v-xEPA
            United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
            Office of Solid Waste
            and Emergency Response
            Washington, DC 20460
EPA/530-SW-84-002
April 1984
            Solid Waste
Assessment of Hazardous
Waste Mismanagement
Damage Case Histories

-------
     Assessment of Hazardous  Waste Mismanagement

                Damage  Case Histories
                   This  report was
       performed for the Office of Solid Waste
   under contract no. 68-01-6474,  is reproduced as
received from the contractor.   The findings should be
    attributed to the contractor and not to the
                Office of  Solid Waste.
         U..;-  C: vf-onmenf3l Protection  Agency
         fikif.;,-' "• V.  ' '••• ->>-y

         230  ^ou;-! i; -,,jorn Street
         Chicago, Illinois  60604
        U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY

-------
     This  report  was prepared  by  Fred C. Hart Associates,  Inc.,  New York,
New York, under contract no. 68-01-6474.

     Publication does not  signify  that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and  policies of  the U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  nor does
mention  of commercial  products  constitute endorsement  by  the U.S.  Govern-
ment.

-------
                             FOREWARD

     This report has been developed  under  contract  number 68-01-6474
to provide regulatory technical support to the  Office  of  Solid  Waste
(OSW) in  its  effort  to  promulgate hazardous  waste  regulations  under
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation  and  Recovery  Act  (RCRA).   To
this end, OSW  identified  the need to  develop  a data   base  on  damage
case histories associated with hazardous waste facilities.

     It is  particularly  important  for  the  reader,  throughout  this
analysis, to be  cognizant  of the  fact that  the  sites  evaluated  were
selected based  on  very   specific  criteria  and  as  such  it would  be
difficult, at best,  to  attempt to  draw conclusions  about the universe
of all  damage cases  based on  the finding of this study.

-------
                         ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
     This document was prepared by Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.,
530 Fifth Avenue, New  York,  NY  10036,  under  EPA  contract number
68-01-6474.   The  major  contract  personnel  contributing  to  this
document were:

          Fred  C. Hart Accociates, Inc.
          Wayne K. Tusa (Project Director)
          Brian D. Gillen, P.E. (Project Manager)
          Charles Sell  (Assistant  Project Manager)
          Steve Orzynski ,  P.E. (Assistant Project Manager)
          Steffen Plehn (Technical  Reviewer)
          Nick Maniaci
          Victor Fahrer
          Michael Saunders
          Cathy Bobenhausen
          Kathleen Murray
          Vicki Ragan
          Ronald Tai

     The EPA   Project  Officers,  Jon  Perry,  Kent  Anderson,  and
Kenneth Shuster,  Office   of   Solid  Waste,  were   instrumental  in
completing this  project.   Additional  assistance was  gratefully
received from  numerous  EPA   and   state  personnel   and  various
subcontractors including   K.W.  Brown  and   Associates,  Inc.  and
Versar, Inc.

-------
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section                            Title                              Page

  List of Tables	      v
  List of Figures	      vii
  Executive Summary 	      viii
  1.0     Introduction	      1-1
          1.1  Background	      1-1
          1.2  Task Goals	      1-1
          1.3  Overall Project Approach 	      1-1
  2.0     Project History	      2-1
          2.1  Source of Information	      2-1
          2.2  Work Plan Development	      2-1
          2.3  Project Chronology	       2-3
  3.0     File Review Procedures	      3-1
          3.1  Evaluation Process 	      3-1
               3.1.1     Case Selection Process	      3-1
               3.1.2     Evaluation Procedures	      3-1
               3.1.3     Evaluation Format	      3-3
               3.1.4     Evaluation Criteria	      3-3
          3.2  Implications of Evaluation Process  	      3-8
               3.2.1     Limitations of the Data Bases	      3-8
               3.2.2     Other Uses of Data Base	      3-9
  4.0     Facility Types	      4-1
          4.1  General	      4-1
          4.2  Landfills	      4-1
          4.3  Surface Impoundments 	      4-1
          4.4  Containers	      4-2
          4.5  Tanks	      4-3
          4.6  Piles	      4-3
  5.0     Summary Report	      5-1
          5.1  Overview	      5-1
          5.2  Sources	      5-7
          5.3  Tabulation of Site Descriptions by  Facility
               Type (Table 5-1)	      5-7
          5.4  Contamination Incidents	      5-10
               5.4.1     Tabulation of Media Exposed to
                         Contamination	      5-10
               5.4.2     Tabulation of Media Exposed to Contamina-
                         tion Incidents by Facility Types  ....      5-10
          5.5  Events Causing Contamination 	      5-16
               5.5.1     Tabulation of Events Causing Contamination
                         Incidents	      5-16
               5.5.2     Tabulation of Events Causing Contamination
                         by Facility Type	      5-16
          5.6  Chemicals Documented in Contamination
               Incidents (Tables 5-7 and 5-8)	      5-23
          5.7  Damage Incidents 	      5-26
               5.7.1     Tabulation of Number, Type and
                         Severity of Damage Incidents 	      5-26

-------
Section
Title
Page
               5.7.2     Tabulation of Number and Severity of
                         Damage Incidents by Facility Type.  .  .  .
          5.8  Status of Response (Table 5-12)	
  6.0     Epidemiological Studies Relating to Hazardous
          Waste Mismanagement 	
          6.1  Purpose	
          6.2  Methodology	
          6.3  Results	
          6.4  Conclusions	
          Appendices
               Appendix A - Damage Incident Summary Form (DISF)
                            General Instructions	
               Appendix B - Regional  Summaries,  Regions I through  X
  B.I     Region I Summary	
          B.I.I     Region I Overview 	
          B.I.2     Sources 	
          B.I.3     Tabulation of Site Descriptions by
                    Facility Type (Table B.l-1)  	
          B.I.4     Contamination Incidents 	
          B.I.5     Events Causing Contamination	
          B.I.6     Chemicals Documented in Contamination
                    Incidents (Tables B.l-7 and  B.l-8)	
          B.I.7     Damage Incidents	
          B.I.8     Status of Response (Table B.l-12) 	
  B.2     Region II Summary
          B.2.1     Region II Overview	
          B.2.2     Sources 	
          B.2.3     Tabulation of Site Descriptions by
                    Facility Type (Table B.2-1) 	
          B.2.4     Contamination Incidents 	
          B.2.5     Events Causing Contamination	
          B.2.6     Chemicals Documented in Contamination
                    Incidents (Tables B.2-7 and B.2-8).  .
          B.2.7     Damage Incidents	
          B.2.8     Status of Response (Table B.2-12) .  .
  B.3     Region III Summary.
          B.3.1     Region III Overview 	
          B.3.2     Sources 	
          B.3.3     Tabulation of Site Descriptions by
                    Facility Type (Table B.3-1) 	
          B.3.4     Contamination Incidents 	
          B.3.5     Events Causing Contamination	
          B.3.6     Chemicals Documented in Contamination
                    Incidents (Tables B.3-7 and B.3-8).  .
          B.3.7     Damage Incidents	
          B.3.8     Status of Response (Table B.3-12) .  .
  B.4     Region IV Summary
                                   5-29
                                   5-29

                                   6-1
                                   6-1
                                   6-1
                                   6-2
                                   6-2
                                   A-l
                                   B-l
                                   B.l-1
                                   B.l-1
                                   B.l-1

                                   B.l-1
                                   B.l-2
                                   B.l-9

                                   B.l-15
                                   B.I-15
                                   B.l-28
                                   B.2-1
                                   B.2-1
                                   B.2-1

                                   B.2-1
                                   B.2-2
                                   B.2-9
                                   B
          B.4.1     Region IV Overview.
          B.4.2     Sources 	
B.2-15
B.2-15
  2-19
B.3-1
B.3-1
B.3-1
                                   B.3-1
                                   B.3-2
                                   B.3-9

                                   B.3-15
                                   B.3-15
                                   B.3-20
                                   B.4-1
                                   B.4-1
                                   B.4-1

-------
Section                            Title                              Page


                                                                     B.4-1
                                                                     B.4-2
                                                                     B.4-9

                                                                     B.4-15
                                                                     B.4-15
                                                                     B.4-19
  B.5     Region V Summary	     B.5-1
                                                                     B.5-1
                                                                     B.5-1

                                                                     B.5-1
                                                                     B.5-2
                                                                     B.5-9

                                                                     B.5-15
                                                                     B.5-15
                                                                     B.5-28
  B.6     Region VI Summary	     B.6-1
                                                                     B.6-1
                                                                     B.6-1

                                                                     B.6-1
                                                                     B.6-2
                                                                     B.6-9

                                                                     B.6-9
                                                                     B.6-15
                                                                     B.6-20
  B.7     Region VII  Summary	     B.7-1
                                                                     B.7-1
                                                                     B.7-1

                                                                     B.7-1
                                                                     B.7-2
                                                                     B.7-9

                                                                     B.7-9
                                                                     B.7-15
                                                                     B.7-20
  B.8     Region VIII Summary	     B.8-1
                                                                     B.8-1
                                                                     8.8-1

