Free Notice of Additional Authority - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 1 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

million. For example, DOI allocated approximately $10 million of Central Hazardous Materials Fund (CHF) money during 2001 to 35 projects spread among five bureaus: 14 projects in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); 13 projects in the National Park Service; 4 projects in the Fish and Wildlife Service; 3 projects in the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and 1 project in the U.S. Geological Survey (U.S. DOI 2003a). The geographic distribution of these projects are shown in Exhibit 8-2. By 2005, DOI also plans to have completed cleanup of its 1,000th BLM hazardous material site (U.S. DOI 2003b). In addition to hazardous waste sites it has already identified, other sites may be discovered on its properties in the future. An estimated 3.5 million acres under the Department's stewardship are in need of restoration. DOI plans to restore about 1.1 million of these acres by 2005. This land includes mined lands, wildlife refuges, park lands, and forests. In the course of implementing this task, additional remediation needs are likely to arise. For example, BLM estimates that between 5,000 and 25,000 abandoned mines on public lands the Bureau administers have caused or could cause environmental damage, mostly from water pollution. In a typical year, DOI works on between 50 and 150 remediation sites. In 2001, USDA estimated that over 2,000 sites with releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances remained to be addressed over the next 50 years, at an estimated cost of $4 billion (USDA 2001). From 2003 to the end of 2007, USDA anticipates completing 150 CERCLA cleanups. During 2003 alone, USDA planned to complete 68 CERCLA site assessments, 59 CERCLA cleanup plans, and 6 RCRA cleanups. (In contrast, the agency targeted 17 CERCLA cleanups during fiscal year 2002.) More than half of the agency's CERCLA cleanups planned for 2003 involve mining sites (USDA 2003). USDA recognizes that preparation of cleanup plans is emerging as a potential "bottleneck." While 137 CERCLA cleanups were completed in fiscal years 1998-2001, only 84 cleanup plans were completed during that time. DOT has made significant progress in remediating its contaminated sites. In fiscal year 2002, DOT reported that 91 of its facilities required no further remedial actions under SARA, and that all SARA cleanup efforts were completed (U.S. DOT 2002). This leaves 43 DOT facilities that require remediation. The Coast Guard received DOT funding to conduct response and cleanup activities required of the DOT under CERCLA/SARA. Continued restoration activity is anticipated at three Coast Guard facilities for several years. In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration plans continued cleanup activities at several facilities, and replacement of outdated underground storage tanks and cleaning or removal of unused tanks at decommissioned facilities. DOT uses a "worst first" prioritization system to address problems posed by DOT facilities where significant pollution problems are identified.

8.4 Site Characteristics
The types of contamination problems at civilian federal agency facilities vary from agency to agency. Exhibit 8-3 provides examples of the types of contaminated facilities managed by agencies listed most often on the docket. Contaminated facilities owned or operated by other civilian federal agencies encompass research laboratories, properties acquired through foreclosure, and operational facilities such as the Department of Justice federal penitentiaries,

Chapter 8: Civilian Federal Agency Sites

Page 8-7

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 2 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

Tennessee Valley Authority power generating plants, and Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers. Exhibit 8-3. Examples of Types of Contaminated Facilities at Civilian Federal Agencies
Department of Interior
Bureau of Land Management Landfills (approximately 3,400 closed sites) Abandoned mining operations Unauthorized hazardous waste sites Bureau of Reclamation National Park Service Fish and Wildlife Service Reservoirs and drinking water supplies contaminated with agricultural runoff Landfills and dumps (inherited with acquired land) Abandoned mining operations Contaminated sites resulting from agricultural runoff or upstream industrial operations Inherited land previously used for industrial or defense purposes

Department of Agriculture
Forest Service Abandoned mining sites Sanitary landfills and aboveground dumps Wood preservation sites and laboratories Agricultural Research Service Commodity Credit Corporation Farmers Home Administration Research laboratories Grain storage facilities Farms (acquired through foreclosure) where pesticides and other hazardous materials may have been disposed

Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) U.S. Coast Guard FAA Technical Center, with soil and groundwater contamination of 22 areas Airfields with hazardous solvent or oil spills Fuel storage and operation/maintenance facilities Research laboratories, industrial plants

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

8.5 Estimated Cleanup Costs
Detailed site information for developing accurate cleanup cost estimates for civilian federal agency sites is not readily available from the agencies. EPA's FEDPLAN-PC information system has been discontinued and information sources on environmental activities of the agencies are scattered among their bureaus and offices. To provide insight into the probable cost of completing cleanup at federal civilian sites, it is useful to examine (a) the probable cost of all sites that have been or are likely to be discovered, given current regulatory requirements, and (b) the probable funding likely to be committed to remediation.
Chapter 8: Civilian Federal Agency Sites Page 8-8

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 3 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

Estimated Cost To Complete Cleanup Because information on contaminated sites at most agencies is fragmented, it is difficult to develop a clear picture of the cost to complete cleanups at civilian federal agencies. The U.S. General Accounting Office's (GAO) recent study of the issue of environmental liabilities of federal agencies indicates the nature of this difficulty. In an effort to improve the Congressional budgetary process for federal agencies' environmental liabilities, the GAO recently studied the problems posed by the waste-producing assets of these agencies. GAO recommended that the Office of Management and Budget require federal agencies to include in their budget requests supplemental information on estimated environmental cleanup/disposal costs for new acquisitions (U.S. GAO 2003). This requirement implies that agencies will be required to conduct Phase I and Phase II type site assessments when contemplating real estate transactions. It will also ensure that agencies explicitly recognize the financial cost of their potential environmental liabilities. GAO also assessed the efforts that federal agencies with major cleanup responsibilities have made in setting priorities for spending limited cleanup funds at the sites posing the highest risks (U.S. GAO 1999). GAO found that EPA and USDA had made progress in setting priorities on the basis of site risks, but that additional efforts were required by DOI to complete a site inventory and establish a risk-based prioritization of its sites. Despite these difficulties, DOI, USDA, and NASA planning and budgetary information indicate that cleanup of sites covered under CERCLA, RCRA, and other environmental regulations will continue to require extensive resources over many years. The following points summarize an estimate of the cost to complete remediation at contaminated federal civilian agency sites.

