Role of State and Tribal Governments in the Remedy Selection Process
The rights and responsibilities of a state or tribal government at a Superfund site will vary depending on certain stipulations. As the Superfund program has evolved, state and tribal involvement has increased. Approved states and tribes are encouraged to take the leads at appropriate sites, freeing Superfund resources for use at other sites. The following links provide information about the role of state, tribal and local governments in the remedy selection process.
You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA’s About PDF page to learn more.
- Questions and Answers About the State Role in Remedy Selection at Non-Fund Financed Enforcement Sites (PDF)(6 pp, 90 K)
Describes circumstances under which States may select and implement a remedy at NPL sites without first obtaining EPA concurrence.
OSWER 9831.9, NTIS: PB91-187039INZ, April 1991
Discusses hazardous waste laws, the mechanisms for ensuring state/local involvement, and the roles of political entities, Indian tribes, and local governments.
OSWER 9375.5-01FS, NTIS: PB92-963329INX, Fall 1989
Describes the recommended procedures used to determine a State's capability of holding the lead agency responsibility for CERCLA fund-financed sites.
OSWER 9355.2-02, April 1992
- The Role of CSGWPPs (Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs) in EPA Remediation Programs (PDF)(13 pp, 246 K)
Encourages EPA remediation programs to utilize the Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs) to enable States more flexibility in managing ground water resources.
OSWER 9283.1-09, NTIS: PB95-963325INX, April 1997
Assists States in preparing Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs). The guidance sets forth EPA's preferred ground water protection objectives as guidelines.
EPA 100-R-93-001, NTIS: PB93-163087, December 1992
- Guidance on Non-NPL Removal Actions Involving Nationally Significant or Precedent-Setting Issues (PDF)(9 pp, 69 K)
Outlines the defining criteria to determine if a non-NPL removal action requires Headquarters concurrence. Sovereign nations (Indian tribes) are included.
OSWER 9360.0-19, March 1989