                                                                     B.8-1
                                                                     B.8-2
                                                                     B.8-9
B.4.3
B.4.4
B.4.5
B.4.6
B.4.7
B.4.8
Region
B.5.1
B.5. 2
B.5. 3
B.5. 4
B.5. 5
B.5. 6
B.5. 7
B.5. 8
Region
B.6.1
B.6. 2
B.6. 3
B.6. 4
B.6. 5
B.6. 6
B.6. 7
B.6. 8
Region
B.7.1
B.7. 2
B.7. 3
B.7. 4
B.7. 5
B.7. 6
B.7. 7
B.7. 8
Region
B.8.1
B.8. 2
B.8. 3
B.8. 4
B.8. 5
Tabulation of Site Descriptions by
Facility Type (Table B.4-1) 	
Contamination Incidents 	
Events Causing Contamination 	
Chemicals Documented in Contamination
Incidents (Tables B.4-7 and B.4-8) 	
Damage Incidents 	
Status of Response (Table B.4-12) 	
V Summary 	
Region V Overview . ... . . .
Sources 	
Tabulation of Site Descriptions by
Facility Type (Table B.5-1) 	
Contamination Incidents 	
Events Causing Contamination 	
Chemicals Documented in Contamination
Incidents (Tables B.5-7 and B.5-8) 	
Damage Incidents 	
Status of Response (Table B.5-12) 	
VI Summary 	
Region VI Overview 	
Sources 	
Tabulation of Site Descriptions by
Facility Type (Table B.6-1) 	
Contamination Incidents 	
Events Causing Contamination 	
Chemicals Documented in Contamination
Incidents (Tables B.6-7 and B.6-8) 	
Damage Incidents 	
Status of Response (Table B.6-12) 	
VII Summary 	
Region VII Overview 	
Sources 	
Tabulation of Site Descriptions by
Facility Type (Table B.7-1) 	
Contamination Incidents 	
Events Causing Contamination 	
Chemicals Documented in Contamination
Incidents (Tables B.7-7 and B.7-8) 	
Damage Incidents 	
Status of Response (Table B.7-12) 	
VIII Summary 	
Region VIII Overview 	
Sources 	
Tabulation of Site Descriptions by
Facility Type (Table B.8-1) 	
Contamination Incidents 	
Events Causina Contamination 	

-------
Section                            Title                               Page

          B.8.6     Chemicals  Documented  in  Contamination
                    Incidents  (Tables  B.8-7  and  B.8-8)	      B.8-15
          B.8.7     Damage Incidents	      B.8-15
          B.8.8     Status of  Response (Table  B.8-12)  	      B.8-19
  B.9     Region IX Summary	      B.9-1
                                                                      B.9-1
                                                                      B.9-1

                                                                      B.9-1
                                                                      B.9-2
                                                                      B.9-9

                                                                      B.9-9
                                                                      B.9-15
                                                                      B.9-20
  B.10    Region X Summary	      B.10-1
                                                                      B.10-1
                                                                      B.10-1

                                                                      B.10-1
                                                                      B.10-2
                                                                      B.10-10

                                                                      B.10-10
                                                                      B.10-16
                                                                      B.10-21
B.9.1
B.9. 2
B.9. 3
B.9. 4
B.9. 5
B.9. 6
B.9. 7
B.9. 8
Region
B.10.1
B.10.2
B.10.3
B.10.4
B.10.5
B.10.6
B.10.7
B.10.8
Region IX Overview 	 ".
Sources 	
Tabulation of Site Descriptions by
Facility Type (Table B.9-1) 	
Contamination Incidents 	
Events Causing Contamination 	
Chemicals Documented in Contamination
Incidents (Tables B.9-7 and B.9-8) 	
Damage Incidents 	
Status of Response (Table B.9- 12) 	
X Summary 	
Region X Overview 	
Sources 	
Tabulation of Site Descriptions by
Facility Type (Table B.10-1) 	
Contamination Incidents 	
Events Causing Contamination 	
Chemicals Documented in Contamination
Incidents (Tables B.10-7 and B.10-8) 	
Damage Incidents 	
Status of Response (Table B. 10-12) 	
                                      IV

-------
                               LIST OF TABLES


Table                            Title                                Page

2-1            Summary of Available Sources Evaluated 	   2-2

3-1            Summary of Case Selection Criteria for Evaluated
               Sites for FIT and S&A Files	    3-2

3-2            Summary of Guidelines Used in Rating Severity
               of Damage at Evaluated Sites	    3-7

5-1            Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Tabulation of Site Descriptions by Type	    5-8

5-2            Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Tabulation of Sites Exposed to Contamination
               Incidents	    5-11

5-3            Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Tabulation of Media Exposed to Contamination
               Incident	    5-12

5-4            Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Tabulation of Media Exposed to Contamination
               Incident by Facility Type	    5-13

5-5            Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Tabulation of Events Causing Contamination
               Incidents	    5-17

5-6            Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Tabulation of Events Causing Contamination
               Incidents by Facility Type	    5-18

5-7            Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Tabulation of Chemicals Documented in
               Contamination Incidents 	    5-24

5-8            Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Contaminant Concentration Range 	    5-25

-------
                               LIST OF TABLES

Table                              Title                              Page

5-9            Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Tabulation of Sites Damaged 	     5-27

5-10           Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Tabulation of Number & Severity of Damage
               Incidents	     5-28

5-11           Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Tabulation of Number & Severity of Damage
               Incidents by Facility Type	     5-31

5-12           Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Status of Response	     5-39

6-1            Status of Epidemiological Studies by State	     6-3

6-2            Discriptions of Epidemiological Investigations.  .  .     6-4

-------
                               LIST OF FIGURES

Figure                                                                Page

3-1            Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Completed OISF	    3-4
                                                        /
5-1            Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Site Descriptions by Facility Type	    5-2

5-2            Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Media Contaminated	    5-3

5-3            Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Tabulation of Sites Contaminated and Damaged. .  .  .    5-4

5-4            Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Affected Areas Damaged
               Documented Cases	    5-5

5-5            Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Events Causing Contamination	    5-6

5-6            Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Facility age vs Percent Probability of
               Occurrence	    5-9

5-7            Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Events Causing Contamination Incident By
               Facility Type	    5-22

5-8            Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Severity of Damage	    5-30

5-9            Hazardous Waste Sites
               DISF Summary of Evaluated Sites
               Damage of Affected Area Associated by
               Facility Type	    5-38
                                      VI]

-------
                        Executive Summary


Overview

     The Hazardous  and  Industrial  Waste  Division  of  the  Office
of Solid Waste  (OSW)  is  responsible  for  promulgating hazardous
waste management  regulations under the  Resource  Conservation  and
Recovery Act (RCRA).  To  this  end, the  OSW identified  the  need
to develop  an extensive data base  on  damage histories  associated
with land and non-land based hazardous waste disposal facilities.
The intent   of this  effort  was  to secure  available  data  bases  to
assist in  developing   estimates   of   potential   damages   due   to
hazardous waste  mismanagement,  to develop  an  extensive data  base
delineating the  types of  damages that  could  occur  and  for  what
reasons and  thus   to  provide  substantial  additive  information
that would   be of  use  in the regulatory  impact  process.   To  more
precisely define the types of data most  appropriate for inclusion
in the data  base,  and to  provide  specific direction  for  the  data
gathering efforts,  a  five  page  survey  form was  developed,  with
additional  pages  appended  for  supporting documentation,  as  nec-
essary.  Under  Phase  I  of  this  effort,  these   "Damage  Incident
Summary Forms"   (DISFs)  were  completed  for  a  total  of 929  sites
across the   country.   The  data  necessary  to complete  the  survey
forms was obtained  via  a  detailed  review  of  Field Investigation
Team (FIT),  Surveillance   and  Analysis   (S&A)  and   regional   EPA
files.

     It is   particularly important   for   the  reader,  throughout
this analysis,   to  be  cognizant  of  the   fact  that  the 929  sites
evaluated were   selected  based  on very  specific  criteria.   These
criteria included   the  preferential  selection of active   and  in-
active disposal   sites  for   which  laboratory sampling data  was
available,  sites  that  were  operated  as  storage  facilities  and
sites that   had  been  MITRE  scored.   (The  interim  list  of  175
MITRE scored sites  "rescored"  in  September-October 1981  by  EPA.)
The following   sections  outline  in    more  detail  the   project
history, the data   system,  and the  review  procedures  utilized.
As well, the Appendices  provide  a   copy  of the  DISF,  general
instructions, and   summaries of  the  DISF  evaluations for  each
r e g i on.

     It should  also be  noted  that  the  data  bases  selected  for
use in  this  study, i.e.,  largely the  FIT  and  S&A data  bases,
were constrained in a  number of ways.   These constraints  included
files that   were  in  various stages   of  completion  and   in  some
cases files  that  were  either  unavailable  or  restricted due  to
legal considerations.    Furthermore, the  data  base for any  given
site is  inherently larger than  that  found  at   EPA  files  alone.
State and local  health  agency  files are typical  examples  of  data
bases that   were  excluded  from this  study but  were  very  often
more complete than corresponding  EPA site files.
                               vi

-------
     In view of the file preselection process and the constraints
associated with the data base used, it should be noted that these
cases are  not  necessarily  representat i ve  of  all  damage  cases
either on file at  EPA  or in  existence  in  the  field.   As  well, it
would be  difficult,   at   best,  to  attempt  to  draw  conclusions
about the universe of  all  damage  cases based on  the  findings of
this study.