Exhibit 8-4. Estimate Cleanup Cost for Civilian Federal Agencies
Agency DOI Cost to Complete ($ Billions) $4.7-9.8 Explanation/Limitations Over 1,000 sites identified on 468 facilities. It could require over 100 years to address these sites. DOI reports it could have as many 25,000 sites. (U.S. DOI 2003a and U.S. CEQ 1995). Over 2,000 sites with releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances (USDA 2001). USDA expects this work to take about 50 years. Environmental remediation of NASA's research and space flight centers could require an additional 80 years to complete. These agencies account for 70% of the facilities on the docket. Divide previous figure by 0.7.

USDA

$4.2

NASA Subtotal Total, all agencies

$1.3 $10.2-15.3 $14.6-21.9

Sources: See explanation in text and references above

.

Chapter 8: Civilian Federal Agency Sites

Page 8-9

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 4 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

Available Funding Given the magnitude of the cost to complete cleanups at civilian federal sites, it is useful to examine the level of recent funding. C Between 1995 and 2002, DOI received $87.4 million in direct funding and an additional $84 million in cost sharing or cost recovery to address sites with hazardous materials. The direct funding comes from the Central Hazardous Materials Fund described in Section 8.1. In recent years, annual CHF funding has been $10 million. These funds may be supplemented through cost sharing and cost recovery from responsible parties or business operators. Historically, about one dollar of PRP funds becomes available for each dollar of direct appropriations. DOI's BLM was appropriated $1 million in FY 1997, $3 million in FY 1998, and $10 million in fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for water quality-related cleanup actions at abandoned mine land sites. In addition, states obligated $10.2 million and the Office of Surface Mining obligated $5.9 million for emergency reclamation projects at abandoned mine lands during 2001. The Office of Surface Mining also distributed $6.9 million to 12 states for elimination of environmental problems caused by acid mine drainage from abandoned coal mines. Although most of these appropriations, which total $33 million, are for land reclamation, safety hazards and other non-remediation activities, a portion of these funds, perhaps 20 percent ($6 million) is likely to be used for site remediation. Thus, the funds available to DOI for remediation of contaminated sites are likely to amount to $26 million annually ($10 million from CHF + $10 million from cost recovery and cost sharing + $6 million directly funded by bureau programs). · USDA funding for priority CERCLA and RCRA activities are supplemented by Hazardous Materials Management Appropriations (HMMA). For fiscal year 2003, the department requested $15.7 million in HMMA funding, 47 percent ($7.3 million) of which covered actual cleanup work. This request is about equal to HMMA appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, each of which totaled $15.7 million. Approximately $5.1 million of the HMMA request targeted cleanup of abandoned and inactive mine sites on national forest lands. Of the total HMMA budget request, approximately 88 percent covered CERCLA activities. The remaining 12 percent was allocated to RCRA regulatory compliance, including the removal of underground storage tanks. A total of $26.7 million in USDA funds also were committed to meet the agency's environmental mission. USDA anticipates that, between 2003 to the end of 2007, it will complete 150 CERCLA cleanups. Thus, the upper-bound of funds likely to be available to USDA for remediation of contaminated sites is estimated to be about $34 million annually ($7.3 + $26.7 million). · NASA anticipates that 80 percent of its $41 million annual environmental restoration budget anticipated for fiscal years 2004-2008, or $32.8 million, will be used for remediation of contaminated sites (NASA 2003).

Chapter 8: Civilian Federal Agency Sites

Page 8-10

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 5 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

· The total anticipated annual budget for the three agencies is $92.8 million, and extrapolating this figure to all 17 agencies on the docket results in an estimated annual budget of $133 million for contaminated site remediation at federal agencies. This figure may underestimate the total remediation expenditures, because it includes only some of the potential cost recovery and cost sharing that will be available. Based on the above analysis, and the assumption that funding remains at $133 million annually, it will take 130 to 160 years to remediate the contaminated sites at civilian federal agencies.

8.6 Remediation Technologies
Little information is available on the technologies used to clean up facilities owned or operated by civilian federal agencies. Given the types of environmental problems present, the remediation approaches are likely to be similar to those used in other programs, such at RCRA and NPL sites. A useful EPA publication Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (Eleventh Edition) describes trends in technologies used at NPL, Department of Defense, and Department of Energy sites (U.S. EPA 2004). Many of those technologies, in particular those implemented at NPL industrial and mining sites, may be implemented at civilian federal agency sites. To stimulate the use of innovative technologies at federal, including civilian, contaminated sites, EPA is fostering the use of federal facilities as testing and demonstration centers. For example, several new cleanup technologies are under demonstration at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida as part of EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program. These demonstrations will help to identify cost-effective and easily-implemented technologies for treating groundwater contaminated with dense non-aqueous phase liquids. Also, in an effort to reduce regulatory and institutional barriers to innovative technology development, EPA is working with DOI and the Western Governor's Association to develop innovative technologies for use at mining sites.

8.7 References
NASA, 2003. Fiscal Year 2004 - Congressional Budget, U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2004. http://www.ifmp.nasa.gov/codeb/budget U.S. CEQ, 1995. Improving Federal Facilities Cleanup, Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Management and Budget, October 1995. USDA, 2001. USDA Hazardous Materials Management Program: Strategic Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, December 2001. http://www.usda.gov/da/hmmg USDA, 2003. Hazardous Materials Management: Annual Performance Plans, FY 2003, 2001, 2000. U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.usda.gov/da/hmmg U.S. DOI, 2001. U.S. Strategic Plan: FY 2000-2005, U.S. Department of the Interior. http://www.doi.gov/gpra/doioverviewstratplanv6
Chapter 8: Civilian Federal Agency Sites Page 8-11

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 6 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

