund
Revolving Fund
Account
snup Bond Fund

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
         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

=s====  ===== ========s======a==============ss==ss================r====  s=  == == ==  ==  s=  ==  ==  ==  ==  ==
Count:                                                                 58  59 60 56  60  49  21  50  48  15   7
 SJ:SITE INVESTIGATION  ER:EMERGENCY RESPONSE  RM:REMOVALS  OM:0&M
 SD'.STUDIES AND DESIGN  RA:REM.  ACTIONS  NR'.NATURAL RESOURCE RESTORATION
 CMrCERCLA MATCH  AD:PROGRAM 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
Promulgated
Cleanup
Region State Standards
1 Connecticut
Ma i ne
Massachusetts X
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
2 New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
3 Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland X
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia X
4 Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
5 Illinois X
Indiana
Michigan X
Minnesota X
Water
Quality
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
MCLs or
HCLGs
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
5

6




7



8





9



10



lount :
State
Ohio
Wisconsin
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Arizona
California
Hawa i i
Nevada
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
====================
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
X X
=========== ========
19 43
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
47
Background
Levels
X
X
X
X
X

X

X


X
X

X

X
X
X
X

X

X
X
40
Risk
Assessment
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X


X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
42
EPA
Guidelines
X

X
X
X
X
X


X

X
X

X
X


X
X

X
X
X
X
==========
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
     Statutory/Regulatory Requirements
          Pol icy/Ad hoc Practices
        Maine
       Massachusetts
       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.

 LIST  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.  RPMs 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
        South Carolina
        Tennessee
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.

None.
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.
                                                                       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.
                                                                       State follows NCP public participation
                                                                       requirements.
                                                         87

-------
                                                TABLE  V-ll
                        STATE  PUBLIC  PARTICIPATION  REQUIREMENTS
Region         State

  5     Illinois
     Statutory/Regulatory Requi rements
                                                                                 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 Requi rements
         Pol icy/Ad hoc Practices
Water Quality Control  Commission
regulations for non-NPL sites.  NCP
regulations for NPL  sites.
Major cases:   fact  sheet published,
periodic public meetings, public notice of
selected remedy.  Small cases:  by demand.
        Oklahoma

        Texas
None.

Statute requires public  notice and
comment on site listing  and  remedy
selection.
TNRCC meets informally with  community as
community interest warrants.
   7    Iowa
        Kansas
        Missouri
        Nebraska
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.
                                                                        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
 None.
         Montana
         North  Dakota
         South Dakota
 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,
 DEO  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 coor to  door contact
and letters  to public meetings.
                                                       90

-------
                                             TABLE V-ll
                      STATE  PUBLIC  PARTICIPATION  REQUIREMENTS
Region         State

  10   Washington
    Statutory/Regulatory Requirements
                                                                           Pol icy/Ad hoc Practices
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
Specified
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Delaware
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X

X
           District of Columbia

           Maryland                  X

           Pennsylvania              X

           Virginia

           West Virginia

           Alabama

           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
                                             93

-------
                                     TABLE V-12
                              LIABILITY  STANDARDS
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
                        Strict
         Joint and
          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

1     Connecticut

     Maine

     Massachusetts
            Punitive Damages

1 1/2 x  State's cost

Treble

Treble
        New Hampshire

        Rhode Island

        Vermont

        New Jersey

        New York

        Puerto Rico

        Delaware

        District of Columbia  None

        Maryland             Hone

         Pennsylvania
                          None

                          Treble

                          Treble

                          Treble

                          None

                          None

                          Treble
                           Treble
         Virginia


         West Virginia

    4    Alabama



         Florida

         Georgia

         Kentucky

         Mississippi




          North Carolina

          South Carolina



          Tennessee

     5    Illinois
                           None


                           None

                           None



                           None

                           Treble

                           None

                            None




                            None

                            Treble



                             1  1/2 times

                             Treble
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
                                                           96

-------
     PENALTIES AND

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
                     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

-------
PENALTIES  Mm  DAMAGES
Region        State

  8     Wyoming



  9     Arizona



        California


        Hawai i




        Nevada

   10   Alaska



         Idaho

         Oregon

         Washington
                                    Punitive Damages
                        None