Findings and Conclusions

     As a result  of the data  base  review,  the  site history reviews
and the  subsequent  data  analysis,  the study team  recorded  the
following summary conclusions:

     0   The  FIT,  S&A  and  regional EPA files   contain the most
         readily   accessible    data   bases  on    potential  site
         damages  of  the  data  bases  examined   in  this  study.

     0   The information derived from these data bases is helpful
         in evaluating a variety of factors relevant to hazardous
         waste mismanagement  cases.   The study has provided infor-
         mation that  should be useful in  gaining an understanding
         of:

             what kinds of events  have  resulted in contamination
             or damage at which facility  types,

             what kinds of chemicals  are   commonly implicated at
             which facility types,

             what kinds of remedial  responses have been initiated
             at a number of sites,

             the  current status of FIT and S&A files,

             which kinds of facilities  and  facility  operations
             have led   to  contamination and  damage  incidents  in
             the  past,

             what  kinds  of    environmental   and  public  health
             monitoring has been employed  to  date, and

             specific   cases   that  are  available  for   further
             detailed  "cause  and effect"  analyses.

     0   While facility  types, operating  conditions and environ-
         mental setting of the  sites evaluated  varied on  a  case
         by case   basis,   a  typical   site   profile  emerges.   The
         typical  site   was undesigned,  with  little  information
         on file  to suggest  that  adequate operating  and  mainte-
         nance procedures  were  routinely  employed.   Most  sites
         contained no    liners,  leachate  or   runoff  collection
         systems  and/or   containment  facilities   and  inactive

-------
sites almost  invariably  received  inadequate  closure.
In addition,  most  of the  sites  evaluated  were  located
in  poor  hydrogeologic/ environmental   settings.   For
example, in  the  majority  of  cases,  the   facility  was
located in  moderate  to  highly  permeable  soils,  within
10 feet  of  groundwater,  and  100  feet   of  a  surface
water body.   In  many  cases,  the  facility  was  also
located  within  one-half   mile   of  shallow  drinking
water wel1s.

Of the 929  sites  evaluated, the  facility  types  most
commonly  identified   with   potential  contamination  or
damage included  landfills,  containers, tanks, and  open
dumps.

56 percent  of the sites were identified  as active faci-
lities and  42  percent  as   inactive  facilities.   The
remaining  2  percent  could  not  be identified  as  active
or inactive  using  the  information   available  in  the
files.

Most of the  contamination  originating  from these sites
was discovered  between   1979  and  1981,   a time  period
coinciding with the initiation of most state and  federal
hazardous  waste  management  programs.   For  this  reason,
an accurate  assessment  of  the time  period  during which
site related  contamination  has  been  occuring  could  not
be completed.

The average number of  operating years  associated  with
these facilities was  7.6 years,  a statistic  based  on  a
probability plot of the operating years of 354 facilites
having this  information on   file.   Two-thirds  of  the
facilities had  been  operating  between  1   and  38  years.

Approximately  90  percent   of  the  sites evaluated had
evidence  of  suspected  or    documented   contamination.

Groundwater, surface water,   and  soil   were  the   media
for which   data  indicated contamination  most  often  and
at approximately the same percentage  of sites.

The  events  most  often  associate d with contamination
included  leachate   migration,   leaks,   spills,   fire/
explosions, emission  of toxic  gas/mists,   and  erosion.

The   most  commonly  identified  contaminants  included
metals,  volatile   halogenated   organics  and  volatile
non-hal ogenated organics.

-------
o
Damage was suspected or documented at 59 percent of  the
sites evaluated,  or  63 percent  of the  sites  involving
contami nati on.

Approximately 25 percent  of the  sites  evaluated  have
documented evidence  of damage  to human  health  or  the
e nvi ronme nt.

Suspected  damage  was  most  often reported to drinking
water, human  health, fauna, and flora.

Documented damage  was  most  often reported to drinking
water and property.

The data bases utilized in this  study have only limited
information related   to  air   emissions   and   potential
public health  damages  associated  with  air  emissions.

While remedial programs varied  on a  case by case basis,
various  legal   actions  and/or  remedial   activities  have
been  initiated  at  a  significant  number  of  the  sites
evaluated in  this study.  For example, legal or enforce-
ment  activities have occured at 19 percent of the sites,
while 55 percent  of the sites  have had  or  are  currently
completing additional  environmental  investigations.   At
approximately 30  percent  of  the  sites,   remedial  acti-
vities of some type have been initiated.

The type of  data  available  in  the files examined  in
this  effort,   in  conjunction  with similar  state  level
files, would   appear   to  be  the  most  suitable   for  the
developement   of   follow-up  studies   of  cause/effect
damage case histories.

-------
                        1.0   Introduction
1.1  Background

     The Hazardous  and  Industrial   Waste  Division of  the  Office
of Solid  Waste  (OSW) is  responsible  for  promulgating hazardous
waste management  regulations  under  the  Resource  Conservation
and Recovery  Act  of  1976  (RCRA).   Under  RCRA  authorities,  the
Part 264  regulations relating  to   general   facility  requirements
were issued  in  interim  final   form in  February,  1981  with  the
final  promulgation   scheduled  for   late  1982,  as  required  by
Federal Court  Order.   In  addition  to  developing the  necessary
data base  to  support these  regulations,  OSW  must  also complete
Regulatory Impact  Analyses  (RIAs),  as  required  by  Executive
Order 12291,  issued  February   18,   1981.   In  order   to  achieve
these objectives, EPA identified  the need  to  develop  and compile
damage case  histories  associated  with  mismanaged land  and  non-
land based hazardous  waste disposal facilities.   The  information
to be  compiled   under  Phase  I  of  this  project  will   serve  to
provide a  compilation of  damage  information  on  a large  number
of active  and  inactive  disposal  sites meeting  certain selection
criteria, will provide  information  of  the  kinds  of environmental
damages associated  with certain  contamination  events  and  will,
as well, provide  some measure  of the  overall  extent  of contami-
nation and damage  resulting  from the  mismanagement  of hazardous
wastes.  Furthermore,  the  data   will   be  useful  in  evaluating
potential regulating  alternatives,   and  in  assessing   the  needs
for further data gathering  efforts.

1.2  Task Goals

     The overall   purpose   of  the  task   is  to  provide  technical
support to  EPA  in  resolving  the  technical  issues arising  from
the promulgation and  implementation  of the  hazardous waste dispo-
sal  regulations.    In that  regard,  EPA  identified  the need  to
develop a  data  base  on  environmental  and  public  health  damages
attributed to incidents  of hazardous waste mismanagement.   This
data base can then be used  to analyze damage incidents by facility
type and  to   assist  the  Agency  in  preparing  regulations  more
specifically tailored to   individual  facility  types.   The  data
base can also be  used for  a  number  of  other  purposes  including,
for example, assistance  with the development  of  the  on-going  RIA
process.

1.3  Overall  Project Approach

     This overall  task  entailed  two  separate  efforts,  Phases  I
and II.  Phase  I  included the  initial  review of  approximately
1,000 Field Investigation Team  (FIT), EPA Surveillance and Analysis
(S&A),  and  regional  files  in  each of the ten  EPA Regions.   Damage
Incident Summary   Forms   (DISFs)   were  completed  for  these  and
other  documented   damage cases  on   file.   These  included  open
dumps,   spill   sites,   landfills,    surface  impoundments,   land

-------
                               1 -2
treament  facilities,   incinerators,   storage/treatment   facilities
(containers, tanks,  piles),  injection wells,  boilers  using  waste
as fuel,  and  recycling/reclamation   facilities.    For   each   site
containing one or  more  facility  type a  DISF  was  completed.   The
completed  DISFs   identified  each  site   by  name,  location,  and
facility type, and  media exposed  to  contamination  (ground  water,
surface water, soil,  or  air),  the extent  and  severity  of  damage,
the  event(s) and   waste causing  the   incident,  the   status  of
remedial activities  and   information  sources  used.   This  report
entitled  "Assessment   of  Hazardous   Waste    Mismanagement  Damage
Case Histories"  (the Report),  completes  Phase  I.

     Specific tasks  undertaken  in  the first  phase  of this  effort
to accomplish  the    overall   project    objectives  also   included:

     0   Identification,    review,    and    assessment  of  existing
         potential  sources of  information.   The  sources  included
         the  Site   Tracking   System  (STS)  files;  EPA  regional,
         FIT, and  S&A files;  state  files;  etc.   Identification
         of the   information   sources   utilized   in  this  analysis
         is presented  in  Section 2.1  of  this report.

     0   Development  of  site   selection  criteria   to best meet the
         technical  information   requirements  of   EPA  and  to  most
         efficiently utilize  the available  data base  are described
         in Section   3.1.1,  including preferential  selection  of:

             sites  having available sampling data,
             site identified  as storage  facilities,  and
             MITRE  scored sites.   (The  interim   list of   175 MITRE
             scored   sites "  rescored  "  in  September-October   1981
             by  EPA.)

     0   Development  of  review  criteria to  insure uniformity  of
         DISF responses  regarding  the  identification  of  contami-
         nation  and  damage events,  rating  of  damage severity  and
         determination of the   level of file  documentation required
         to support  given responses.   (A  completed  sample DISF has
         been  included   in   Section  3.1.3.   Specific  evaluation
         criteria used in  determining  appropriate  DISF  responses
         are discussed in detail  in Section  3.1.4 of  this report).

