Proposed EPA guidance challenges current state voluntary cleanup programs A new draft guidance that EPA hopes will encourage the voluntary cleanup of brownfield sites has many state officials complaining that it will have the opposite effect, discouraging developers from tackling sites with low-level contamination. During the past few years, EPA has given more authority to states over the voluntary cleanup of brownfields and other sites contaminated with low levels of hazardous wastes. At the same time, many states have created their own cleanup programs. Yet the quantity of flexible language in this proposal has state officials concerned about where their authority ends and federal authority begins. The "Guidance for Developing Memoranda of Agreement Language Concerning State Voluntary Cleanup Programs," published Sept. 9, creates the possibility for federal intervention after a site has been cleaned up, reducing the significance of the state programs, said state regulators, municipalities, developers, and banking representatives (Federal Register, 1997, 62(174) 47495-506). Thirty-one states have voluntary cleanup programs designed to encourage remediation of sites with low levels of pollution. Of these states, 20 have entered into memoranda of agreements (MOAs) under the Superfund program, which ensures that EPA will not step in after state cleanup requirements are met. One deterrent to developing brownfields is the slow process of clearing the site for redevelopment through state and federal programs. State regulators believe this draft guidance would add several levels of federal oversight. "I see this guidance going exactly in the opposite direction of where we should be going," said Tom Fidler of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Several state officials are so incensed by the draft that they are willing to seek congressional action to block it. EPA officials maintain that the draft allows the states to run their programs without federal involvement. The agency "really does not
want to be involved in state voluntary cleanup programs," insisted Tim Fields, acting assistant administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. "We do not want to do anything to disrupt existing MOAs." The draft establishes a twotiered system for high- and low-risk sites. What concerns state regulators is that the criteria would convert many sites considered low
"We believe we ought to have a flexible approach to granting authority to states in managing cleanup programs." —Tim Fields, EPA risk under existing state programs into the high-risk category, which has never been protected by MOAs. It also places tighter federal cleanup standards on sites previously considered low risk. The draft also leaves unanswered the question of who will set cleanup levels for low-level waste sites that fall into the high-risk category but are not eligible for the Superfund program. States especially want to retain control over sites that fall short of qualifying for the Superfund program but are categorized as high risk, believing that, if encouraged with the right incentives, investors with private funds rather than tax dollars would
pay for the millions of dollars of cleanup. Many states fear the draft would give the federal government control over these sites. Fields doesn't see it that way. "Our belief is that more than 95% of the sites that are out there are going to be covered by state programs under this guidance. That's what we intend." Caveats in the draft also give EPA greater latitude in recovering costs from developers. This possibility of federal involvement after redevelopment threatens owners and potential purchasers of brownfields who are concerned that they may later be liable for any future pollution. "If there's a chance of federal liability, that would have a chilling effect on lending," said Joanne Comeau, vice president of LaSalle National Bank, Chicago. EPA officials defend the broad language of the guidance. "We believe we ought to have a flexible approach to granting authority to states in managing cleanup programs," Fields said. The draft guidance grandfathers in existing MOAs but subjects them to review after three years initially and every five years thereafter. Wisconsin and Illinois have the two oldest MOAs, secured nearly three years ago, and would be subject next year to the first reviews. However, Fields said the agency may alter the review schedule to 5 years initially and every 10 years thereafter. EPA officials have met with state and banking officials, and they say the next draft will address many of these concerns. "We will make changes," Fields assured. —DEBRA A. SCHWARTZ
Less than half of Superfund monies go toward cleanup Just under 45%, or $614 million of the total $1.4 billion allocated for the Superfund program in fiscal year 1996, was spent on cleanup work, according to a new General Accounting Office report. The report, "Superfund: Trends in Spending for Site Cleanups," found that government spending on cleanup work at Superfund sites increased each year over the past decade while spending on Superfund enforcement, research, and administration decreased. An estimated $82 million was spent on site characterization studies and planning, and $704 million was spent on activities such as administration, enforcement, and research. These latter expenditures included $294 million, or 21% of the total, for rent and accounting systems for EPA offices; $210 million, or 15% of the total, for legal expenses for litigation and negotiation related to Superfund claims; and just $56 million, or approximately 4%, for research and development of new technologies to remediate hazardous wastes. —C.M.C.
VOL.31, NO. 11, 1997 /ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES TECHNOLOGY / N E W S * 5 0 5 A
