Veto by Governor [B-36]: Delete the following requirements: (a) that DOR and DOT participate in the report preparation; (b) that the report be submitted annually by June 30; and (c) that the report be submitted to the appropriate standing committees and the Joint Committee on Finance. As a result of the veto, DOA, Commerce and DNR would be required to submit a report evaluating the state's efforts to remedy the contamination of, and to redevelop, brownfields, but the statutes would not specify to whom or when the report should be submitted. The Governor's veto message requests DOA, Commerce and DNR to provide a report to the Governor and Legislature on July 1, 2002, and every four years thereafter.
[Act 9 Section: 2611d]
[Act 9 Vetoed Section: 2611d]
Building and Environmental Regulation
1. RECYCLING MARKET DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM [LFB Paper 723]
Governor: Delete $2,666,100 SEG and 2.0 SEG positions annually from the recycling fund related to the Recycling Market Development Board (RMDB). The RMDB is responsible for promoting the development of markets for recovered materials and maximizing the marketability of these materials, including providing financial assistance in the form of grants, loans or manufacturing rebates and entering into contracts to carry out the duties of the Board. Currently, the RMDB is repealed effective June 30, 2001 and after that date, Commerce may promulgate rules for awarding financial assistance for the development of markets for materials recovered from solid waste. The changes include the following components.
a. Delete $2,500,000 annually for RMDB financial assistance and repeal the appropriation in order to eliminate use of the recycling fund for this purpose. Beginning on the effective date of the 1999-01 biennial budget act, funding for RMDB financial assistance and contracts would be estimated at $1,500,000 PR annually and would be derived solely from repayments of prior loans made by the Board and repayments of recycling market development loans made by the former Department of Development (DOD) before July 1, 1995.
b. Delete $166,100 and 2.0 positions annually for RMDB administration. The bill would retain $180,300 annually with 2.0 project positions which expire June 30, 2001, including the executive director.
c. Specify that loan repayments from the former DOD recycling market development loan programs (which ended June 30, 1995) be deposited in the RMDB loan repayments appropriation instead of currently being deposited in the recycling fund. Commerce estimates that loan repayments under the former DOD recycling loan programs will total $202,200 in 1999-00 and $177,000 in 2000-01. This would result in an increase in program revenues of $379,200 and a corresponding decrease of segregated recycling fund revenues during the 1999-01 biennium.
d. Until June 30, 2001, authorize the RMDB to use the PR loan repayments appropriation for contracts with persons to carry out the duties of the Board, in addition to using the appropriation for financial assistance. Currently, the RMDB may use only the SEG financial assistance appropriation for contracts.
Joint Finance: Delete provision.
Assembly: Delete $2,666,100 and 2.0 positions annually from the recycling fund to restore the Governor's recommendation related to the Recycling Market Development Board (RMDB). Further, direct the RMDB to use the PR financial assistance appropriation to provide a grant of $50,000 annually to an existing private nonprofit industry-supported organization described in 501 (c)(3) of the IRS tax code that provides waste reduction and recycling assistance through business-to-business peer exchange, that is instrumental in assisting and encouraging companies and institutions to reduce their operating costs through improved production and solid waste management practices, and that is in existence on the effective date of the biennial budget act.
Senate: Delete $500,000 SEG annually in the recycling market development financial assistance appropriation to provide $2,000,000 SEG annually instead of $2,500,000 under Joint Finance.
Make the following changes related to Commerce staff: (1) delete $166,100 SEG and 2.0 SEG positions annually; (2) provide that the remaining 2.0 SEG positions would be Commerce recycling market development staff instead of RMDB staff, and would include a loan portfolio manager to manage past and future financial assistance funded by the RMDB and a commodity specialist to develop and direct strategy for recycling market development; (3) eliminate the authorization for an unclassified executive director; (4) delete $38,700 SEG annually to reflect reduced staff costs; and (5) provide the 2.0 positions as permanent instead of the current project positions expiring June 30, 2001.
2. PECFA -- REVENUE OBLIGATIONS [LFB Papers 300 and 308]
In addition, generally restructure the operation of the RMDB similarly to the existing Commerce Development Finance Board, Minority Business Development Board and Rural Economic Development Board.