     0   Completion  of 929 DISFs for  use  by  OSW   and other agencies
         and the  preparation  of a  report  that  summarizes the  types
         of facilities studied  in  each  region,   the  contamination
         and damage   incidents   associated   with  those  facilities,
         the potential causes  of  contamination   and  damage  inci-
         dents,  the  indicated  severity  of  the   damages, and  the
         status  of  enforcement  and  remedial  actions.

     0   Selection  of  damage  incident  cases   for  in-depth  Phase II
         damage  cause  and effect analyses.   Site  selection criteria

-------
                                1-3
         for this phase included.

         - availability   of    substantial   additional    amounts  of
           information (largely at the state file level),

         - documented  damage,  as  contrasted  to  suspected  damage,
           and

         - engineered  facilities  as  opposed to  undesired  facility
           types such as  open dumps or spill incidents.

     Subsequent to EPA review  and approval  of  the Report,  and  to
ongoing regulatory support  requirements,  Phase  II  will  be  imple-
mented.  Phase  II  of  this work  effort  requires  the  study  team  to
conduct an in-depth damage investigation  of a  number  of  the  sites
that were  reviewed  in the  first phase.   The  in-depth  study  will
correlate reported damages  with  actual  causes   including  facility
design, physical setting, waste type  and facility age.

-------
                            2.0  Project History

2.1  Sources of Information

     The initial task of the study team was to identify potential sources of
damage  case data.   In  October  1981,  the  study  team conducted  a  computer
search,  reviewed  reports  and interviewed representatives  from  a variety of
government  agencies  (including  EPA),  health organizations,  environmental
advocacy groups,  environmental  firms,  insurance  firms, computer firms and
interested  professional associations.  As a result of this effort, the study
team developed  an  initial  appreciation of the relative value of the various
data bases.  Table  2-1  describes  the study team's assessment  of the poten-
tial  utility of  available data  sources.   This  task  essentially confirmed
that EPA and its  supporting government contractors  had  the  most comprehen-
sive collection of damage case histories available  for review.

     As noted, files considered for supplementing the existing EPA data base
included data bases  from  other federal sources (i.e. the Center for Disease
Control, Department of Defense),  from the states,  and from private industry,
particularly insurance  companies.  However, the  reasons for focusing on EPA
and EPA contractor data bases rather than on  other data bases included:

     0    breadth  of  coverage of the  EPA-related  files,  because other
          files had necessarily smaller populations for review,  and

     0    accessibility of EPA-related  files and supporting  informa-
          tion.
2.2  Work Plan Development

     Given budget  and time  constraints,  it was not  feasible  to  complete a
detailed investigation of  all  the available data bases listed in Table 2-1.
For the  reasons noted,  the  OSW  therefore  directed the study  team  to con-
centrate its  efforts  on  data bases from which the most detailed and readily
accessible information  was  available.   A work  plan for  developing damage
case histories  was  submitted to the EPA  for  review in November 1981.  This
plan included the following items:

     1.    completion  of  a detailed computer  and literature  search  of
          nationwide  damage  cases utilizing the DIALOG  system  (a com-
          puterized data  retrieval  system  that  accesses approximately
          150 technical data  bases),

     2.    obtaining computer access to  the STS to  identify  all  poten-
          tial sites,

     3.    review of the applicability  of data contained in FIT files  in
          Regions II and VIII,

     4.    review of headquarters FIT files  for data  applicability  in
          Regions I, III,  IV, V, VI, VII, IX and X,

     5.    contact  with  national  and  state  health  and  solid  waste
          agencies   for  epidemiological   studies  relating  to  hazardous
          waste mismanagement,

-------
                              2-2
                            Table  2-1

               SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE SOURCES  EVALUATED
Source
NOTIS(1)
HWDMS(2)
SIIS (SIA)(4)
OGC(5)
CDC(6)
DOD(7)
Insurance Co.
r?c(8) un
text ny
Regional FIT
Regional EPA
State
Eckhart(9)
Notes:
(1) NOTIS -
(2) HWDMS -
<3>STS -
<4>SIIS -
(SIA)
(b) OGC -
(6) CDC -
(/) DOD -
Utility for Estimating Percent
Selecting Detailed of Problem Sites
Case Histories by Facility Type
Med.
Low
Med.
Med.
High
Med.
Med.
Med.
Med.
High
High
High
Low

Superfund Notification Systems
Hazardous Waste Data Management
Site Tracking System, EPA files.
Surface Impoundment Information
(Surface Impoundment Assessment)
Office of General Counsel
Center for Disease Control
Department of Defense
Low
Low
Med.
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low

System
System
, EPA Files.



Availability of
Detailed Damage
Case Histories
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
Med.
Med.
Low
Low
High
High
High
Low






          Ecology & Environment (EPA FIT Contractor)
Eckhart Report - House Subcommittee on Oversight and
                 Investigation

-------
                                   2-3
     6.   preparation of a complete DISF for each site reviewed,

     7.   completion  of  report  summarizing  the  results  of  the above
          items, 1 through 6, and

     8.   coordination  of the above activities with EPA personnel, as
          required.
     The work  plan  was subsequently revised to  expand  item 3 to include an
evaluation of  FIT  and S&A files at each of the  ten  EPA  regions.  This deci-
sion was based on the fact that primary sources  identified in the work plan,
i.e.,  the  STS system  and EPA  headquarters  files,  did  not  contain the de-
tailed  information  required  for the site DISFs.   The EPA  file  reviews also
included,  where  possible,  RCRA permit and  EPA regional  Superfund related
files.  The actual  criteria  used by the study team  for  identifying sites to
be reviewed for this analysis are outlined in Section  3.1.
2.3
              ^hjr oncology
     This  first  phase of  Contract 68-01-6474 was  initiated on October 14,
1981.  Throughout  the remainder  of  October and November  the  work plan was
revised.   A  revised  work plan was ultimately  approved  on  December 4, 1981.
The  review  of  Region II  FIT  data  began  in  early November  and  continued
through  December.   Also  in December  the draft  report  outline,  sample DISF
and  DISF instructions were submitted  and  a  summary of Region  II data was
prepared.  In  January the visits  to the  nine remaining  Regions  were con-
ducted,  the  Region  II  S&A  files were  reviewed and  the  state  survey for
epidemiological data  was  conducted.  Based  on the regional visits a revised
work plan was  submitted.   On  January 29, 1982 EPA  issued  a  stop work order
on this project.

     Work on the project was resumed on March 15 and a summary of accessible
files was prepared.   The  completed DISFs for Regions I and V were forwarded
to EPA  in April,  the criteria memo  on  Phase II sites  was  distributed and
report preparation was underway.   In  May the remaining DISFs were forwarded
as were the Region I, II, III, V and IX reject site  files and tables summari-
zing each Region  (Table  A).   On May 7 the  first  draft  report was submitted
to EPA.   The EPA  comments  on the draft were received  by FCHA  on July 30.
These comments were incorporated and a revised draft report was submitted in
September 1982.  Final comments were  received by FCHA on  November 1982 and
are included  in this document.

-------
                            3.0  File Review Procedures
3.1  Evaluation Process

     3.1.1  Case Selection Criteria.  Table 3-1  summarizes  the six criteria
developed to select damage case histories contained in FIT, S&A and regional
files.   Files  conforming with  these criteria were  identified as  the most
suitable information sources  from the standpoint of the project  goals.

     Criteria  1  and 4  identify files associated with sites  for  which sam-
pling and analytical  data were available.  These files generally were those
sites  inspected,  investigated  and  sampled  by  FIT  and/or S&A  teams.  FIT
files for  which sampling  data were  not  available usually were  not  suffi-
ciently  detailed to  support  damage case  assessments.  These files typically
contained only  preliminary assessment reports,  which, in many cases,  recom-
mended that  follow-up  sampling programs not be  initiated  because there was
little or no contamination identified at  the sites.  In other cases, results
of recommended sampling programs were not on file, since projects were still
in  progress  during  the  study  period.    Also,  many  of  the S&A  files that
lacked sampling data  were found to be  unsuitable  for the project for other
reasons  such as they  typically consisted only of RCRA inspection reports or
related environmental  permits.

     Criteria  2 and  5 identified files associated with  storage  facilities,
such as tanks and containers, as defined in 40 CFR 260.10 (Reference, Appen-
dix A,  Definitions,   DISF Reference  Number 11).   Criteria   5 was  further
refined  to include  only those sites for  which there  was evidence of damage
in  order to  develop  a  suitable  data  base  consistent with project goals.
This eliminated from analysis a large number of files associated  with waste-
water treatment plants  and treatment,  storage or  disposal  (TSD)  facilities
that  had experienced  minor National  Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) or RCRA Interim Status Standard (ISS) permit violations that had not
resulted in adverse environmental impacts.

     Criteria 3 and 6 targeted  sites  identified  under the Superfund program
as  the   175  highest  MITRE  scored  sites.  These  MITRE  scored   sites  were
"rescored" in  September-October  1981  under  the  direction  of  EPA.   These
sites were  included  in  the  survey  on the  assumption  that  environmental
damage could potentially  be  documented  at these locations.  The  MITRE Model
itself is a rating format used to identify sites  having a high potential for
causing  health and environmental  damages.   Factors evaluated include hydro-
geological setting, quantity  and  type of deposited wastes  and proximity of
residential  areas and drinking  water supplies.   This model was completed in
1980 and has been  used  to rate and  prioritize hazardous wastes  sites under
the Superfund program.