                        Treble



                        Treble


                        Treble




                        None

                        None



                         Hone

                         Treble

                         Treble
STATE "SUPERFUND"  STATUTE

                  Civil  Penalties

     $10,000/day for EOA 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/violation

      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 Hampshire
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
Program Date
no
yes 1991
yes 1983
no
no
no
yes 7/1/93
yes 1990
no
yes 1993
no
yes 1982
no
no
no
yes 1988
no
no
no
yes 1972
no
no
yes 1980
yes 1993
yes 1988
yes 1990
no
yes 1990
Amount Amount
Recovered Claims Pending Pending

$1,000,000 3
$19,000,000 0 $0



$5,000,000 8
$20,000,000

$600,000 0 $Q

*o o $0



$0 0 $Q



$500,000 0 $Q


$0 o $0
$0 4
$2.70°.000 5 $2,500,000
$3,840,000

$200,000 0 tn
                 100

-------
            TABLE V-14
NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES  PROGRAMS
Region
5
6




7



8





9



10



======
Total:
State
Wisconsin
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Arizona
California
Hawa i i
Nevada
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
====================
Program Date
no
yes 11/93
no
yes 7/93
no
yes 4/90
no
yes mid-1970s
no
no
yes 1987
yes 1991
no
no
no
no
yes 1991
yes 1960s
yes 1990
no
no
yes 1985
yes 1989
yes 1990
======= =========
Amount Amount
Recovered Claims Pending Pending

$0 1

$0 1 $0

$248,839 26 $50,000,000

1


$5,000,000 2
$0 1 $300,000,000


1 $12,000,000

$0 0 $0
$23,855,533+ 12 $100,000,000
$0 0 $0


$5,000,000 1
$0 1
$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



Record Disclose
No Super on before
State Law Lien Deed Transfer
Connecticut x X
Maine X X
Massachusetts x
New Hampshire X
Rhode Island X
Vermont X
New Jersey x X
New York X
Puerto Rico X
Delaware X
District of Columbia X
Maryland x
Pennsylvania X X
Virginia X
West Virginia X x
Alabama X
Florida x
Georgia X X
Kentucky x
Mississippi X
North Carolina X
South Carolina X
Tennessee X
Illinois X X
Indiana X
Michigan X x
Minnesota X x
Examine Cleanup
before before Data
Transfer Transfer base
X XX
X
X

X

X X
X

X







X




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 Date
Law Lien Deed Transfer Transfer Transfer base
X
X
X
X X X X x
X
X
X
XX 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
SMC









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
SMO,


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
l

2
3

4

5



7
8
10

Program
Maine
Massachusetts
New Jersey
Delaware
Virginia
North
Carolina
(Consent
Agreement
Program)
North
Carolina
( Independent
Action
Program)
Illinois
Indiana
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Missouri
Utah
Oregon
Washington
Oversight Oversight
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
Sign-Off Agreement
X

X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
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
 P.L. 1993, Ch.  355
        Massachusetts
  2     New Jersey
 3     Delaware
       Virginia
 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.  14, 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 I 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.
Mo 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
        Morth
        Carolina
        (Consent
        Agreement
        Program)
            Specific authority  in N.C.G.S. §130A-130.9
Party must notify Department  in writing of
its intent.  Department and party sign
Adninistrative Order  on Consent, which
outlines work to be performed.  AOC must be
signed before Departmental review of
documents and preparation of  Remedial
Action Plan.
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.
        North
        Carolina
        (Independent
        Action
        Program)
        Illinois
            Specific authority in N.C.G.S.  §130A-130.9
Party must notify Department  of
contamination.  If party submits work
schedule. Department will not report site
to federal Superfund branch.
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.
            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.
         Indiana
             Indiana Code 13-7-8.9
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.