U.S. DOI, 2003a. U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance web site. http://www.doi.gov/oepc U.S. DOI, 2003b. FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan; FY 2001 Annual Performance Report, U.S. Department of Interior. http://www.doi.gov/gpra/2003/01apr03app U.S. DOI, 2003c. U.S. Department of Interior. Office of Surface Mining web site. http://www.blm.gov/aml U.S. DOT, 2002. Performance and Accountability Report: Fiscal Year 2002, U.S. Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.gov/perfacc U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 2003a. "Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 68 Federal Register 107, January 2, 2003. U.S. EPA, 2003b. CERCLA Information System, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 2003. U.S. EPA, 2004. Treatment Technologies For Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Eleventh Edition), Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, EPA542-R--03-009, February 2004. http://www.clu-in.org/asr U.S. GAO, 1999. Progress Made by EPA and Other Federal Agencies to Resolve Program Management Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO/RCED-99-111, April 1999. U.S. GAO, 2000. U. S. Hazardous Waste: Effect of Proposed Rule's Extra Cleanup Requirements is Uncertain, U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO-01-67, October 2000. U.S. GAO, 2003. Long-Term Commitments: Improving the Budgetary Focus on Environmental Liabilities, U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO-03-219, January 2003. U.S. OMB, 1995. Improving Federal Facilities Cleanup. Office of Management and Budget, October 1995. clinton2.nara.gov/OMB/inforeg/iffc-2.html

Chapter 8: Civilian Federal Agency Sites

Page 8-12

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 7 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

Chapter 9 Demand for Remediation of States and Private Party Sites
The cleanup market includes thousands of sites managed by states and private parties. Nonfederal agency sites that are not being cleaned up under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank (UST) Programs, but still need attention, become the responsibility of state cleanup programs, private parties, or local jurisdictions. Most private party sites are remediated under state voluntary cleanup programs (VCPs). State sites can vary from sites that are similar to NPL sites to small sites with low levels of contamination. The majority of states have enforcement authority to compel cleanups and state cleanup funding mechanisms dedicated to financing the cleanup of abandoned sites. It has been estimated that as of December 2000, about 23,000 non-National Priority List (NPL) sites were known or suspected to be contaminated and need further attention requiring additional evaluation and/or some level of cleanup (ELI 2002). The extent of contamination at these sites is largely unknown. However, information in this chapter about state sites that have been remediated indicates the likely characteristics of these sites. In addition to direct state cleanups, many state sites are cleaned up by private parties in accordance with state cleanup standards. To encourage private party cleanups, almost all states have created voluntary cleanup programs that often provide incentives for private parties to assess and cleanup their sites, with state oversight. Most states have also created brownfield programs that target the cleanup and redevelopment of properties that have been abandoned or are underused because of the potential for contamination.
Chapter 9: State and Private Sites

Highlights
· There may be as many as ½ to1 million brownfield sites, 85­90% of which have not been evaluated or cleaned up. · Based on data from EPA's brownfields grant projects, 350,000 to 700,000 of these may require cleanup. The exact percentage is unknown. · About 5,000 cleanups are typically completed annually under state mandatory and voluntary control programs. At this rate, 150,000 sites can be completed in 30 years. · Annual expenditures for these cleanups are estimated to average about $1 billion. If states with limited funds want to accelerate the pace of work, they will likely have to rely on private party actions, voluntary cleanups, and cost recovery. · The Brownfields Revitalization Act will likely lead to an expansion in the number of sites assessed and cleaned up. · The federal brownfields program has served as a catalyst for other development that use private, state, and local funds. EPA's investment in brownfields, more than $700 million since 1995, has leveraged more than $5 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding. · State site cleanup and redevelopment involves coordination of many disciplines and stakeholders, which has led remediation firms to form alliances with firms and consultants with other specialties. · The use of advanced remediation techniques appears to have grown in recent years, although data are scant. · There is a need to screen many sites to determine whether or not they have contamination problems.

Page 9-1

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 8 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

In recent years, an average of about 5,000 cleanups have been completed annually under direct state cleanups, voluntary cleanup programs, and brownfield programs. During 2000, states spent more than $505.6 million (38 states reporting) for remediation of NPL and non-NPL sites. Most of these funds were for direct state cleanups at non-NPL sites. Despite this progress in completing cleanups, the backlog of sites to be cleaned up has been stable, primarily because new sites are still being identified.

9.1 Programs Addressing State Sites
The cleanup of state and private party sites is strongly influenced by a myriad of state and federal programs that seek to encourage site investigations, cleanup, and redevelopment. The structure and operations of these programs vary widely from state-to-state and many of them preexist the federal brownfield program. These programs typically can require cleanups of certain types of contamination and provide incentives for cleanup, redevelopment, and long-term stewardship. There are two types of state hazardous waste programs: programs that primarily address enforcement issues and oversee cleanups of abandoned sites, and state voluntary cleanup and brownfield programs. In addition, federal programs actively encourage and assist states in their efforts to evaluate and clean up contaminated sites. 9.1.1 State Hazardous Waste Cleanup Programs Almost all states have established hazardous waste programs to ensure that potentially contaminated sites are assessed and, if necessary, cleaned up. Information on these state programs, numbers of contaminated sites, and the status of those sites has been derived from existing published information and state web sites. Contacting individual states to obtain data was outside the scope of this study. Three key sources provide extensive information about the state programs, An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, 2001 Update, and An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, 1998 Update, and An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, 1995 Update. These studies, prepared by EPA and the Environmental Law Institute are based on information collected from the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. For convenience, these are referred to as 52 "states." These studies describe each of the states' programs, including enabling legislation, enforcement provisions, staffing levels, funding, and other aspects of the programs. Exhibit 9-1, which is based on data in the 50-State Study summarizes the prevalence of the major state programs. Unlike some environmental statutes which mandate minimum national standards that could be administered by the states after their programs are approved by a federal agency, each state cleanup program is developed according to the state's criteria. Nevertheless, most state hazardous waste programs include authorities similar to the federal Superfund program. They typically include provisions for emergency response and long-term remedial actions; cleanup funds or other mechanisms to finance site investigation and remedial activities; enforcement authorities to compel responsible parties to conduct or pay for studies and site remediations; staff to administer state-lead cleanup activities and to oversee remediations conducted by other parties; and efforts to ensure public participation in decision-making regarding site cleanup and
Chapter 9: State and Private Sites Page 9-2

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 9 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

reuse. About half the states also authorize long-term stewardship under their statutes (ELI 2002). Many states have been cleaning up land contaminated by hazardous substances, or overseeing such cleanups, for about two decades. Exhibit 9-1. State Cleanup Program Summary a
State Program Cleanup Funds Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) Brownfields Program Long-term Stewardship Program
a

Number of States 49 50

Explanation Idaho, Nebraska, and the District of Columbia do not have cleanup funds. North Dakota and Vermont do not have formal programs; however, they allow private parties to initiate voluntary cleanups. In addition to the 31 states with formal brownfield programs, 14 target brownfields through their VCPs. Most of these states have committed scant resources to date.

