State by state: Contaminated sites awaiting an EPA decision, not on Superfund list
More from the GAO Report, as promised. Please bear in mind:
Table IV.1: Sites Classified as Awaiting an NPL Decision in Each State, by Eligibility for Listing and Status of Cleanup Progress
+
Table VI.1: State Officials’ Assessments of States’ Financial Capabilities to Clean Up Potentially Eligible Sites
a California, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Nebraska did not respond to surveys. For these states, the data in table IV.1 are based on EPA’s survey responses alone and, for that reason, may be less reliable than for states having responses from both EPA and states. New York provided responses to only a few questions in our survey.
b “Other” indicates that the respondent was uncertain about the state’s financial capability.
* State officials in Idaho, New York, Missouri, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming declined to participate in [the] telephone survey.
· 85% of the sites below were discovered 15 yrs ago or more---
· over 60% of the potentially eligible sites and over 35% of all sites below report no clean-up activities
Table IV.1: Sites Classified as Awaiting an NPL Decision in Each State, by Eligibility for Listing and Status of Cleanup Progress
+
Table VI.1: State Officials’ Assessments of States’ Financial Capabilities to Clean Up Potentially Eligible Sites
| State | Number of sites classified as awaiting an NPL decision | Number of sites unlikely to become eligible for the NPL | Number of potentially eligible sites with some cleanup activities | Number of potentially eligible sites with no reported cleanup activities | Number of sites for which no surveys were received | State officials’ assessment of state’s financial capability to clean up potentially eligible sites |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 25 | 10 | 7 | 8 | 0 | Very poor |
| Alaska | 28 | 14 | 8 | 6 | 0 | Excellent |
| Arizona | 34 | 16 | 10 | 8 | 0 | Excellent |
| Arkansas | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | Good |
| California | a 189 | 64 | 51 | 74 | 0 | Fair |
| Colorado | 30 | 12 | 10 | 6 | 2 | Very poor |
| Connecticut | 290 | 74 | 98 | 118 | 0 | Poor |
| Delaware | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Excellent |
| District of Columbia | a 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Florida | 269 | 74 | 85 | 110 | 0 | Fair |
| Georgia | 74 | 39 | 8 | 27 | 0 | Poor |
| Guam | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Hawaii | 17 | 12 | 4 | 1 | 0 | Fair |
| Idaho | 16 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 0 | * |
| Illinois | 207 | 95 | 43 | 69 | 0 | Fair |
| Indiana | 54 | 21 | 15 | 18 | 0 | Very poor |
| Iowa | 33 | 29 | 4 | 0 | 0 | Very poor |
| Kansas | 37 | 28 | 4 | 5 | 0 | Very poor |
| Kentucky | 20 | 15 | 2 | 3 | 0 | Good |
| Louisiana | 10 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | Poor |
| Maine | 56 | 28 | 17 | 11 | 0 | Poor |
| Maryland | 20 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 0 | Other b |
| Massachusetts | a 201 | 11 | 19 | 171 | 0 | Fair |
| Michigan | 50 | 22 | 18 | 10 | 0 | Excellent |
| Midway Island | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Minnesota | 17 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 0 | Good |
| Mississippi | 9 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Very poor |
| Missouri | 91 | 73 | 7 | 11 | 0 | * |
| Montana | 11 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 0 | Very poor |
| Navajo Nation | 14 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | |
| Nebraska | a 36 | 16 | 4 | 15 | 1 | Very poor |
| Nevada | 12 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Poor |
| New Hampshire | 42 | 24 | 9 | 9 | 0 | Poor |
| New Jersey | 172 | 60 | 49 | 63 | 0 | Good |
| New Mexico | 15 | 7 | 6 | 2 | 0 | Very poor |
| New York | a 192 | 135 | 15 | 41 | 1 | * |
| North Carolina | 57 | 18 | 21 | 18 | 0 | Poor |
| North Dakota | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | Poor |
| Northern Mariana Islands | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Ohio | 79 | 25 | 23 | 31 | 0 | Very poor |
| Oklahoma | 7 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | Very poor |
| Oregon | 29 | 7 | 6 | 16 | 0 | Fair |
| Pennsylvania | 73 | 35 | 18 | 20 | 0 | Excellent |
| Puerto Rico | 16 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 0 | |
| Rhode Island | 121 | 14 | 23 | 84 | 0 | Poor |
| South Carolina | 45 | 32 | 8 | 5 | 0 | Good |
| South Dakota | 8 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | Other b |
| Tennessee | 102 | 51 | 19 | 32 | 0 | Poor |
| Texas | 21 | 18 | 1 | 2 | 0 | Poor |
| Utah | 48 | 17 | 8 | 16 | 7 | * |
| Vermont | 30 | 16 | 5 | 9 | 0 | Poor |
| Virginia | 22 | 8 | 2 | 12 | 0 | * |
| Washington | 28 | 11 | 8 | 9 | 0 | Fair |
| West Virginia | 11 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | Other b |
| Wisconsin | 53 | 34 | 8 | 11 | 0 | Excellent |
| Wyoming | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 3,036 | 1,234 | 686 | 1,103 | 13 |
a California, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Nebraska did not respond to surveys. For these states, the data in table IV.1 are based on EPA’s survey responses alone and, for that reason, may be less reliable than for states having responses from both EPA and states. New York provided responses to only a few questions in our survey.
b “Other” indicates that the respondent was uncertain about the state’s financial capability.
* State officials in Idaho, New York, Missouri, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming declined to participate in [the] telephone survey.
Related Posts (on one page):
- State by state: Contaminated sites awaiting an EPA decision, not on Superfund list
- Waiting for clean-up: Unaddressed risks at potential Superfund sites