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 DEN 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.
                                                                                                     corrective action at site, IEPA provides a
                                                                                                     release from responsibility for further
                                                                                                     activities pursuant to Sec. 4(y) of Illinois
                                                                                                     Environmental  Protection Act.
 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 Spi11 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
Party must enter into enforceable Consent
Agreement, which provides  for oversight
costs and outlines  procedure to be
undertaken.
Party receives letter  indicating they have
completed the 3 phases of cleanup.  Letter
has no legal significance.
 10    Oregon         Environmental Cleanup Rules
                      OAR 340-122-101
                                            Party requests oversight by DEQ for
                                            investigation and cleanup activities  at
                                            site.  Letter Agreement between DEQ and
                                            party to clean site under program is
                                            signed.
                                            Party must prepare follow-up report. DEO
                                            reviews and comments on report.  Necessary
                                            revisions are made.  DEQ 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 RCU
               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  OF
VOLUNTARY REMEDIATION  ACTIVITIES
                             Workplans 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
                              Workplans and
                           Department  Approval
               Oversight Costs
                and Schedules
        North
        Carolina
        (Consent
        Agreement
        Program)
       North
       Carolina
       (Independent
       Action
       Program)

       Illinois
 Department  of  Environmental Quality,
 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
               DEO  reviews work plans but does not  approve
               plans.  Risk assessments reviewed if part  of
               plan.  DEO 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.
 No charge  for DEQ oversight.  No time limits.
 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.
charge for review.  No  time  limits.
                                                                                                                                                      No
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  OP
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  AND  CLEANUP  STANDARDS

                    Covered Sites
                                                                       Cleanup Standards
        Massachusetts
 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.
 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.
       New Jersey
                                625
       Delaware
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 LIST) does
not have jurisdiction.
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
K)
                No sites yet accepted
              North
              Carolina
              (Consent
              Agreement
              Program)
                                        30
North
Carolina
(Independent
Action
Program)

Illinois
5-10 reports reviewed
                       Any  site that  is not contaminated with petroleum and
                        is not  claimed to be under the jurisdiction of RCRA
                        or State superfund programs.
                             Agreements at 288 sites,
                              remediation underway at
                                     70 sites,
                              remediation  completed at
                                     39 sites.
                                         Any site not  1) contaminated with petroleum,  2)
                                         permitted or  on interim  status under RCRA, or 3)
                                         under Department  of  Environmental Management (DEM)
                                         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
       Wisconsin
No accurate figure
    available
       Missouri
8    Utah
                         11 sites pending,
                           21 in progress,
                            2 completed
                                               Any  site not covered by other state or federal
                                               regulations (e.g. RCRA, CERCLA, UST).   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.

DEQ 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
                 20 waiting to enter
                      program,
                  60 being cleaned,
                  10 sites cleaned,
                         Any site eligible, but sites subject to federal
                         action usually excluded.
                                                    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.
K)
              Washington
              (Consent
              Agreement
              Program)
Washington
(Independent
Action
Program)
                3 negotiating  to enter
                program,  4 sites being
                       cleaned
                         Any site is eligible.
2500 actions submitted,
  only a few approved
Any site is eligible.
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

-------
      Region
Program
                                                                          TABLE  V-21
                                                         VOLUNTARY  REMEDIATION PROGRAMS:
                                    PUBLIC  PARTICIPATION,  LIABILITY,  AND REOPENING  PROVISIONS
Public Participation
Liability Provisions
Reopening Provisions
              Maine
            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
ts>
ON
            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.
              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.
                                 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.
                                 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.
                                                        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.
                                 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.
              Virginia       Department  will  require public notice
                             before sign-off.  Undecided whether
                             Department  or party will provide public
                             notice.
                                                         No  release from liability.   Only provision
                                                         is  the No Further Action letter.
                                                                             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.

-------
                                                                         TABLE  V-21
                                                         VOLUNTARY  REMEDIATION PROGRAMS:
                                    PUBLIC PARTICIPATION,  LIABILITY,  AND REOPENING PROVISIONS
       Region    Program
            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.
K)
               North
               Carolina
               (Independent
              Action
              Program)

              Illinois
 No requirements.
Public notices  and hearings not required.
IEPA may conduct public meetings and
solicit public  comments at Program sites
which are subjects of community concerns.
 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(y)  in no way affects site owner's  or
operator's potential strict,  joint and
several  liabilities for costs  of response
to release or threatened release at  site.
Department  reserves right to reopen site if
new data indicates threats to human health
or the environment.
IEPA receives right to reopen for any
reason.
              Indiana        DEM must publish notice of all actions.
                            Public hearing may be held before DEM
                            approval of work plan, if requested by
                            public.
                                            1) Covenant Not to Sue provides protection
                                            from claims resulting from release that was
                                            subject of plan,  but does not cover
                                            conditions unknown to Commissioner at
                                            sign-off; 2) statute protects party against
                                            outside actions for contribution concerning
                                           matters addressed in voluntary cleanup;  3)
                                            statute protects  party from suits that
                                           arise during implementation of work plan;
                                           4) liability  provisions do not affect
                                           claims against third party for
                                           contribution.
                                           DEM will reopen only if it finds information
                                           provided by party was false.