31 41

Based on 50 states plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, referred to as "52 states."

Sources: U.S. EPA, 2002, An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, 2001 Update, November 2002.

State Cleanup Funds As of December 2000, 49 states, including Puerto Rico, have established cleanup funds or provide another mechanism to pay for the cleanup of non-NPL sites where no responsible party is available, able, or willing to do so. Only Idaho, Nebraska, and the District of Columbia do not have an authorized state cleanup fund. Thirty-six states have more than one fund for cleaning up contaminated waste sites, resulting in a total of 117 state cleanup funds. There are a variety of reasons that states have more than one fund. A state may have multiple funds to differentiate sources or uses of funds. For example, funds may receive money through appropriations, penalties, cost recoveries, or proceeds from a hazardous waste fee. Some funds may apply only to specific uses, such as for emergency response, brownfields, a voluntary cleanup program, or a specific type of site or waste. For example, a number of states have established funds dedicated to dry cleaning sites. State Site Databases State site lists are a potential source with which to evaluate the extent of the state remediation market. Many state statutes authorize the development of a priority list, inventory, or registry of state sites. Some states use these compilations to determine the order in which sites will be cleaned up. By the end of 2000, about 40 states had some kind of list, registry, or inventory, with a total of 15,000 sites. However, because the approaches and definitions used by the states vary widely, the aggregation of these data is neither useful for this market assessment nor to make comparison among states. Some states list all known and suspected sites, others include only those that have completed a long evaluation process, and others include only sites where cleanup

Chapter 9: State and Private Sites

Page 9-3

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 10 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

is funded directly by the state. Some states' lists may be useful for contractors seeking opportunities for site investigation or remediation work in selected states. Long-Term Stewardship Forty-one state cleanup programs explicitly address long-term stewardship for sites where hazardous substances are to remain in place at levels that do not allow for unrestricted use. The statutes of these states are designed to protect the public health, safety, and the environment at such sites. Institutional controls are the most common mechanism used for long-term stewardship. These include property-law-based restrictions such as restrictive covenants and easements; information systems such as signs, educational materials, published notices, warnings about consumption of fish or wildlife, and site databases; and governmental controls such as zoning, local ordinances, building permits, and groundwater and well-drilling restrictions. Although forty-one states have long-term stewardship programs for one or more of their cleanup programs, most states have committed scant resources to monitoring institutional controls. Liability Most state statutes provide a means for charging parties, such as owners, operators, generators, and transporters, with liability for cleanups. These are the same parties usually charged under CERCLA. Liability may be charged under state hazardous waste laws or under another statute, such as a solid waste, water pollution control, or imminent danger statutes. Many state statutes include provisions for retroactive, strict, and/or joint and several liability (CERCLA has all three). Forty-three states impose retroactive liability. That is, the state can impose liability for cleanup of hazardous substances disposed of prior to the enactment of the statute. Forty-one states have strict liability standards and 36 states use joint and several liability to allocate liability among multiple responsible parties. Under a strict liability standard, liability is based solely on the occurrence of a release and does not require proof of fault, such as through negligence. Under joint and several liability, the state may pursue one or more responsible party for the full amount of the cleanup. These provisions are potentially powerful incentives for companies to undertake site remediations. Given the prevalence of strict, joint and several, and retroactive liability, the potential for cleanup cost liability is a significant obstacle to redevelopment and, in some cases, to cleanup. Many state voluntary cleanup and brownfield programs include mechanisms for mitigating the potential liability of responsible parties, prospective purchasers, owners, and developers. These programs are described in the next section. 9.1.2 Voluntary Cleanup and Brownfield Programs Voluntary cleanup programs, a major component of state cleanup efforts, encourage private parties to voluntarily clean up sites rather than expend state resources or cleanup fund money on enforcement actions or remediations. VCPs are designed to reduce factors that tend to discourage voluntary cleanups, such as liability for cleanups, lack of control over the remediation, and cost. These programs began as innovative programs created by states to respond to requests by landowners and others for state assistance in facilitating private cleanups of their sites. By the end of 2000, 50 states (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) had established
Chapter 9: State and Private Sites Page 9-4

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 11 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

formal VCPs through statute, regulation, or policy. Although the structure, formality, and operating practices of VCPs differ from state-to-state, there are a number of common elements. States will generally establish eligibility requirements for participation, clear cleanup standards, and closure procedures; provide timely oversight; and offer incentives to encourage participation. The most common forms of incentives are liability release mechanisms, an expedited cleanup oversight process, and financial incentives, such as low-interest loans, grants, and tax credits. Liability protection is the most common of these incentives. Liability protection is provided by covenants not to sue, no further action letters, certificates of completion, and other mechanisms. States typically limit the protection only to contamination addressed by the cleanup activities, excluding unknown or pre-existing contamination, or new releases of hazardous substances. The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, signed into law in January 2002, clarifies state and federal roles for overseeing cleanups by providing federal CERCLA liability protection for parties who conduct a cleanup of certain properties under a state response program designed specifically for protection of human health and the environment. Prior to this provision, a state could provide state liability protection for brownfields cleaned up under its own laws, but a state could not provide federal liability protection. Most states require a participant to reimburse the state for the cost of overseeing a voluntary cleanup. Most states also supplement the fees with state and federal funds. The 2002 brownfields law also provides states with new resources for VCPs. As much as $50 million may be appropriated annually over the next four years to states and tribes to help them establish and enhance VCPs and similar response programs. Of the 50 states that have VCPs, 14 target brownfields through their VCPs, and 31 states have established brownfield programs that are separate from their VCPs. States define brownfields in a variety of ways, but the term typically refers to industrial or commercial facilities that are abandoned or underutilized due, in part, to environmental contamination or fear of contamination. This differs somewhat from the definition under the 2002 brownfields law (See Section 9.1.3 below). The scope of the various state programs also vary. States use a wide range of approaches and tools to facilitate the investigation and cleanup of brownfields. For example, some states emphasize site investigations or financial incentives, but do not authorize cleanups, while others may take a more active role in remediations. It is often difficult to distinguish between a brownfield program and a VCP. Many brownfield sites are addressed by volunteers. Also, some states are reluctant to identify brownfields that are not already being remediated because property owners are concerned about the stigma associated with this designation, which may affect property values. This reluctance has led some states to carefully control lists or to not publish a list of sites. State brownfield programs are supplemented by a substantial federal brownfields initiative, which is described in the next section.

