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)]
[Act 9 Vetoed Sections: 1991c, 1992c and 1993f]
10. PECFA -- INTEREST COST REIMBURSEMENT [LFB Papers 300 and 305]
Governor: Require that PECFA reimbursement for interest costs incurred by a PECFA claimant would be: (a) eliminated for applicants with gross revenues that exceed $20,000,000 in the most recent tax year before the applicant submits a claim; and (b) limited to 5% for other applicants. The limitations would first apply to interest incurred on November 1, 1999, for claims submitted on November 1, 1999. Commerce would be authorized to promulgate administrative rules that specify information and audit requirements to implement the provision. Currently, reimbursable interest rates are limited to 2% above the prime rate for loans secured after January 31, 1993, and before October 15, 1997, and 1% above the prime rate for loans secured on or after October 15, 1997. Currently, the prime rate is approximately 8.5%. Under the 5% interest limitation, interest incurred on or after November 1, 1999, would be reimbursed at 5% if the claim is submitted on or after November 1, 1999, or at up to 2% or 1% above the prime rate (depending on when the applicant secured the loan) for claims submitted before November 1, 1999.
Joint Finance: Delete provision. Instead, limit PECFA reimbursement for interest costs incurred by a PECFA claimant, for loans secured on or after November 1, 1999, based on the applicant’s gross revenues in the most recent tax year as follows: (a) if gross revenues are over $5 million to $15 million in the most recent tax year, interest reimbursement would be limited to the prime rate; (b) if gross revenues are over $15 million to $25 million, interest reimbursement would be limited to the prime rate minus 1%; (c) if gross revenues are over $25 million to $35 million, interest reimbursement would be limited to the prime rate minus 2%; (d) if gross revenues are over $35 million to $45 million, interest reimbursement would be limited to the prime rate minus 3%; and (e) if gross revenues are over $45 million, interest reimbursement would be limited to the prime rate minus 4%. Interest reimbursement for applicants with gross revenues of up to $5 million in the prior tax year would remain at the current 1% over the prime rate.
Senate: Delete the Joint Finance provisions for PECFA interest cost reimbursement to maintain the current law limit on the reimbursable interest rate to 1% over the prime rate for loans secured on or after October 15, 1997.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Include Joint Finance provision.
Veto by Governor [B-10]: Change the interest reimbursement for loans secured on or after November 1, 1999, as follows: (a) if the applicant's gross revenues in the most recent tax year are up to $25 million, interest reimbursement would be limited to the prime rate minus 1%; and (b) if the applicant's gross revenues in the most recent tax year are more than $25 million, interest reimbursement would be limited to 4%.
[Act 9 Sections: 1986c, 1986e, 9310(3yv) and 9410(9yt)]
[Act 9 Vetoed Section: 1986e]
11. PECFA -- SITE BIDDING AND INSURANCE [LFB Papers 300 and 306]
Governor: Authorize Commerce to promulgate rules that require a person to pay a specified fee as a condition of submitting a bid to provide a service for a cleanup under the PECFA program. Any fees collected under the provision would be deposited in the petroleum inspection fund. If Commerce imposes a fee, the Department would be authorized to use the PECFA awards appropriation to purchase, or provide funding for the purchase of, insurance to cover the amount by which the costs of conducting the cleanup service exceed the amount bid to conduct the cleanup service.
Joint Finance: Approve the Governor's recommendation. Further, make the following changes related to site bidding:
a. Require DNR or Commerce, whichever agency has jurisdiction over the site, to estimate the cost to complete a site investigation, remedial action plan and remedial action for an occurrence. If that estimate exceeds $80,000, Commerce would be directed to implement a competitive public bidding process to assist in determining the least costly method of remedial action. Commerce would not be permitted to implement the bidding process if: (a) DNR or Commerce waives the requirement on the grounds that the waiver is necessary in an emergency to prevent or mitigate an imminent hazard to public health, safety or welfare or to the environment; or (b) one agency waives the requirement after providing notice to the other agency. In addition; (a) make the use of the bidding process optional at sites where an enforcement standard is exceeded in groundwater within 1,000 feet of a well operated by a public utility or within 100 feet of any other well used to provide water for human consumption; and (b) allow Commerce to waive bidding requirements if the Department determines that the remedial action plan identifies the most cost efficient cleanup option for the site.
b. Authorize Commerce to disqualify a public bid for remedial action activities at a PECFA site if, based on information available to the Department and experience with other PECFA projects, the bid is unlikely to establish a maximum reimbursement amount that will sufficiently fund a cleanup necessary to meet applicable site closure requirements.
c. Authorize Commerce to disqualify a public bidder from submitting a bid for remedial action activities at a PECFA site if, based on past performance of the bidder, the bidder has demonstrated an inability to finish remedial actions within previously established cost limits.
d. Authorize Commerce to review and modify established maximum reimbursement amounts for remedial action activities if the Department determines that new circumstances, including newly discovered contamination at a site, warrant the review.
Senate: Modify the Joint Finance provisions for PECFA site bidding as follows:
a. Require that when DNR or Commerce, whichever agency has jurisdiction over the site, would estimate the cost to complete a site investigation, remedial action plan and remedial action for an occurrence under the substitute amendment, that if the estimate exceeds $60,000 (instead of $80,000 under Joint Finance) Commerce would be directed to implement a competitive public bidding process to assist in determining the least costly method of remedial action.
b. Prohibit Commerce from implementing the bidding process if DNR (but not also Commerce under Joint Finance) waives the requirement on the grounds that the waiver is necessary in an emergency to prevent or mitigate an imminent hazard to public health, safety or welfare or to the environment.
c. Prohibit Commerce from implementing the bidding process if DNR waives the requirement after providing notice to the Secretary of Commerce (but not also if Commerce waives the requirement after providing notice to DNR under Joint Finance).
d. Prohibit the use of the bidding process (instead of making it optional under Joint Finance) at sites where an enforcement standard is exceeded in groundwater within 1,000 feet of a well operated by a public utility or within 100 feet of any other well used to provide water for human consumption.
e. Delete the Joint Finance authorization for Commerce to waive bidding requirements if it determines that the remedial action plan identifies the most cost effective cleanup option for the site.
f. Delete the Joint Finance authorization for Commerce to disqualify a public bid for remedial action activities at a PECFA site if, based on information available to the Department and experience with other PECFA projects, the bid is unlikely to establish a maximum reimbursement amount that will sufficiently fund a cleanup necessary to meet applicable site closure requirements.