     3.1.2  Evaluation Procedures.   Files  in each region  were  evaluated by a
study team consisting of a  project  director,  team leader and four  to five
technical assistants.   Guidelines,  definitions  and  criteria used by  the
study team in  making  the interpretations  and judgements  needed to complete
the  DISFs  are  discussed in  Section 3.1.3 and  3.1.4.   It is  particularly
important for the  reader, throughout this  analysis, to be cognizant of the
definitions  and interpretations outlined in Appendix A.

-------
                                   3-2
                                  Table 3-1

           SUMMARY OF CASE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR EVALUATED SITES
                            I-OR FIT AND S&A FILES	
                  EPA Field Investigation Team (FIT) Files

Criteria Number          12                   3
Criteria Description     Files having   Files associated
                         sampling       with storage
                         data           facilities
                                    Files associated
                                    with MITRE scored
                                    sitesu;
Criteria Number

Criteria Description
EPA Survey and Analysis (S&A)  Files

 45                   6
 Files having
 sampling
 data
Files associated
with storage
facilities for
which there is
evidence of
damage
Files associated
with MITRE scored
sitesu;
Note:      (1)  The  interim  list  of  175  MITRE scored  sites "rescored"  in
               September-October 1981 under the direction of EPA.

-------
                                   3-3
     In  summary,  the evaluation procedure consisted  of  a two-phase effort.
The first phase  consisted of visiting regional FIT and S&A offices, screen-
ing files according  to the selection criteria  (Table 3-1)  and transferring
the appropriate  information to the DISFs.  This effort was accomplished over
a  noncontiguous   nine-week  period beginning  in  November, 1981,  and ending
February, 1982.  The second phase consisted of reviewing the completed OISFs
for consistency,  format  and  editorial  standards,  tabulating  the conformed
DISFs and summarizing  the information in the  report.  This effort was accom-
plished  over  a period  of several weeks  beginning in late  March,  1982 and
ending with  the submission of the report.

     3.1.3  Evaluation Format.   The  DISF  was  used  to  assess damage  case
histories and associated  site characteristics.   After  the  study  team re-
viewed  the  file   information,  appropriate  responses  were  made on  the  DISF
(Sections I  through XII) and  the case  was summarized in  a  brief narrative
(Section XIII),  which was  attached  to the  DISF  form.   Sections  I through
XIII of the  DISF are listed below:

     I.   Site Identification              VII.   Epidemiological  Studies
    II.   Site Description                VIII.   Event Causing Incident
   III.   Date of Incident/Discovery        IX.   Waste Characterization
    IV.   Status  of Operations               X.   Status  of Response
     V.   Exposed Media                     XI.   Source  of Information
    VI.   Affected Areas                   XII.   Severity of Damage
                           XIII.   General  Comments

Each section  was  organized  into subsections  and  subheadings,  and  each  sub-
heading  identified by  notes,  numbered  1 through 24.  These numbers refer to
instructions  and/or  definitions.  These  definitions  and the  first twelve
sections of the DISF are  included in Appendix A of  this report.  A completed
DISF taken  from  one  of the sites evaluated in Region I has been included as
a sample in  Figure 3-1.

     3.1.4  Evaluation Criteria.   DISF  responses  for Sections I,  II,  III,
IV, VII, and X were prepared from information available in the files accord-
ing to  the  definitions and instructions contained in Appendix A.   DISF re-
sponses  for  Sections  V,  VI,  VIII and  IX required  value  judgments  based on
the pre-selected  evaluation  criteria  as  summarized in the following subsec-
tions.    For  example,  the  study  team  was   frequently  required  to  assess
whether contamination had occurred, the media exposed (Section V), the event
causing  the  incident  (Section VIII)  and  the waste  causing  contamination
(Section IX).   Depending  on  information  available in the file, responses in
this section  were  determined by  the  reviewer to  be either  documented  or
suspected.   Finally,  the  study  team  was  required to  assess  the severity of
damage  which  had  occurred  to  either human  health  and/or  the environment
(Section XII).   In  order to ensure that  the study  team rated  sites  uni-
formly, evaluation criteria were developed for use as guidance in:

     0     identifying contamination and damage events,
     0     rating  the  severity of damage, and
     0     determining  the file  documentation required  to  support  a  given
          response (i.e.,  documented versus suspected).

-------
                                        3-4
                                    FIGURE 3 -1
                            HAZARDOUS  WASTE  SITES
                     DISF SUMMARY  OF EVALUATED SITES (1)
                                 COMPLETED  DISF
a IN. •. tni * )   «m iiiMfi.ini-n'-nl

      -I-
      -4-
                                 	„_ f»»i»rwlJII«i tail) Jit.

                             til. lM* tl Ucl«t.l/»lltMtry (If)
                                         ttt.mttn.tio"">

                                  Mf taW *rt(lMI*4 rn> t.
                                        -2-
                                        -5-
                                                                  'II (•*•>• l>l*fl<*l ll««*l (It)
                                                                              -3-
                                                                 •III &»•'*! C.
                                                                                    .rr   ...W  -,

                                                                 MUty H •tllTw, |VI •( Ml llwC »T« V'«'* UtTJ'.Vr'tV *•*»!., «.IM'«
                                                                  »f rl   f   -           • '
                                                                  .    rn ,-(*r*r>r*ii*, * rr*   Ir.^fMIM**
                                                                 W» I.I «lfM<.r,,I«T(^.. M IT* •KklcrntM** *«< 1 I rr* l*|IKtl*r*«|- •
                                                                 I*** Ita (.rrvi^H^lof mirk IW* H«v "..III. tri|,rl« (IB * r.ti l,.*l)
                                                                                       >     -
                                                                       .           ,, m,

                                                                 • loiltrwlSltw *>'»•* I I I tiKhU.^itu«* «4 HW rr
                                                                 tto* I* iMilliH Ifc* • 1 rtW M* tin* MliHiilrHl
                                                                            -6-
(1)  Sampled  sites  were  not randomly selected.
     J, „„,.„ „„,! ,„ ^^4--,41  i „ Cr,^«-ionr T  1  1  an
                           Site selection  criteria  and  the implications of this  criteria  are
                            9  1

-------
                                   3-5
     3.1.4.1   Identifying Contamination and Damage.  In this study, "Conta-
mination" is  defined  as the presence of pollutants  in  groundwater, surface
water, soil or air, identified as present using standard sampling and analy-
tical  techniques.   "Pollutants"  are  defined  as  substances not  naturally
found in  the  site-specific environment that may interfere with the best use
of, or cause  environmental harm to, the affected resource.  "Identified" is
defined  as  positive  contaminant verification  at concentrations  above the
detection  limits  of the sampling and  analytical  techniques applied.   Veri-
fiable concentration  levels  varied,  but in most  cases  were in  the part per
billion  (ppb)  range.   "Standard sampling  and  analytical  techniques"  are
identified elsewhere in the report (Reference,  Appendix A, Definitions, DISF
Reference Number 14).

     Contamination was  considered to  be  documented  if the event  was  sub-
stantiated  by a  direct investigative  action,   regulatory  office  or  other
recognized-, ^agency.   File   information  required  to  support  documentation
included:*1 '

       0  sampling data,
       0  excerpts from relevant documents (engineering reports, en-
          vironmental   impact  statements,  NPDES  and RCRA permits,
          enforcement actions,  etc., and
       0  professional evaluations,  expert witness testimony, etc.


     "Damage" was  defined  as  the  presence of pollutants  at concentrations
causing  interference  with,  loss in  quality of  or  harm to human  health,
drinking  water,  the food  chain,  flora, fauna or property.  The  study team
differentiated between  documented and  suspected damage in the  responses in
Section VI  (Affected  Areas)  of the  DISF.   Damage was considered to be docu-
mented according to the same evaluation criteria discussed previously, with
certain additional  criteria:

     0    DISF reponses indicating documented damage to  human health
          were to  be  based on authoritative references in the  file
          correlating sickness,  injury or death  with contamination
          events  occurring  at the  site.    These references would
          typically include  hospital reports, OSHA  citations,  regu-
          latory agency reports,  facility  operating  reports and,  in
          certain limited cases, epidemiological  data.

     0    DISF responses  indicating documented  damage to drinking
          water were to be based on authoritative references in the
          file correlating excessive contaminant  concentration  lev-
          els in  the  water supply with contamination events occur-
          ring at the site.   Excessive contaminant  concentration
 *• ' Note:   In  some  instances file information suggested  that  con-
     taminants  may  have  originated  off-site.  These  contamination
     responses were  annotated in the  DISFs and tabulated separately.
     These  sites are discussed  in  the  regional  summaries (Reference
   ° Appendix B).

-------
                                   3-6
          levels were defined as  constituent  concentrations exceed-
          ing  EPA  National  Interim Primary  or Secondary  Drinking
          Water Standards or EPA  Human  Health Criteria^  ' for Maxi-
          mum  Contaminant  Levels  (MCLs)  in water  supplies.   Where
          applicable,   the   study  team  used  MCLs  associated  with
          incremental  Jifetime cancer risks estimated at one in one
          million (10~b).