Chapter 9: State and Private Sites

Page 9-5

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 12 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

9.1.3 Federal Initiatives Affecting State Cleanups The federal government has actively encouraged and assisted states in their efforts to clean up their contaminated properties. EPA's program dedicated to help states address brownfields has already affected a large number of sites and will probably affect many more in the future. EPA defines "brownfield" as "real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant." These sites are usually abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities. Many brownfields are located in urban areas and are generally associated with declining property values, increased unemployment, and movement of industries to the suburbs. EPA estimates that there are between 500,000 and one million brownfield sites. Where past use of a site raises the possibility that the site may be contaminated, fear of being caught in the Superfund liability net often stymies further development at the site. Lenders, developers, and prospective purchasers are discouraged from getting involved with a site because of the risk of a delay in site development or having to pay cleanup costs. Current brownfield owners often are not willing to conduct an assessment of their sites for fear of finding contamination that may have been a result of their activities or those of past owners. Many brownfields end up as the property of local governments through foreclosure. The central focus of the federal effort is the Brownfields Program and Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfield Revitalization Act, which was signed into law in January 2002. Brownfields Program The EPA Brownfields Program provides technical and financial support for brownfields revitalization. EPA's brownfields efforts are based on four themes: protecting the environment; promoting partnerships; strengthening the marketplace; and sustaining reuse. EPA's investment in brownfields, more than $700 million since 1993, has leveraged more than $5.1 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding, generated more an 25,000 jobs and assessed more than 4,300 properties. The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (2002) provides the Brownfields Program with Congressional authorization, increased funding, strengthened liability protections for certain property owners, and expanded assistance for State and Tribal response programs. First, the Brownfields Program protects the environment by providing grants for assessment and cleanup to states, tribes, local governments, redevelopment authorities, and in some cases, non profit organizations. Assessment grants of up to $200,000 per entity can fund efforts to inventory, characterize, assess, and conduct planning and community involvement related to brownfields. Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund grants of up to $1million per eligible entity help capitalize local funds that can provide both loans and subgrants for property cleanup. Direct cleanup grants were added by the brownfields law and provide up to $200,000 per site to public and nonprofit entities, who must own the site to be eligible. The brownfields law added petroleum contamination to the list of sites eligible for brownfields funding and directed that 25 percent of brownfields funds be used for petroleum sites. The Brownfields Program also gives technical assistance and targeted assessments to help communities.

Chapter 9: State and Private Sites

Page 9-6

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 13 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

Partnership efforts are a second key aspect of the Brownfields Program. At the federal level, the Brownfields National Partnership brings together more than 20 federal agencies to help communities with issues related to brownfields revitalization. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Economic Development Administration provides funds to help with the redevelopment activities beyond EPA's programs, such as acquiring property and helping rebuild infrastructure. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration leads an interagency "Portfields" project that focuses on interagency collaboration to revitalize port and waterfront areas. The Brownfields Program provides $50 million a year to support state and tribal response programs and has signed Memoranda of Agreement with many states to clarify regulatory responsibilities. The Brownfields Program works with a wide range of organizations to conduct research, training, and technical assistance for communities, including grants of up to $200,000 to communities for Brownfields Job Training. The annual Brownfields Conference, co-sponsored by EPA, brings together the entire range of stakeholders--more than 4,200 people attended Brownfields 2003 in Portland, Oregon. Third, the Brownfields Program works to strengthen the private sector marketplace for brownfields. The brownfields law provides liability protections for innocent landowners, prospective purchasers and contiguous property owners. Enforcement policies and tools have helped change perceptions that discouraged brownfields revitalization. As required under the brownfields law, EPA is developing regulatory standards for "all appropriate inquiries" that will specify actions property developers and owners must take prior to a property transfer to qualify for liability protections. The private sector is further supported by financial tools such as brownfields tax incentives and new insurance and risk management vehicles. Lastly, the Brownfields Program is a strong force for sustainable development. A study conducted by George Washington University shows that every acre of brownfields redeveloped saves 4.5 acres of greenspace. The Brownfields Program has worked closely with Smart Growth advocates and Green Building experts to conduct pilot projects and encourage redevelopment that provides long-term economic and environmental benefits.