Direct the RMDB to make a $133,000 grant in the 1999-01 biennium from the SEG financial assistance appropriation to the West Central Wisconsin Biosolids Facility Commission if the Commission meets certain criteria.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Provide $1,000,000 SEG in 2000-01. Reestimate the program revenue loan repayments appropriation for financial assistance to be $2,300,000 PR annually ($800,000 higher than previous estimates). A total of $5.6 million for financial assistance would be provided in the biennium. (The Board made awards of approximately $2.3 million in each year of the 1997-99 biennium.)
Include the Senate provision to make the following changes related to Commerce staff: (a) delete $166,100 SEG and 2.0 SEG positions annually; (b) provide that the remaining 2.0 SEG positions would be Commerce recycling market development staff instead of RMDB staff, and would include a loan portfolio manager to manage past and future financial assistance funded by the RMDB and a commodity specialist to develop and direct strategy for recycling market development; (c) eliminate the authorization for an unclassified executive director; (d) delete $38,700 SEG annually to reflect reduced staff costs; and (e) provide the 2.0 positions as permanent instead of the current project positions expiring June 30, 2001.
In addition, include the Senate provisions to generally restructure the operation of the RMDB similarly to the existing Commerce Development Finance Board, Minority Business Development Board and Rural Economic Development Board, including the following changes: (a) change the membership of the RMDB to delete the currently-designated members and instead include two representatives of responsible units of local governments, two representatives of businesses that market products made from recycled materials, recover recyclable materials or develop markets for products made from recycled materials and the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary's designee, and specify that the non-Commerce members would be appointed by the Governor for three-year terms; (b) repeal s. 287.40 through 287.48 of the statutes related to the RMDB and instead create recycling market development program provisions under Chapter 560; (c) authorize Commerce to provide grants, loans or manufacturing rebates, after the approval of the RMDB, to a governmental entity or a business entity to assist waste generators in the marketing of recovered materials or to develop markets for recovered materials; (d) require that before the RMDB awards a grant, loan or rebate, the Board shall consider the extent to which the project: (1) maximizes the marketability of recovered materials on a statewide basis; (2) minimizes the amounts of recovered materials disposed of in landfills or burned without energy recovery in incinerators; (3) includes the materials that are banned from landfills that will support community recycling efforts; (4) maintains present markets or creates new or expanded markets for recovered materials; (e) authorize Commerce, after the approval of the RMDB, to request proposals for activities, if Commerce determines that financial assistance is necessary to assist responsible units in the marketing of recovered materials or to develop markets for recovered materials; (f) delete the authority of Commerce to use the SEG or PR financial assistance appropriations for contracts with persons to carry out the duties of the Board (currently the RMDB uses the financial assistance appropriation and as of July 1, 2001, Commerce may use the PR appropriation for contracts); (g) direct Commerce to use the financial assistance appropriation to annually contract with a materials exchange program that received funding from the RMDB during 1997-99 to operate a statewide materials exchange program; (h) specify that loan repayments from the former Department of Development recycling market development loan programs (which ended June 30, 1995) be deposited in the RMDB loan repayments appropriation instead of currently being deposited in the recycling fund (an estimated increase in program revenues of $379,200 and a corresponding decrease of segregated recycling fund revenues during the 1999-01 biennium).
Further, include the Senate provision to direct the RMDB to make a $133,000 grant in the 1999-01 biennium from the SEG financial assistance appropriation to the West Central Wisconsin Biosolids Facility Commission if the Commission does all of the following: (1) submits a plan to the RMDB detailing the proposed use of the grant and the RMDB approves the plan; (2) enters into a written agreement with the RMDB that specifies the conditions for use of the grant proceeds, including reporting and auditing requirements; (3) agrees in writing to submit to the RMDB a report within six months after spending the full amount of the grant detailing how the grant proceeds were used and submits the required report; (4) uses the grant proceeds to determine the feasibility of creating sludge-based products and of marketing those products and to develop markets for the biosolid materials being produced from waste products by the Commission. The RMDB would be prohibited from awarding and paying grant proceeds under the provision after June 30, 2001.
Finally, include the Assembly provision to direct the RMDB to use the PR financial assistance appropriation to provide a grant of $50,000 annually to an existing private nonprofit industry-supported organization described in 501 (c)(3) of the IRS tax code that provides waste reduction and recycling assistance through business-to-business peer exchange, that is instrumental in assisting and encouraging companies and institutions to reduce their operating costs through improved production and solid waste management practices, and that is in existence on the effective date of the biennial budget act.