     0    DISF  responses indicating damage to food chain  and flora
          were  to  be  based on authoritative  references  correlating
          visible vegetation stress with contamination events occur-
          ring at the site.

     0    DISF  responses indicating  documented  damage to fauna were
          to be  based on authoritative  references,  usually bioassay
          studies,  correlating  fish and  wildlife  damage with  con-
          tamination  events occurring at the site.

     0    DISF  responses indicating  documented  property  damage were
          to be based  on authoritative references  correlating pro-
          perty  damage  with contamination  events  occurring  at the
          site.  These references would typically  include insurance
          claims, regulatory reports, OSHA citations and  enforcement
          actions  restricting  residential  property,  drinking water
          well  or other site/facility usages.

     Damage was  considered  to  be  suspected if responses  to  Section VI were
based on  citizen allegations,  newspaper reports or  inconclusive scientific
studies.

     3.1.4.2   Severity of Damage.  The  study  team rated  each site according
to the  severity of human  health and environmental damage.   Table  3-2 out-
lines broad guidelines  developed  by  the  study  team to rate  severity  of
damage.   As  noted in  this  table,   high  human health  damage  ratings were
assigned to  sites  where incidents  resulted  in deaths,  whereas  low damage
ratings  were associated with minor, short-term injuries.   High environmental
damage  ratings were typically  associated with sites correlated with sub-
stantial fish or animal  kills,  and/or groundwater  contamination incidents in
which contaminant  concentrations   exceeded  ten  times  the  drinking  water
criteria discussed previously,  (Reference, Section  3.1.4.1.)  Low  environ-
mental  damage   ratings  were usually  associated with sites  where   soil  or
vegetation contamination were limited to relatively restricted areas.

     Of note were  the  large number of sites evaluated for which file infor-
mation  was not yet  complete at  the time  of the study.   File information
associated  with many of these  sites suggested that  the  severity of damage
may be  substantially  greater  than the response indicated by the study team.
In these  cases  the  evaluator  noted the  response  with  an  asterisk (*) and
tabulated  these sites  separately.   These  sites are discussed in the respec-
tive regional  summaries  (Reference, Appendix B.)
    Federal Register Volume 45, #231,-November 28,  1980.

-------
                                   3-7
                                  Table 3-2

 SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES USED IN RATING SEVERITY OF DAMAGE AT EVALUATED SITES
    Category
                                  Severity
                          High
                                  Medi urn
                    Low
Human Health
Environmental

groundwater,
surface water &
air
food chain, flora
                    Damage incident to at least one person resulting in ...

                    ...  death          ...  severe injury  ...  minor injury.

                                       Contamination of groundwater result-
                                       ing  in  closure  or  restriction of
                                       drinking water in a ...

                                       ...  community      ...  single private
                                           water supply.      well.
          Contamination  incident  where  sampling  indicates the
          presence of pollutants in concentrations ...
                        at levels
                        greater than
                        10 times ap-
                        plicable stan-
                        dards.
                                 at levels
                                 equal  to ap-
                                 plicable
                                 standards.
                 at detectable
                 levels, but
                 less than ap-
                 plicable
                 standards.
          Contamination incident resulting in stress to vegetated
          or food crop area ...
fauna
          ...  greater than   ...  greater than
              one acre.           1/2 acre.

          Damage incident confirmed by ...
                                                              in limited areas
                                                              only.
soil
                        massive kills
                                 limited kills
               (1)
(1)
bioassay
studies con-
firming tis-
sue contami-
nation.

Contamination
incident con-
firmed by
sampling data.
Note:
(1)  Higher levels of damage  were  typically identified via use of
     evidence in the other categories.

-------
                                   3-8
3.2  Implications of the Evaluation Process

     3.2.1   Limitations of the Data Bases.   A   number  of  limitations  are
inherent  in  the  data bases  utilized  for this  analysis,  in  the  selection
criteria utilized to  select  sites  for consideration and in  the evaluations
completed for  this  report.  More  specifically,  the data base selected for
use, i.e., largely  the  FIT and S&A data  bases,  are constrained in a number
of ways.  These constraints could include,  for example:

     0    The files  reviewed by the  various  project teams  were in
          varying stages of  completion.   Depending  on  when  the site
          was discovered  and how  critical  the  site was  considered
          the  progress  of  the  investigation  and  work efforts  at
          various  sites  varied significantly.   Investigative  ef-
          forts,  for example,  were  underway  in   approximately  55
          percent of  the  sites  evaluated.   As  a consequence, infor-
          mation  obtained  and  noted in  the  DISF  forms,  reflected
          conditions current  as  of the file review date.

     0    The  entire files  for individual  sites  were not  always
          available.  While in a limited number of cases enforcement
          or  confidentiality  issues  limited  access to  particular
          files,  in  a large  number of cases  individual  files were
          currently being  worked with and the file materials  them-
          selves  were often  scattered among various staff  members.
          While project  team members attempted to gather all  pertin-
          ent information, no realistic approach existed to  actually
          ascertain if all available data was  reviewed  on a  site-by-
          site basis.

     0    The data base  for each site is inherently larger than that
          found at EPA above.  Since a number  of entities were often
          actively  involved  at individual  sites there were  a sub-
          stantial  number of  occasions  for  which  site  data  that
          would have  been  of use was most likely available  but was
          not in EPA files.

     0    The data  base is  inherently  incomplete.   Area  budget and
          time  constraints,  the typical  data  required to  complete
          the  DISF  forms  (i.e., analytical  data,  data quantifying
          environmental   or public   health impacts,  etc.)  was  very
          often not available or very limited in actual scope.


     In  addition, the  selection  criteria  utilized to  identify individual
cases tend to limit the  applicability of the findings of this study to other
populations of hazardous waste  facilities.  For example, for the FIT and S&A
data bases, priority was given to sites for which analytical  data was avail-
able.  Given the  costs  of samples  and analytical work,  it is suggested that
those sites  for  which analytical data has been collected most likely repre-
sent those sites originally perceived as higher priority sites.  Furthermore,
MITRE  scored sites  were  preferentially  selected,  again  reflecting  a  data
base skewed  towards  the more serious of the sites exhibiting potential  con-
tamination or  damage.  The  above  two criteria were utilized  since OSW was

-------
                                   3-9
specifically  interested  in reviewing  as  many cases  as possible  for which
damage might have occurred.

     For storage facilities, specific selection criteria were in place.  All
FIT storage sites were investigated for example,  whereas only a storage site
for which there was evidence of damage were preferentially selected from the
regional S&A files.   This criteria was  utilized to  specifically maximize
EPA's data  base on storage facilities.

     As a  consequence,  it is  difficult to apply the findings of this analy-
sis to  any other  data base on hazardous  waste  facilities,  abandoned sites,
etc.  As noted,  the data base itself tends to conservatively estimate poten-
tial contamination  and  damages  at hazardous waste sites  due to the limited
available  data  in  the  sites.   On  the other  hand,  the  selection criteria
generally  tended to preferentially  select the "higher  priority"  sites from
that existing data base.

     3.2.2   Other Uses for the Data Base.   In  supporting  the  regulatory
impact  analysisa  substantial  data  base has been  developed on  929 sites
nationwide.  This data is useful, not only for the purposes for which it was
originally collected,  but also for:

     0    Understanding  more  precisely which  kinds  of  events  have
          resulted in  contamination or damage at what  facility.type.

     0    Understanding which kinds  of chemicals  are commonly impli-
          cated at what facility type.

     0    Understanding  what  kinds  of remedial responses  have  been
          initiated at a  number of sites.

     0    Understanding  the current  status of the FIT  and  S&A  data
          files.

     0    Understanding what kind of  facilities  and facility opera-
          tions  have  led to contamination and damage  incidents  in
          the past.

     0    Understanding what kind of environmental and public health
          monitoring has been employed to  date and the sites investi-
          gated.

     0    Selecting specific cases  for further detailed  "cause and
          effect"  studies.

     0    Assisting in developing and evaluating  alternative regula-
          tory  strategies  designed  to   reduce   environmental   and
          public health risks at least cost.

-------
                             4.0  Facility Types


4.1  General

     Prior  to  providing  a detailed overview of the report findings, a brief
discussion  of  the  types  of facilities analyzed  in  this report is provided.
As  noted,   using the  case selection  criteria,  the study  team was  able to
evaluate a  large number of sites.  Although these sites varied significantly
by facility type, operating condition and environmental setting on a case by
case basis, facility profiles can be developed.  A discussion of the various
facility  types  (landfills,   surface  impoundments  and  storage/treatment
facilities,  containers,   tanks  and piles)  is  provided in  subsections  4.2
through 4.6 respectively.  These facility types  represented 75  percent of
the  facility  types evaluated.   The  remaining 25 percent  of the facilities
were  described by  various other  categories.   (A  brief discussion  of  all
facility types is also provided in Appendix A.)

4.2  Landfills

     The landfills evaluated in this study typically varied in sizes ranging
from 5 to 400 acres in surface area and generally contained significant quan-
tities  of  liquids, pumpable  sludges  and/or  drummed wastes.   Approximately,
40  percent  of  the facilities  evaluated  could  be  described as  primarily
municipal landfill  sites,  30  percent  as primarily industrial waste landfill
sites,  and  the  remaining fraction  as  sites containing  multiple  facility
types with  a  small  landfill  serving a specific industrial  plant or complex.
Landfills evaluated in this  study were usually constructed without a bottom
liner or  leachate  collection  system.   In the majority of  cases  for which
information was  available, the  facility was located  in moderate  to highly
permeable  soils  within  20 feet  of  groundwater and within  100 feet of  a
surface water  body.  In  other cases (approximately 30 percent) the facility
was  located within one-half  mile  of shallow drinking water wells  and  was
frequently located  on sites contiguous to residential properties.