9.2 Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanups
The state market for remediation services is largely dependent upon the pace of development, the commitment and ability of states and private companies to establish and manage hazardous waste programs and to finance cleanups, and the extent of state and federal efforts to encourage or compel responsible parties to clean up sites. · Increases and decreases in state cleanup funds will affect the number and complexity of remedial actions undertaken by the states. Total funding to state cleanup funds has remained steady in recent years, which indicates that many states will have to rely on their ability to either compel private parties or encourage voluntary cleanup actions. State assurance funds may be impacted by economic and political conditions that influence state revenues.1

1

In a survey of 231 cities of all sizes published in 2000, 90 percent of the cities identified lack of funding for cleanup as the most important impediment to cleanup and redevelopment. (U.S. Conference of Mayors 2000). Chapter 9: State and Private Sites Page 9-7

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 14 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

· Although total funding to state cleanup funds has remained steady, there have been shifts in funding levels among different types of funds. For example, dry cleaner funds have grown in recent years. · The Brownfields Revitalization Act is expected to expand the number of sites to be assessed and/or cleaned up. The law greatly mitigates the potential liability of innocent (not responsible for pollution) property owners; reduces financial uncertainties for investors and property owners; and directly funds various projects and programs, which serve as examples, case histories, and lessons learned for other sites. · By removing obstacles that cause investment capital to flee from brownfields, the Brownfields Revitalization Act is expected to foster new opportunities for site characterization, cleanup, and redevelopment, especially in the following situations: ÷ Communities that use smart growth and infill strategies, and that are seeking to improve community-wide quality of life; ÷ Sites with "relatively low risk" petroleum contamination, which previously were generally not eligible for federal assistance; ÷ Sites where cleanup and development have been hampered by an inability to obtain financing or insurance because of uncertainties in remediation costs; ÷ States without effective voluntary and other cleanup programs or those whose programs have been hampered by a lack of funding; and ÷ Sites where cleanup and redevelopment had previously been hampered by a potential for Superfund liability. · The new law strengthens liability protections for innocent purchasers, contiguous property owners, and prospective purchasers, thereby encouraging more brownfield site assessments, cleanups, and redevelopment. The 1986 amendments to CERCLA (SARA) attempted to provide protection to "innocent landowners" through the addition of Section 101(35). This provision applies if a party that acquired real property after the disposal of hazardous substances did not know about the hazardous substances on, in, or at the property when it was acquired. However, this authority was used only infrequently because it was difficult to establish a legal defense. The new brownfields amendments provide significant statutory changes affecting the potential liability of owners, developers, and prospective purchasers of real estate. It is expected that the law will reduce the potential liability and transaction costs of owners, developers, and prospective purchasers of brownfield sites. · The pace of development in a community or region will influence the number of brownfield and voluntary sites that need to be evaluated and/or cleaned up. Because there are an estimated hundreds of thousands of potentially contaminated brownfield sites that have not been located, most development in populated areas are likely to encounter contaminated sites from time-to-time. · As neighborhoods become revitalized and as communities grow, the demand for, and price of, land will increase. Higher property values can support more investments in site cleanups.

Chapter 9: State and Private Sites

Page 9-8

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 15 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

· Given the potentially large number of brownfields compared to the number of voluntary cleanup program and brownfield sites addressed in recent years (7,100 cleanups underway and 2,200 completed in FY 2000), brownfield cleanups are likely to continue for many years. · The growing popularity of smart growth policies is likely to advance the demand for the state and brownfield cleanups, since infill development and the preservation of greenfields are primary components of smart growth programs. · Forty-one states have long-term stewardship programs for one or more of their cleanup programs. These programs are important because of the widespread use of remedies that allow hazardous substances to remain on site, so long as land-use restrictions are implemented. States have been establishing and enhancing their long-term stewardship programs. One of the greatest needs are systems to keep track of sites requiring stewardship. · Considering the growing use of risk-based corrective action and the practice of leaving waste on site, there is a perceived need for enhancement of long-term stewardship programs. Over approximately the past decade, the U.S. capacity to address brownfields has grown enormously. A decade ago, few developers and investors were willing to consider potentially contaminated properties. Today, there is an expanding cadre of developers, planners, consultants, engineering and construction firms, attorneys, and public officials with the expertise to evaluate, cleanup, and revitalize brownfield properties. The increasing acceptance of the practicability of cleaning up and revitalizing brownfield sites has the potential for enlarging the market for site characterization and cleanup services.

9.3 Number and Characteristics of Sites
This subsection presents estimates of the number of state and private party sites expected to require remediation under state mandatory hazardous waste remediation programs and voluntary cleanup and brownfield programs. 9.3.1 State Mandatory Hazardous Waste Programs The 50-State Studies present the results of surveys in which each state was asked to identify the total number of "known and suspected sites" and "sites needing attention." The number of known and suspected sites generally is the largest number of potentially contaminated sites known to the state and includes, in some states, sites that have not yet undergone any type of assessment. This category is useful in determining the outer limit of the universe of state sites. The sites needing attention are known and suspected sites that have been evaluated by the state and determined to require some level of further evaluation or cleanup. This category is the best indicator of the workload facing each state's cleanup program. The studies do not present estimates of the number of sites that definitely require remedial action. Exhibit 9-2 presents trends in these variables and Exhibit 9-3 shows each state's estimate for both categories of sites.

Chapter 9: State and Private Sites

Page 9-9

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 16 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

The total number of known and suspected sites reported in 2000 was 63,000 (up from 59,0002 in 1997 and down from 79,000 in 1995). Because a number of states have reclassified their sites over the years, it is difficult to establish a firm trend. However, it appears that the universe of sites is stable and that the states are continuing to identify new sites. The number of known and suspected sites ranges from zero to 5,416 (Connecticut). Twenty-six states reported increases in known and suspected sites while eight reported decreases. The states with the largest increases between 1997 and 2000 were Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island and South Carolina; and the states with the largest decreases were Alaska, Arizona, New Jersey, Washington, and Wisconsin. Although states are Exhibit 9-2. Sites in State progressing to clean up Hazardous Waste Programs their sites, they continue to identify new ones. The total number of sites needing further attention in 2000 was 23,000, an increase from 19,000 in 1997.3 During this time, states completed cleanup of over 19,000 sites. While some of the data reflects progress in completing cleanups, it also reflects reclassification of sites by some states and a decline in the number of states reporting. The number of sites needing attention ranges from zero to 3,900 (New Jersey).Only five states report having more than 1,000 sites needing attention­ Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Of the sites reporting in both 1997 and 2000, 23 had increases and 12 states had decreases in sites needing attention. The states with the largest increases between 1997 and 2000 were Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and South Carolina. The states with the largest decreases were Alaska, Arizona, New Jersey, Washington, and Wisconsin. After considering reporting discrepancies, such as those in the footnotes, it appears the total universe of sites needing attention is stable, or growing slightly. (50-State Study 2000).