Veto by Governor [B-30]: Reduce the RMDB SEG grants appropriation by $1,000,000 in 2000-01 by vetoing the appropriation amount to "0." The act provides a total of $4,600,000 PR in the biennium for financial assistance. Also, delete the designation of the two RMDB positions as a loan portfolio manager and a commodity specialist.
[Act 9 Sections: 14j, 28b thru 28f, 210f, 215f, 645t, 891b, 2565c thru 2565L, 2927m, 2937m, 2996p, 3020m, 3261d thru 3261df, 3261dg thru 3261dj, 3262, 9110(7rm), 9110(8h) and 9310(6h)]
[Act 9 Vetoed Sections: 172 (as it relates to s. 20.143(1)(tm)), 215f, 2927m and 9110(7rm)&(8h)]
Governor: Authorize the Building Commission to issue revenue obligations (typically long-term bonds or short-term notes), to be paid from petroleum inspection fees, to fund the payment of claims under the Petroleum Environmental Cleanup Fund Award (PECFA) program. Revenue obligations could not exceed $450 million in principal amount. The Building Commission would also be authorized to issue revenue obligations to fund or refund outstanding revenue obligations, to pay issuance or administrative expenses, to make deposits to reserve funds or to pay accrued or capitalized interest. Commerce would be authorized to enter into agreements with the federal government, local governments, individuals or private entities to insure or provide additional security for the revenue obligations issued under the bill.
The PECFA revenue obligations would be created as a special fund established in the state treasury or in an account maintained by a trustee. Under the bill, the Legislature would find that a nexus exists between the PECFA program and the petroleum inspection fund in that fees imposed on users of petroleum are used to remedy environmental damage caused by petroleum storage. The bill also contains a moral obligation pledge whereby the Legislature would express its expectation and aspiration that, if the Legislature reduces the rate of the petroleum inspection fee and if the funds in the petroleum inspection fund are insufficient to pay the principal and interest on the revenue obligations, the Legislature would make an appropriation from the general fund sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the revenue obligations.
The bill would create a sum sufficient appropriation from the petroleum inspection fund not to exceed the net proceeds of revenue obligations for payment of PECFA awards. In addition, the bill would expand the use of the existing PECFA awards appropriation to include any amount used to reduce the amount of principal of outstanding revenue obligations. Finally, the bill would create three appropriations for use if the obligations are established as a fund in the state treasury, which would include appropriations for: (a) deposit in the special fund in the state treasury of proceeds of revenue obligations to provide for reserves and for expenses of issuance and management of the revenue obligations, with the remainder transferred to the petroleum inspection fund for use for PECFA awards; (b) payment from the petroleum inspection fund of a sum sufficient to retire revenue obligations to repay the fund in the state treasury; and (c) payment from the special fund in the state treasury to retire revenue obligations, provide for reserves and for expenses of issuance and management of revenue obligations.
Joint Finance: Authorize $270 million in bonding (rather than $450 million). In addition, direct that no more than $170 million in authority may be released upon enactment of the bill. Direct that before the Building Commission issues the remaining $100 million in revenue obligations, DOA, Commerce and DNR submit a report to the Joint Committee on Finance for approval of the Committee at a regularly scheduled meeting under s. 13.10. Direct that the report include information about: (a) the proposed bonding issuance; (b) the amount of PECFA claims received during the prior six months; (c) the number and dollar amount of claims that have been received but not paid; and (d) the progress made by the agencies in implementing cost control strategies to reduce the costs of cleanups at PECFA sites. In addition, direct that no revenue obligation authority may be released beyond the initial $170 million until Commerce and DNR promulgate final permanent administrative rule changes as summarized under the items related to risk-based analysis and administrative rules.
Assembly: Require the Building Commission to issue the entire $270 million in authorized PECFA revenue obligations as soon as practicable after enactment of the bill, in the maximum amount that the Building Commission believes can be fully paid on a timely basis from revenues dedicated from the petroleum inspection fund. This would delete the Joint Finance requirement that before the Building Commission could issue revenue obligations above $170 million, DOA, Commerce and DNR would be required to submit a report with specified information to the Joint Committee on Finance for approval under s. 13.10 and Commerce and DNR would have to promulgate final permanent administrative rule changes with specified changes.
Senate: Restore the Governor's recommendation to authorize the Building Commission to issue $450 million in revenue obligations (instead of $270 million under Joint Finance), to fund the payment of claims under the PECFA program. Delete the Joint Finance requirement that before the Building Commission issues revenue obligations above $170 million, DOA, Commerce and DNR would be required to submit a report with specified information to the Joint Committee on Finance for approval under s. 13.10 and Commerce and DNR would have to promulgate final permanent administrative rule changes with specified changes.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Include Assembly provision.