     The  facilities were  typically  constructed  with  poor  or  nonexistent
surface drainage control  facilities and there was little information on file
suggesting that adequate  operation and maintenance procedures were routinely
employed.  Most inactive  landfills were not given adequate  closure,  although
in the  majority  of cases wastes were covered  periodically with  fill mater-
ial.

     As will  be noted in Section 5,  605 events  causing contamination were
tabulated  for  this  facility  type.  Since  most  landfills  were  installed
without  adequate  collection  systems,  leachate  from  deposited  wastes  ac-
counted for the  majority  of  the events  tabulated for this  facility type and
leakage from drummed wastes within the landfill  were also  frequently occur-
ring events.

4.3  Surface Impoundments

     The surface  impoundments evaluated  in  this study typically  ranged in
size from 1,500 square feet to  8.5 acres in surface area, and in depths

-------
                                   4-2
ranging from  10 to  25  feet, and  were generally found  on  sites  containing
other  facility  types.   The  typical  surface  impoundment  was designed  as
either a  percolation/evaporation pond or as holding/treatment facility and
was almost  invariably  constructed without a bottom  liner.   In the majority
of cases  for which  information  was available  the  facility was  located  in
moderate  to  highly permeable soils  within 20  feet of  groundwater  and 100
feet of a surface water body.  In many cases (approximately 90  percent), the
facility  was  located within  one-half  mile of shallow drinking water wells
and was frequently  located on sites contiguous to residential properties.

     The  facilities were often  constructed with insufficient free board and
there was little information on  file suggesting that adequate  operation and
maintenance  procedures  were  routinely  employed.   Most  inactive  surface
impoundments were not given  adequate closure.   In most cases wastes remained
in the  impoundment,  either  uncovered  or covered with  small  quantities  of
sandy fill material.

     As noted  in Section  5.5.2,  500 events causing  contamination  were tabu-
lated  for this  facility  type.    Since most surface impoundments were in-
stalled without  bottom  liners,  leachate from deposited  sludges and  leakage
of waste liquids accounted for the majority of  the events tabulated for this
facility  type.   Poor  operating   procedures  and  improper  handling of wastes
resulting  in  spillage  and   erosion  of berms  leading  to leakage  were also
frequently occurring  events.

4.4  Containers

      The container facilities evaluated in this study held anywhere  between
50 and  35,000 55-gallon drums  on sites containing  multiple facility types
that ranged in size from 5 to 50 acres.  Drummed wastes usually consisted  of
solvents,  petroleum byproducts,  pesticides or phenolic compounds.   Since the
average age of drums  identified  ranged from 5-20 years,  drum conditions were
usually considered poor, with  visible leakage  frequently reported  in the
files.   Over  one-third  of the  container  facilities evaluated could be de-
scribed as  designated  storage areas serving a  specific  facility, one-third
as drums  buried  in landfills, and the remaining fraction as drums discarded
in  open   pits,  lagoons  or  dump  sites.  Container  sites evaluated  in this
study were  usually constructed  on bare soil without  concrete  surface pads,
bottom  liners or  containment structures.   In  the  majority of  cases,  the
facility was located in moderate to highly permeable soils within  20  feet  of
groundwater and  100  feet of a   surface  water  body.  In  several  cases (ap-
proximately 50  percent),  the facility was known to be  located within one-
half mile of  shallow drinking water wells, but was  infrequently  located  on
sites contiguous to residential properties.

     The  facilities  were  typically  constructed  with  poor or  nonexistent
surface drainage control  facilities  and there  was ample information  on file
suggesting  that  "poor housekeeping"  procedures  were routinely employed  at
these  sites.   Drums  were rarely labeled or segregated.   In at  least one-
third  of  these sites  evaluated, fire or  explosive  conditions were  identi-
fied.  Most  inactive sites containing drums were  not given adequate  closure.

     Most container  facilities  consisted  of sites with drums in poor condi-
tion,  where adequate surface runoff or spill   control measures were seldom

-------
                                   4-3
employed  and  poor housekeeping was the rule, and where  leaks and  spills ac-
counted  for the  majority  of the  events  tabulated  for  this facility type.
Since drums were  buried in land disposal facilities without  adequate closure
or  collection systems, leachate from  drummed wastes,  fires, explosions, or
emission of toxic gases/mists were also frequently occurring events.

4.5  Tanks

     The tank facilities evaluated in this study had capacities ranging from
500  to  200,000  gallons on sites typically containing multiple tanks as well
as  other  facility types.   Contamination was also frequently associated with
other  on-site facility types,  rather than  the  tanks themselves.  Approxi-
mately  70  percent  of  the   tanks  recorded  in  this study  were aboveground
facilities, typically containing petroleum  byproducts, solvents and/or dilute
acid/caustic solutions.  Approximately 45 percent of the  facilities evaluated
could be  described  as manufacturing and chemical processing plants, 45 per-
cent as  chemical  waste storage facilities,  and  the remaining  10 percent as
aqueous  waste treatment  facilities.   Underground  facilities   evaluated  in
this study were presumably constructed without liners or  protective coatings.
Aboveground  facilities were occasionally  constructed within  bermed  areas,
however  the berms  and  dikes frequently failed.  In the majority of cases,
the  facility  was located  in moderate  to  highly permeable  soils within 20
feet of groundwater, 100 feet of a surface water body and in cases involving
aqueous  waste treatment  tanks, were  typically  located contiguous  to  and
discharged  into   surface  water bodies.   In other  cases  (approximately 50
percent), the facility was  located within one-half mile of shallow drinking
water wells, but was infrequently located on sites contiguous to residential
properties.

     Although tanks were  usually constructed with  poor  or  nonexistent sur-
face drainage control systems,  information on file suggested that most tank-
age was  operated  and maintained at more frequent intervals and with greater
care when  compared  to  other facility  types.  However,  there  were frequent
references  to mechanical  failures  (specifically defective  valves),  poorly
monitored wastewater discharges and  accompanying  NPDES  permit violations,
deficiencies  in  structural materials  and inadequate containment facilities.
Most inactive disposal  sites containing tanks were  not  given  adequate clo-
sure.  In a  few cases abandoned  facilities were filled in.

     Most  of the.  tankage   evaluated  consisted  of aboveground  facilities
without  sufficient   containment  where  spills  and  leaks accounted for  the
majority of  the events tabulated for this facility type.

4.6  Piles

     The typical  piles  evaluated  in  this study varied in sizes ranging from
200  to  800  cubic yards  and  were  found on  sites containing other facility
types in  almost  every case.  At the sites containing piles, other facility
types  were   usually  identified  as  the primary source of  contamination.
Approximately three-quarters  of the piles evaluated  could be described under
one of  the following categories:

-------
                                   4-4
     0    waste treatment/chemical  processing sludges,
     0    mine tailings/metal  slags and deposits, or
     0    battery casing piles.

     Piles  evaluated  in  this study were  usually installed  without bottom
liners or  containment berms.   In  the  majority  of cases, the  facility was
located in  moderate to  highly permeable soils  within 20 feet of groundwater
and  100  feet  of a surface water body.   In other cases  (approximately 25
percent),  the  facility  was  located within one-half mile of shallow drinking
water wells  and was  frequently  located on sites  contiguous  to residential
properties.   The piles were typically located on sites with poor or nonexis-
tent  surface  drainage control facilities,  and  usually  represented  only an
intermediate  step  taken by the  facility operator pending a  final  disposal
solution for the piled waste material.

     Most  of  the  piles consisted of  uncovered  sludge  deposits  installed
without adequate collection systems.   Hence,  leachate from deposited wastes
accounted for  the  majority  of the events  tabulated  for  this  facility type.
Exposure to surface runoff and  wind,  and leakage from  battery casings and
various other piled containers were also frequently occurring events.

-------
                         5.0  Summary Report

5.1  Overview

     The  study  team  evaluated and completed DISFs for a total of 929 sites.
It is particularly important for the reader, throughout this analysis, to be
cognizant  of the fact  that the 929 sites  evaluated  were  selected based on
specific  criteria.  This criteria  included preselection of sites associated
with  cases having sampling data,  cases  associated  with  storage facilities
and MITRE  scored sites.   In view of this preselection process, it should be
noted  that  these  sites   are not necessarily representative of all damage
cases on file at EPA.    This negates the possibility of attempting to draw
conclusions about the universe of all damage cases based on the findings of
this study"!
     Many  of the  sites  contained  multiple  facilities.   A total  of 1,722
facility types were used  in describing the sites  in the ten regions.  Of the
1,722  facility  types  evaluated,  Figure  5-1  indicates  that  23 percent were
landfills, 22 percent were containers,  16 percent were surface impoundments
and 11  percent  were  tanks.  The remaining 28 percent of the facilities were
described by various other categories.