The 1998 50-State Study reported 69,000. However since then, the State of New Jersey subtracted 10,000 home-owner tanks sites from the list. The 1998 50-State Study reported 23,000; however, the 2000 study revised the data, primarily because of reclassification of sites and because two states that reported in 1997 did not report in 2000. Counting only the states that provided data in both years, the total for 1997 is 20,100 and the total for 2000 is 22,700. Chapter 9: State and Private Sites Page 9-10
3

2

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 17 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

Exhibit 9-3. Number of Non-NPL State Hazardous Waste Sites
Known & Suspected Sitesa State 1997
Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire c New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah 700 1,625 900 363 3,247 624 3,029 600 NA 1,900 1,012 524 NA 5,000 NA 400 720 1,900 410 465 440 2,679 NA 3,000 960 1,475 NA 400 129 474 5,177 344 1,567 1,040 NA 1,460 793 1,933 50 NA 400 603 1,424 1,360 388 325

2000
730 968 71 415 3,603 495 5,416 532 NA 2,646 1,280 558 NA 5,000 200 475 NA 2,200 730 475 440 2,305 NA 3,000 1,100 2,321 NA 475 112 388 5,000 1,210 1,628 1,122 NA 1,884 850 2,469 50 NA 1,200 1,037 1,342 1,501 611 390

Sites Needing Attentionb 1997 2000
125 1,206 75 98 420 178 668 185 NA 1,094 126 103 NA 140 NA 200 484 850 120 128 33 2,679 2,789 219 500 225 187 200 129 474 4,915 133 769 793 NA 403 124 306 20 NA 100 150 NA 234 52 40 125 783 38 67 522 200 2,107 331 NA 2,460 422 105 NA 159 61 210 NA 1,500 130 83 33 2,305 NA 100 500 250 288 225 12 388 3,900 153 851 730 NA 403 170 499 20 NA 150 516 229 210 48 50

Chapter 9: State and Private Sites

Page 9-11

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 18 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

Exhibit 9-3. Number of Non-NPL State Hazardous Waste Sites (Continued)
Known & Suspected Sitesa
State Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total 1997 362 2,015 1,493 600 5,000 140 59,450 2000 390 2,015 946 NA 3,000 NA 62,580

Sites Needing Attentionb
1997 255 411 1,006 150 600 NA 24,096 2000 250 411 623 NA NA NA 22,617

Notes: a Known and suspected sites are those that states have identified as being potentially contaminated. Many of these sites will not require action beyond a preliminary assessment. Site numbers are derived from Table IV-3 of the 2001 50State Study and Table V-3 of the 1997 50-State Study, unless otherwise noted. The totals include an unknown, but small, percentage of UST and RCRA sites. b Sites needing attention are those known and suspected sites that have been assessed and determined to require further assessment or cleanup. Many of these sites will require removal or remedial actions. Site numbers are derived from Table IV-3 of the 2001 50-State Study and Table IV-3 of the 1997 50-State Study, unless otherwise noted. The totals include an unknown, but small, percentage of UST and RCRA sites. c The 1998 50-state Study reported 69,000 sites in New Jersey. However, since then, the state subtracted 10,000 homeowner tank sites from the list. NA Indicates that data were not provided. Sources: Environmental Law Institute, An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, 2001 Update, November 2002. Environmental Law Institute, An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, 1998 Update.

The total number of sites determined to need further attention includes an unknown but small percentage of RCRA and UST sites, which are addressed in Chapters 4 and 5 of this report. During collection of data from the states, authors of the 50-State Study requested that the states exclude RCRA and UST sites from their reports, if they could. However, some states were unable to separate the RCRA and UST site data from other hazardous waste sites. 9.3.2 Voluntary Cleanup and Brownfield Programs The 50-State Studies also asked states to report the number of voluntary cleanup and brownfield sites. Exhibit 9-4 presents the national totals from the survey data. Since the inception of their programs, states have completed cleanup at 11,600 sites under their voluntary programs and 17,300 sites under their mandatory programs. In FY 2000, states completed 2,200 voluntary cleanups and 2,400 mandatory-program cleanups, and had a total of 15,600 cleanups underway. By the end of 2000, the reporting states had identified 18,700 brownfields, had cleanups underway at over 1,000 brownfield sites, and had redeveloped over 700 sites. To avoid double counting some sites, this study does not add the data on brownfield sites to the above figures, since many are cleaned up under voluntary and mandatory programs. Nevertheless, many sites identified by a brownfields program may not have been reported on a voluntary or mandatory program list. Thus, the estimates of total state and private party site market may be understated somewhat. Another factor that may contribute to the underestimation of brownfields sites is the fact that some states are reluctant to identify brownfields that are not already being remediated

Chapter 9: State and Private Sites

Page 9-12

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 19 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

because property owners are concerned about the stigma associated with this designation, which may affect property values. Based on these data, total state cleanups under all state programs has averaged approximately 5,000 per year in recent years. Despite the progress in completing many cleanups in recent years, the known number of sites listed as needing attention or entered into a voluntary program has remained approximately stable. As of the end of FY 2000, this inventory of sites was about 30,000 (22,600 from Exhibit 9-3 +7,100 from Exhibit 9-4). This apparent discrepancy is attributed to the fact that state regulatory agencies are Exhibit 9-4. Voluntary and Mandatory continuing to identify new sites Cleanup Program Status and new sites are continuing to enter voluntary and brownfields programs. In addition, some of the 18,700 brownfield sites identified by states are not included in this figure, in order to avoid potential double-counting of some sites. Thus, the currently identified inventory of sites likely to need remediation (30,000) is probably underestimated. Based on the above data, about 44,500 state sites have been identified, including those that have completed or are undergoing remediation. Although it is anticipated that many brownfields will not require remediation, the actual number is unknown. An indication of the percentage of sites needing cleanup is provided from data EPA has collected from recipients of EPA brownfields pilot grants. Of 5,000 sites targeted by previous grants, about two-thirds required further investigation and/or remediation beyond a Phase I and Phase II site assessment (EPA 2003). This figure implies that, even if the percentage of future sites needing cleanup is lower, it is still likely to represent a substantial number of sites; and at the current rate of 5,000 cleanup completion annually in all state programs, it will take many years to remediate all the brownfield sites. 9.3.3 Contaminants and Media A central source of information on the types and quantities of contaminants and media found at state sites is not available. Three sources provide information on technologies used at state sites across the country. Although none of these sources is based on a comprehensive survey, they provide a picture of the types of contaminants and technologies likely to be found at state sites. In addition, some information on contaminants found are available from a number of states.