[Act 9 Sections: 217, 218 thru 221, 713, 715, 715e and 1994]
3. PECFA STAFF [LFB Paper 300]
Governor: Provide $152,200 in 1999-2000 and $174,800 in 2000-01 with 3.0 hydrogeologist positions from the petroleum inspection fund. The staff would provide special services to PECFA site owners, including helping to resolve problems, dealing with major environmental issues, or preventing a site from becoming a major disaster.
Joint Finance: Approve the Governor's recommendation. Further, provide Commerce with $84,200 SEG in 1999-00 and 2.0 SEG two-year project claim review positions. Convert the 2.0 SEG positions to PR and provide $112,200 PR in 2000-01. Authorize Commerce to promulgate rules to assess and collect fees to recover its costs of approving requests by owners or operators for case closure and providing other assistance requested by claimants at petroleum sites. Direct that Commerce deposit fees in a new program revenue annual appropriation that would fund the 2.0 PR positions beginning in 2000-01. Direct that Commerce submit any permanent rules for assessment and collection of fees to the Legislature under s. 227.19 no later than June 1, 2000. Further, direct that any fees charged by Commerce and DNR on or after the effective date of the bill for the approval of case closures and other requested assistance not be reimbursable expenses under the PECFA program.
In addition, direct the Secretary of DOA to determine how federal leaking underground storage tank (LUST) funding should be allocated to DNR and Commerce, and to submit a report of its determination to the Joint Committee on Finance for approval at its December, 1999, s. 13.10 meeting.
Senate: Delete provisions.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Include provisions.
[Act 9 Sections: 216m, 1981i, 1986g, 9101(14yt) and 9310(3yvf)]
4. PECFA -- PETROLEUM INSPECTION FEE [LFB Paper 300]
Governor: Authorize Commerce to change the amount of the petroleum inspection fee under certain conditions. Currently, the Department of Revenue collects a petroleum inspection fee of three cents per gallon on petroleum products that are received for sale in this state. Revenues are deposited in the petroleum inspection fund and are used to fund PECFA awards for reimbursement of cleanup costs from petroleum tank discharges, PECFA administration, petroleum inspection administration and other environmental programs.
Under the bill, the petroleum inspection fee would remain at the current three cents per gallon until January 1, 2002. The fee amount could increase, decrease or remain unchanged after January 1, 2002. As of that date and by January 1 of every subsequent even-numbered year, Commerce would be required to determine the amount of submitted but unpaid PECFA claims as of the preceding June 30. If that total exceeds $10 million, Commerce would be required to increase the petroleum inspection fee, effective the following April 1, by the amount per gallon, rounded to the nearest 0.1 cent, that the Department estimates will annually generate revenue equivalent to the amount by which the total of unpaid claims exceeds $10 million. As of January 1, 2002, and by January 1 of every subsequent even-numbered year, Commerce would also be required, to determine the unencumbered balance in the petroleum inspection fund as of the preceding June 30. If that balance exceeds $10 million and if no PECFA revenue obligations are outstanding, Commerce would reduce the petroleum inspection fee, effective the following April 1, by the amount per gallon, rounded to the nearest 0.1 cent, that the Department estimates will reduce the revenue raised annually by the fee in an amount equal to $5 million or the amount by which that balance exceeds $10 million, whichever is greater. Commerce would notify DOR of any change in the fee.
Joint Finance/Legislature: Delete provision.
5. PECFA -- SITE PRIORITY CATEGORIZATION [LFB Papers 300 and 302]
Governor: Effective December 1, 1999, direct Commerce to promulgate a rule to establish the standards for categorizing sites of petroleum product discharges, rather than the current requirement that Commerce and DNR enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that establishes procedures and standards for determining whether a site is high, medium or low priority. Currently, DNR is responsible for administering the cleanup at high-priority petroleum sites and Commerce is responsible for administering the cleanup at medium and low-priority petroleum sites.