-------
                                                                         TABLE  V-21
                                                        VOLUNTARY  REMEDIATION  PROGRAMS:
                                   PUBLIC PARTICIPATION,  LIABILITY,  AND  REOPENING  PROVISIONS
     Region     Program

        5     Minnesota
           Public Participation
                         Liability Provisions
                                                       Reopening Provisions
              Wisconsin
              Missouri
N)
oo
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.
              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.   DHR reserves
               right to require party to conduct
               additional  environmental  assessments  or
               remedial action if future monitoring
               identifies  additional contamination.
                                           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.
        8    Utah
        10    Oregon
              Washington
              (Consent
              Agreement
              Program)
 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
None.  DEQ 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.
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.
vo

-------
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
      NPL 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 DEP's
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.

      Prnpp.rtv 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 AcnvmEs
      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 rand 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"4 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 DECs 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.

              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, NJ.S.A. §§13:lk-15 through
 13:lk-19 (1984).
      The Industrial Sites Recovery Act (ISRA) (1993), amended New Jersey's Environmental
 Cleanup Responsibility Act,  NJ.S.A. §§13:lk-6 through 13:Ik-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 FY93.
 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 $239.5 M
Bond Fund, with expenditures of $127.3M on cleanup on both NPL and non-NPL sites, had
a balance of S112.2M 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
       Liability
       Liability is strict, joint and several. Civil penalties are authorized up to $50K per day
per 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 $60.9M were paid out this fiscal year; $59.8M
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 S2.7M 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
KT6.

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, B.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. S34.80M 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
       NPL 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 hi hi 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 ACnvmES
      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
      NFL 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 S8.26M 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
      NFL 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 Inactive Hazardous Sites Response Act of 1987, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§130A-310 el
seq. (1987, as amended 1989, 1991) authorizes the Inactive Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund,
provides authority to order RPs to conduct cleanup and to recover costs, and establishes a
priority list and property transfer requirements.
      The Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §130A-290 gt 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 S1.38M 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
      NPL 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% conies 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 l(r and lO"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 si ge^, 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 S10.75M 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"4 as unacceptable and further remediation is required.
Risks between 10"4 - 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
      Dlinois has a SMOA, a CPCA, and SSCAs with the U.S. EPA.
                                       185

-------
                                   INDIANA

 SITES
       NFL 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 III, 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 $21.3M, 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 $3.84M 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 $5.25M 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
       NFL 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  $13.26M (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 $761K.
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 $21.45M.  S10.13M 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"4 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 $200K.

       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 $20.5 M 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 (ERF A), 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
 HWSCF's  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
      NPL 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. 27 A, §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
$45.93M  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
       NFL 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 $2.5 M 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
       NPL 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
      NFL 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 et seq. (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 S11.6M 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.l6M.
Obligations from the fund during FY93 totaled $7.7M; expenditures totaled S2.5M.
       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"* 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 S1.5M 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 S675K. During FY93,
 $4K from the  EQPF were spent at NPL sites, and S627K at non-NPL sites.
        The Hazardous Waste/CERCLA Special Revenue Account, with a balance of $1.5 M
 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 S1.1M.  During FY93, expenditures from the account totaled S873K, 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"* 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 $300M 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 $664K 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 5425K 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, S675K 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 lO"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 conies 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"* 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"*
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 of 1984, §§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 S88.6M.  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
NCFs 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  S100M.   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 S33K 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~* 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 S1.6M  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 5c per
 barrel tax on oil from the pipeline.  The Fund has a $50M ceiling.
                                       240

-------
      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 $100K 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-time on-site community relations person has been contracted for the Bunker Hill NPL
site. This person coordinates monthly public meetings, manages media contact, and deals
with community health concerns. 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 S2.51M 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 S2.96M 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 Fits working on cleanups.

CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
       The State spent S25.88M 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
S24.34M 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 S41.48M
and S21.26M 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, 10"6 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
                    •6 U '. r.OV! ;• 0 7 6

-------