Chapter 9: State and Private Sites

Page 9-13

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 20 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

The first source, The XL Environmental Land Reuse Report 2002, and The XL Environmental Land Reuse Report 2001, are reports on a unique data collection conducted by XL Environmental, Inc. and the International Economic Development Council. These studies are based on a literature search of media coverage of brownfield-related stories. The researchers used online newspaper and journal archives, such as Lexis-Nexis, to search for articles that mention brownfields issues. The search identified 331 brownfield-related articles between July 2001 and June 2002 discussing 428 brownfield sites; and 317 articles between July 2000 and May 2001 discussing 346 sites. Chemicals, metals, and petroleum are the most frequently mentioned contaminants. Solvents and pesticides were also an issue at some sites. (Exhibit 9-5) The second source is the Brownfields Management System, a database containing information about brownfield properties that are in EPA's grant programs. As of December 2002, contaminant data are available for only approximately 90 sites. Metals are the most frequently identified category of pollutant. VOCs, SVOCs (including PAHs and PCBs) and petroleum products were also frequently identified. Exhibit 9-5. Contaminants Found at a Sample of Brownfield Sites
Contaminant 2001 Number Chemicals Metals Other Petroleum Solvents Pesticides No. of Sites in a sample
a

2002 Number 56 25 43 50 10 3 428 Percent 13% 6% 10% 12% 2% 1%

Total Number 142 86 98 85 23 7 774 Percent 18% 11% 13% 11% 3% 1%

Percent 25% 18% 16% 10% 4% 1%

86 61 55 35 13 4 346

Not all articles provided information on contaminants. Thus, this data is an indication of the types of contaminants and perhaps their relative frequency, rather than a precise accounting. There may be more than one contaminant reported per site.

Source: XL Insurance, Inc. and the International Economic Development Council, The XL Environmental Land Reuse Report 2002, and The XL Environmental Land Reuse Report 2001. XL Environmental, Inc.

The types of contaminants present at some state sites can also be inferred from sites listed in EPA's CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS), EPA's database of potentially contaminated sites. EPA has performed preliminary assessments at these sites to screen them for potential listing on the federal NPL. The majority of these sites (those not listed on the NPL) are deferred to the states for action. CERCLIS data show that the most prevalent wastes at these sites are organic chemicals, metals, solvents, and oily waste (U.S. EPA 1991).

Chapter 9: State and Private Sites

Page 9-14

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 21 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

In addition to national data sources, some states with established, well-funded programs are able to produce this type of information. For example, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, within the state's Environmental Protection Agency, publishes extensive information about its site mitigation programs as well as access to its Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database on its web site. The database contains information on almost 10,000 potential and known sites (CALEPA 2003).

9.4 Estimated Cleanup Costs
The cost of cleaning up state mandatory and voluntary cleanup program sites is determined by the number of state sites and the amount of remediation work at each site. As described in Section 9.3, the number of potential state sites is so large relative to state and private resources that it is likely to take a number of decades to complete all the cleanups. Thus, a key determinant of cleanup activity in a given year will be resources available, primarily in state cleanup funds, which account for most state-funded cleanups. This section describes the trends in state expenditures, the status of state cleanup funds, and an estimate of the total cost to complete the cleanup of all known and likely to be discovered state sites over a period of 30 years. 9.4.1 Status and Capacity of State Cleanup Funds A fund is an essential element of a state's program to clean up sites. It is a readily available source of money separated from other state operations that allows activities to continue without the need for annual appropriations or other legislation. It allows a state to avoid disruptions to cleanups and to investigate, plan, design, and conduct emergency response and remedial actions at sites where immediate action is required or where responsible parties are unavailable, unable, or unwilling to conduct or pay for remedial actions. Forty-nine 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. Idaho, Nebraska and the District of Columbia are the only states without cleanup funds that are authorized to pay for cleanups. Although most state-financed cleanups are paid from a state cleanup fund, some are funded by direct appropriations. Thus, the estimate of state expenditures may understate the actual expenditures. The combination of fund balances, additions to funds, and expenditures can indicate the capability and stability of a state cleanup program. Exhibit 9-6 compares the fund balances, additions to funds, and expenditures of the states in 1995, 1997, and 2000. Total fund balances for all states in 2000 was $1.2 billion. The trends in fund balances are confounded by the fact that in each survey there are some states that do not provide data and they differ from one survey to another. Comparing only the states that provided data in both 1997 and 2000, the decrease would be about 10 percent. Fund balances have been declining since 1990. Most of the state fund balances (including bonding authority) are concentrated in a relatively few states. In 2000, eight states (Alaska, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas) accounted for $909 million (73.5 percent) of the total fund balances for all states. This concentration has been observed since this survey was first conducted in 1991. The annual contributions to state funds fluctuated from year to year, but have

Chapter 9: State and Private Sites

Page 9-15

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-4

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 22 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

averaged between $400 and $500 million. As with fund balances, the amounts added to funds are concentrated in a relatively few states. Exhibit 9-6. State Fund Activity 1995, 1997, and 2000 ($ millions)
1995 Total Fund Balances Additions to Funds Expenditures Obligations Number of Known and Suspected Sites Number of Sites Needing Attention
a

1997 $1,413.0 $538.3 $565.1 $448.0 59,000 24,000

2000 $1,240.0 $436.2 $505.6 $564.4 63,000 23,000

a

$1,464.9 $444.6 $386.1 $363.4 79,387 29,000

Fund balances include both money in the fund and authority to sell bonds to raise additional monies. The expenditures and obligations totals are likely to be understated for two reasons