Under the bill, Commerce and DNR would be required to attempt to agree on the procedures and standards for determining whether the site of a petroleum discharge is classified as high, medium or low priority. If Commerce and DNR are unable to reach an agreement, the Secretary of DOA would resolve the matter. The Commerce rule would: (a) incorporate any agreements with DNR on site classification and any resolution of disagreements by the Secretary of DOA; (b) not provide that all sites at which a groundwater enforcement standard is exceeded be classified as high priority; and (c) classify no more than 50% of sites as high priority. The groundwater law requires that the concentration of a hazardous substance in groundwater must not exceed the enforcement standard established for the substance. The MOU that Commerce and DNR entered into in May, 1998, categorizes as high priority any site with an exceedence of a groundwater enforcement standard.
Commerce would be required to promulgate emergency rules regarding the standards for categorizing sites within 30 days of the effective date of the bill, and would not be required to provide a finding of emergency before promulgating the rules. Commerce would be required to revise the rules if more than 50% of sites are classified as high priority six months after the rules are in effect.
Joint Finance: Delete provision. Instead, classify a petroleum site as high risk if it has a groundwater enforcement standard exceedence in soil that has a hydraulic conductivity greater than 1 x 10-5 centimeters per second or meets one or more of the following criteria: (a) two or more tests show that the discharge has resulted in a concentration of contaminants in a private or public potable well that exceeds the preventive action limits established under s. 160.15; (b) there is a groundwater enforcement standard exceedence within 100 feet of a private well or 1,000 feet of a public well; (c) petroleum product that is not in dissolved phase is present with a thickness of 0.01 feet or more, as shown by repeated measurements; or (d) there is a groundwater enforcement standard exceedence in bedrock. Specify that DNR would have jurisdiction for administering the cleanup at high-risk sites, including all sites with contamination from non-petroleum hazardous substances. All other petroleum sites, excluding unranked sites, would be medium or low risk under the jurisdiction of Commerce. Specify that a site with contamination solely from petroleum products and additives to petroleum products (such as lead or oxygenates) would be categorized as a site with contamination solely from petroleum products.
In addition, specify that the transfer of sites from DNR to Commerce based on the new classification of sites be accomplished by no later than December 1, 1999. Also, specify that if the definition of high-risk sites results in classifying more than 35% of sites as high risk by December 1, 1999 (when sites would be transferred from DNR to Commerce), Commerce would be directed to: (a) promulgate emergency rules that establish the standards for categorizing sites of petroleum product discharges that does not provide that all sites at which a groundwater enforcement standard is exceeded be classified as high risk, classifies no more than 35% of petroleum sites as high risk, excluding unranked sites and sites with contamination from non-petroleum hazardous substances, and incorporates any agreements with DNR; (b) promulgate the emergency rules by December 31, 1999; and (c) revise the rules if more than 35% of sites are classified as high risk six months after the rules are in effect.
Senate: Delete the Joint Finance provision. Maintain the current law method of categorizing sites under the PECFA program.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Approve the Joint Finance provision except specify that one of the criteria that would determine that a petroleum site is high risk and under the jurisdiction of DNR would be the existence of a groundwater enforcement standard exceedence in "fractured" bedrock.
Veto by Governor [B-11]: Delete the use of the existence of a groundwater enforcement standard exceedence in soil that has a hydraulic conductivity greater than 1 x 10-5 centimeters per second as a criterion in determining whether a petroleum site is high-risk. The act maintains the other four criteria, the requirement that DNR transfer sites that are not high-risk to Commerce by December 1, 1999, and the requirement that Commerce promulgate administrative rules if the four criteria result in more than 35% of sites being classified as high-risk.
[Act 9 Sections: 1979p, 1995p thru 1998ac, 9110(3yu), 9110(3yv) and 9410(9yt)]
[Act 9 Vetoed Section: 1995r]
6. PECFA -- RISK-BASED ANALYSIS [LFB Papers 300 and 302]
Joint Finance: Require Commerce and DNR to jointly promulgate rules specifying a method for determining the risk to public health, safety and welfare and to the environment posed by discharges of petroleum products. The method must include consideration of the routes for migration of petroleum product contamination. Direct DNR and Commerce to apply the method to determine the risk posed by a discharge for which Commerce receives notification. Use of the risk-based method of analysis would first apply to remedial action activities that begin on or after November 1, 1999. Require Commerce and DNR to attempt to agree on the rules. If DNR and Commerce are unable to reach an agreement, require the Secretary of DOA to resolve the matter. Direct that DNR and Commerce promulgate emergency rules without a finding of emergency by November 30, 1999. Direct Commerce and DNR to submit permanent rules to the Legislature under s. 227.19 no later than June 1, 2000.
Senate: Modify the Joint Finance provision to require Commerce, in consultation with DNR, (instead of Commerce and DNR jointly) to promulgate rules specifying a method for determining the risk to public health, safety and welfare and to the environment posed by discharges of petroleum products. Delete the Joint Finance provisions that: (a) if DNR and Commerce are unable to reach an agreement on the rule, the Secretary of DOA would be required to resolve the matter; (b) DNR and Commerce shall promulgate emergency rules without a finding of emergency; and (c) Commerce and DNR shall submit permanent rules to the Legislature under s. 227.19 no later than June 1, 2000.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Adopt the Joint Finance provisions, except specify that when the risk-based method of analysis is used to consider routes for migration of petroleum product contamination, the consideration must be for "individualized" routes for migration of petroleum product contamination "at each site."
Veto by Governor [B-12]: Delete the June 1, 2000, deadline for submission of the permanent rules to the Legislature.
[Act 9 Sections: 1982c, 9110(3yu), 9310(3yt) and 9410(9yt)]
[Act 9 Vetoed Section: 9110(3yu)]
7. PECFA -- AWARD PRIORITIZATION AND REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS [LFB Papers 300, 302 and 303]
Governor: Authorize Commerce to promulgate administrative rules under the PECFA program for assigning award priorities to cleanups, except for cleanups of discharges from home heating oil tanks, small farm tanks and heating oil tanks owned by school districts. In addition, all owners or operators (including those with high priority cleanup administered by DNR) would be required to submit the remedial action plan prepared under current law to Commerce for approval, and Commerce would be required to review and approve or disapprove the remedial action plan. If Commerce promulgates rules for award prioritization, it would be required to: (a) base the award priorities on environmental factors and any other factors that the Department considers appropriate; (b) apply the award priorities only to occurrences for which remedial action plans are approved by Commerce after the effective date of the rules; (c) pay PECFA awards for cleanups that begin after the rules take effect in order of the award priorities; and (d) notify an owner or operator of a petroleum product storage system to which the rules apply of the date on which Commerce determines it is appropriate to begin remedial action activities or emergency actions, based on the Department's estimate of when funds would be available to pay an award under the award priorities. The owner or operator would be authorized to delay beginning a remedial action activity or emergency action until the date on which Commerce determines it is appropriate to begin the activities. Commerce would be authorized to deny PECFA reimbursement for interest costs if an owner or operator begins the activities before the beginning date determined by Commerce.
Joint Finance: Delete provision. Instead, provide that Commerce shall review claims related to eligible farm tanks, in addition to home oil tanks currently, as soon as the claims are received, and shall issue a PECFA award for eligible farm tank cleanups as soon as it completes review of the claim. In addition, for purposes of claim reimbursement, require claimants to submit the remedial action plan prepared under current law to Commerce for approval. Commerce would be required to either approve or disapprove the submitted plan for low and medium risk sites, and DNR would be required to approve or disapprove the remedial action plan for high risk sites. Delete the current law requirement that, at the request of the claimant, DNR or Commerce shall review the site investigation and remedial action plan and advise the claimant on the adequacy of the proposed remedial activities. Commerce would be required to review the remedial action plan for a low- or medium-risk site, and DNR and Commerce would be required to jointly review the remedial action plan for a high risk site, and to determine the least costly method of completing the remedial action activities and complying with groundwater enforcement standards. Commerce would be required to determine whether natural attenuation will complete the remedial action activities at a low or medium risk site in compliance with groundwater enforcement standards. Natural attenuation for petroleum sites would mean the reduction in the concentration and mass of a substance, and the products into which the substance breaks down, due to naturally occurring physical, chemical and biological processes.
Senate: Delete the Joint Finance provision that would require Commerce to review claims related to eligible farm tanks, in addition to home heating oil tanks currently, as soon as the claims are received, and to issue a PECFA award for eligible farm tank cleanups as soon as it completes review of the claim. Instead, direct Commerce and DNR to jointly determine when it is appropriate to begin remedial action based on the determination of risk for the discharge and the availability of funds to pay awards. An owner or operator would not be permitted to or required to begin remedial action until Commerce and DNR approve the commencement of the remedial action activities. These provisions would not apply if the discharge is from a home heating oil tank, small farm tank or heating oil tank owned by a school district, or if the remedial action is in response to an emergency.
Modify the Joint Finance provision related to remedial action plans to delete the requirement that Commerce either approve or disapprove the remedial action plan that would be submitted to Commerce. Require DNR to determine whether natural attenuation will complete the remedial action activities at high-priority sites in compliance with groundwater standards, in addition to the Joint Finance requirement that Commerce make the same determination for low- or medium-risk sites. (Under the modification, Commerce would make the determination for low- and medium-priority sites rather than for low- and medium-risk sites.)
Conference Committee/Legislature: Maintain the Joint Finance provisions, except the requirement that Commerce either approve or disapprove the remedial action plan that would be submitted to Commerce. Further, require DNR to determine whether natural attenuation will complete the remedial action activities at high-priority sites in compliance with groundwater standards, in addition to the Joint Finance requirement that Commerce make the same determination for low- or medium-risk sites.
[Act 9 Sections: 1979r, 1983b, 1983m, 1984c, 1985b, 1993m and 9410(9yt)]
8. PECFA -- MAXIMUM AWARD FOR LOW- AND MEDIUM-PRIORITY SITES [LFB Paper 300 and 302]
Governor: Change the maximum PECFA award for any underground petroleum tank site to $100,000 if the site is classified as medium or low priority under the rule promulgated by Commerce under the bill. The current maximum award for underground tanks is $100,000 for small farm tanks, $190,000 for school district tanks, $500,000 for systems where the product is not stored for resale and handles 10,000 or less gallons per month or $1,000,000 for systems where the product is stored for resale or that handles more than 10,000 gallons per month. The change in the maximum award would apply to claimants whose remedial action plan is approved by Commerce on or after December 1, 1999.
Joint Finance: Delete provision. Instead, require Commerce to notify the owner or operator of a low- or medium-risk site of its determination of the least costly method of completing the remedial action activities and complying with groundwater enforcement standards and that reimbursement for remedial action is limited to the amount necessary to implement that method. While the general maximum award would not change from current law, the maximum reimbursement for individual medium or low-risk sites could be limited under the motion. (The maximum reimbursement for high-risk sites would not be affected.) Commerce would be required to conduct an annual review for low- or medium-risk sites, and Commerce and DNR would be required to jointly conduct an annual review for high-risk sites and make the same determinations of the least costly method and use of natural attenuation. In addition, Commerce would be required to annually review the limit on maximum reimbursement for low- or medium-risk sites. Provide that reimbursable eligible costs under Commerce administrative rules shall include the least costly method to achieve any remedial action activities ordered by DNR or Commerce, whichever has jurisdiction for the cleanup at the site. The effective date of the maximum award provisions would be November 1, 1999, for remedial action activities that begin on or after that date.
Senate: Require DNR to notify the owner or operator of high-priority sites of its determination of the least costly method of completing the remedial action activities and complying with groundwater enforcement standards and that reimbursement for remedial action is limited to the amount necessary to implement that method. This would be in addition to the Joint Finance provision that Commerce would be required to notify the owner or operator of a low- or medium-priority (instead of low- or medium-risk) site of its determination of the least costly method of completing the remedial action activities and complying with groundwater enforcement standards and that reimbursement for remedial action is limited to the amount necessary to implement that method. This change would not change the general maximum award from current law, but would limit the maximum reimbursement for high-priority sites, in addition to medium- and low-priority sites under the substitute amendment. The effective date of the provision would be the effective date of the biennial budget act, for remedial action activities that begin on or after that date.
In addition, delete the Joint Finance provision that reimbursable eligible costs under Commerce administrative rules shall include the least costly method to achieve any remedial action activities ordered by DNR or Commerce, whichever has jurisdiction for the cleanup at the site.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Include the Senate provisions, except maintain the Joint Finance effective date of November 1, 1999, for remedial action activities that begin on or after that date.
[Act 9 Sections: 1984c, 1984m, 1986i, 1986k, 9310(3yt) and 9410(9yt)]
9. PECFA -- DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT [LFB Papers 300 and 304]
Governor: Change the PECFA award deductible amount for certain underground petroleum product storage tanks. Currently, the deductible for underground tanks is $2,500 plus 5% of eligible costs, but not more than $7,500, except that the deductible for heating oil tanks owned by public school districts and technical college districts is 25% of eligible costs. Under the bill, the deductible for an underground petroleum product storage tank system for marketers (the system stores products for resale) or nonmarketers that handle an annual average of more than 10,000 gallons of petroleum per month, would change to $10,000, plus another $2,500 if the eligible costs exceed $50,000, plus $2,500 if the eligible costs exceed $80,000, plus $10,000 for each whole $100,000 by which eligible costs exceed $150,000. (For example, for eligible costs of $50,000 the deductible would increase from $5,000 to $10,000, for eligible costs of $100,000 it would increase from $7,500 to $15,000, for eligible costs of $250,000 the deductible would increase from $7,500 to $25,000, and for eligible costs of $1,000,000 it would increase from $7,500 to $95,000.) The deductible for aboveground storage tanks located at terminals would change to $15,000 plus 15% (instead of 5%) of the amount by which eligible costs exceed $200,000. A terminal is a facility that is connected to a petroleum pipeline.
The change would first apply to remedial action activities or emergency actions that begin on the effective date of the biennial budget act. The deductible for noncommercial underground tanks of less than 10,000 gallons would remain at the current $2,500, plus 5% up to a maximum of $7,500. This current maximum would also apply, under the bill, to large tanks and commercial tank owners or operators if Commerce promulgates administrative rules that would exempt a class of owners or operators from the higher deductibles.
Joint Finance: Delete provision. Instead, change the deductible for underground petroleum product storage tank systems for marketers or non-marketers that handle an average of more than 10,000 gallons of petroleum per month to be $5,000 for eligible costs up to $100,000 plus 4% of eligible costs exceeding $100,000. Change the deductible for eligible farm tanks to $5,000. In addition, increase the deductible for aboveground storage tanks located at terminals to $15,000 plus 10% of the amount by which eligible costs exceed $200,000. Specify that the changes in deductible, for affected underground and aboveground storage tanks, would first apply to remedial action plans that are submitted on or after November 1, 1999. Maintain current law deductibles for claimants who submit remedial action plans in a form acceptable to Commerce and DNR prior to November 1, 1999. Further, authorize Commerce to promulgate rules describing the following classes of owners or operators that would be exempt from the change in deductible: (a) a municipality that is conducting the PECFA cleanup as part of a brownfields redevelopment project; and (b) an owner or operator who would be exempt based on financial hardship.
Senate: Delete the Joint Finance provisions related to PECFA deductibles. Instead, change the deductible for most underground tanks to be 100% of the amount by which eligible costs exceed $18,750 but do not exceed $21,250, plus 10% of the amount by which eligible costs exceed $21,250 but do not exceed $40,000, plus 5% of the amount by which eligible costs exceed $40,000, but not more than $7,500 (reached at $102,500 of eligible costs). Maintain the current law deductible for school district, technical college district, home heating oil and aboveground tanks. The change would first apply to costs incurred on the effective date of the bill.
In addition, delete the Joint Finance provision that would have authorized Commerce to promulgate rules to exempt from the deductible changes: (a) a municipality if the municipality is conducting the PECFA cleanup as part of a brownfields redevelopment project; and (b) an owner or operator who meets financial hardship criteria.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Maintain the Joint Finance changes in deductibles except specify that the deductible for underground petroleum product storage tank systems for marketers or for non-marketers that handle an average of more than 10,000 gallons of petroleum per month would be $3,000 (instead of $5,000 under Joint Finance) of eligible costs up to $60,000 (instead of $100,000 under Joint Finance) plus 3% (instead of 4% under Joint Finance) of eligible costs exceeding $60,000 (instead of $100,000). The changes would first apply to remedial action plans submitted on or after November 1, 1999.
Veto by Governor [B-9]: Change the deductible for underground petroleum product storage tank systems and farm tanks to be the current $2,500 plus 5% of eligible costs, but eliminate the $7,500 maximum deductible. The partial veto would result in a maximum deductible of $52,500 for an underground tank with $1,000,000 in eligible costs. The partial veto would result in a maximum deductible of $7,500 for a farm tank with the maximum eligible costs of $100,000. The act maintains the initial applicability of the deductible changes to remedial action plans submitted on or after November 1, 1999.
In addition, the partial veto authorizes Commerce to promulgate administrative rules describing a class of owners or operators of underground tanks for whom the deductible is based on financial hardship. Delete the specific eligibility of local governments conducting a cleanup as part of a brownfields redevelopment project for a lower deductible. As a result of the veto, the act does not specify the amount of the deductible for the class of owners or operators. The Governor's veto message requests Commerce to move quickly to develop the rules and to include local governments involved in brownfields redevelopment projects in the class of tank owners that can be considered for a lower deductible.
[Act 9 Sections: 1987b thru 1993f, 9310(3yu) and 9410(9yt)]