     Contamination, either documented or  suspected,  was  identified  in 834
sites,  or  90 percent of  the  sites  evaluated.   At 555 of the sites, or 60
percent, contamination was documented.  Figure 5-2 indicates that 32 percent
of  the  contamination  incidents occurred to  groundwater, with  the remaining
incidents occurring to soil (31 percent), surface water (29 percent) and air
(8  percent).  Of the 2,019  responses originally  indicating  contamination,
only  856 (42  percent)  could  be documented using the  evaluation  criteria
developed in Section 3.1.4.  Each site was evaluated for damage occurring to
life, property  and various  natural  resources.   This  evaluation  focused on
six potentially affected areas, including drinking water, food chain,  flora,
fauna,  human health and property.  Damage, (either documented or suspected),
was identified  in  at  least 544 sites, or 59 percent of the sites evaluated.
Figure  5-3  (extreme  left  bargraph)  compares the  total  number of evaluated
sites  against  the  total   number  of  sites   rated  as   "contaminated"  and/or
"damaged".    ("Contaminated sites"  shall  be interpreted  as   sites  causing
contamination to at least one  media, "damaged sites"  as those resulting in
damage  to  one  affected  area.)  This figure also  compares  the  respective
fraction of  contaminated   sites  (middle  bargraph) and  damaged sites  (right
bargraph) associated  with files having adequate  documentation as described
in Section 3.1.4.1.  Of the  1,171 affected areas indicating damage only 375
(32 percent) could be documented using  the  evaluation criteria.  Figure 5-4
indicates that  approximately  34 percent of  the  documented  damage incidents
occurred to  drinking water,  with the remaining incidents occurring to prop-
erty (28 percent), flora  (16  percent),  fauna (10  percent),  human health (8
percent) and food  chain   (4  percent).   There were  28  incidents  involving
documented damage to human health.   Figure 5-5 indicates that 73 percent of
the incidents causing the damage or contamination described above  were  due
to leachate  (33 percent),   leaks (22 percent), or spills (18 percent).   These
incidents  involved contamination  caused  by  metals,  volatile  halogenated
organics, volatile  nonhalogenated organics,  acid  compounds or base neutral
extractables  in  70 percent of the incidents  tabulated.

-------
                        5-2

                     FIGURE 5-1
        HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
       SITE DESCRIPTIONS BY FACILITY TYPE
         TOTAL NUMBER OF FACILITY TYPES TABULATED
                       1722
 LANDFILLS (396)^
     23%
                                    CONTAINERS (385)
                                         22%
                                        OTHER (473)

   SURFACE  "               '       ^        28%
IMPOUNDMENT (271)
     16%

                        TANKS (197)
                           11%

   (271) FACILmr TYPES TABULATED
   NOTE: COMPLETE TABULATION SEE TABLE 5-I

(1) Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria
   and the implications of this criteria are discussed in detail in
   Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                        5-3

                     FIGURE 5-2
        HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES(1)
              MEDIA CONTAMINATED
          TOTAL NUMBER OF INCIDENTS TABULATED
                        2019
                                AIR (158)
                                  8%
  SOIL (626)
   31%
                                          GROUND
                                         WATER (646)
                                           32%
                                  SURFACE
                                WATER (589)
                                   29%
   (626) -INCIDENTS TABULATED
       -DOCUMENTED INCIDENTS


  NOTE: FOR COMPLETE TABULATION SEE TABLE S-3
(1) Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria
   and the implications of this criteria are discussed in detail in
   Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                           5-4

                        FIGURE 5-3
         HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
 DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES  (1)
                TABULATION OF SITES
           CONTAMINATED AND DAMAGED
  SITES

  1000 -.


  900 -

  800-


  700-


  600-

  500-


  400-


  300-

  200-

  10O-


    0
SITES INDICATING DOCUMENTED OR SUSPECTED
CONTAMINATION TO AT LEAST ONE MEDIUM

SITES INDICATING DOCUMENTED OR SUSPECTED
DAMAGE TO AT LEAST ONE AFFECTED AREA

'SITES FOR WHICH CONTAMINATION OR DAMAGE
DOCUMENTED
                   834
                   555
                                   544
                                    236
         TOTAL NUMBER
           OF SITES
          EVALUATED
        CONTAMINATED
           SITES
DAMAGED
    NOTE: SITES EVALUATED FOR 'CONTAMINATION' OR 'DAMAGE' USING EVALUATION
       CRITERIA DISCUSSED IN SECTIONS.1.1 a 3.2.1 m£ INFORMATION REQUIRED FQt»
       •DOCUMENTATION DISCUSSED IN SECTION 3.1.4.1. MEDIA 8AFFECTED AREA
       DEFINED IN THIS SECTION AND APPENDIX A.
<1) Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria
   and the implications of this criteria are discussed in detail in
   Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                       5-5
                     FIGURE 5-4
       HAZARDOUS WASTE  SITES
 DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES

           AFFECTED AREAS DAMAGED
               DOCUMENTED CASES
         TOTAL NUMBER OF AFFECTED AREAS DAMAGED
                        375
                                    FOOD CHAIN (15)
                                         4%

  DRINKING s^ /             I / \  ^ HUMAN
 WATER (127)  7^              / /    V^HEALTH (30)
    34%     /              /  /      \     8%
                                          FAUNA (38)
                                            10%
 PROPERTY (105)
     28%
                                        FLORA (60)
                                          16%
    (128) INCIDENTS TABULATED

    NOTE: FOR COMPtETE TABULATION OF DOCUMENTED AND SUSPECTED
       CASES SEE TABLE 5-10
(1) Sampled sites were not randomly selected. Site selection criteria
   and the implications of this criteria are discussed in detail in
   Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                     5-6

                  FIGURE 5-5
        HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
        EVENTS CAUSING CONTAMINATION
           TOTAL NUMBER OF EVENTS TABULATED
                       1671
                                 OTHER (174)
                                    10%
LEACHATE (546)
    32%
EROSION (95)
   6%
                                        EMISSION (101)
                                            6%
                                            FIRE/
                                         EXPLOSIONS
                                            (107)
                                             6%
                                       SPLLS (292)
                                         18%
  (546) EVENTS TABULATED
  I^OTE FOR COMPLETE TABULATION SEE TABLE 5-5
(1) Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria
   and the implications of this criteria are discussed in detail in
   Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  5-7
5.2  Sources

     The  study  team  preliminarily  identified  1,196  files  in   Regions  I
through X for  review.   File  sources  included 604 FIT  files,  503  S&A files,
60 Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Site files, 28 Enforcement files and 1 Waste
Division  Inspection  file.   Twenty-eight files  were not  reviewed  because a
confidentiality agreement had been negotiated between EPA and/or EPA subcon-
tractors  and  the site  owners.   Based  upon a review of  the  remaining 1,168
sites,  239  were eliminated  from  the  study because they  did  not  conform to
the Selection  Criteria summarized in Section 3.1,  Table  3-1.

5.3  Tabulation of Site Descriptions by Facility Type

     Each site was evaluated and categorized by one or more of the following
fourteen site  descriptions as listed in Section IIA of the DISFs.

          Landfill Facility             .     Storage/Treatment Containers

          Open Dump                     .     Storage/Treatment Tanks

          Surface Impoundment           .     Storage/Treatment Piles

          Incinerator                   .     Boilers Using Waste as Fuel

          Injection Well                .     Recycling/Reclamation

          Land Treatment                .     Midnight Dump

          Transportation Spill  Site     .     Other


     For the 929  sites,  all  of these categories were identified,  along with
an additional  17 "other" categories  not  listed  in the  DISF.  These other
categories were facilities which did not readily conform to the site descrip-
tions  for any  of  the  above.  These  include wastewater  discharges,  buried
sludge  pits,  a harbor,  an  auto repair  shop grease pit,  chemical/physical
treatment, a well  field,  open  burning sites, a creek,  an auto parts removal
shop, a waste  transporter,  an  abandoned mine, a chemical repackaging facil-
ity,  a  radiation site,  a  lumber treatment facility,  a  septic system over-
flow, reuse  of pesticide drums and  "unknown"  facility sources.    Table  5-1
summarizes the  total  number of  facility  types  used  in  describing  the  929
sites evaluated.  Of the  929 sites evaluated, 41 percent were identified as
active  facilities, and  43  percent as inactive facilities.  The remaining 16
percent  could   not  be   identified  using the  information  available   in  the
files.  Many of the  sites  contained multiple facilities.  A  total  of 1,722
facility  types  were  used  in describing the  sites.   Of  the  1,722 facility
types evaluated, 78 percent of the sites were identified as either landfills
(23  percent),  containers (22  percent),  surface impoundments  (16  percent),
tanks (11  percent)  or  open  dumps (6  percent).   A total of  466  sites  were
described by  two  or  more  facility  types  and  210 sites  by three  or  more
facility types.

     Figure 5-6 is a  probability plot of the operating  years  of  the  354
facilities for  which statistics  were  available.   These operating  years were
based on  the  opening   and  closure dates  of  these facilities.  However it
should  be  noted that operating  years may not  reflect  the  number of years
that the facility received hazardous waste.   For example,  if a company began

-------
                                 5-8
                                Table 5-1

                           HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES     m
                      DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESUJ


                  TABULATION OF SITE DESCRIPTIONS BY TYPE
Facility
Type
Landf i 1 1
Open Dump
Surface Impoundment
Incinerator
Injection Well
Land Treatment
Transportation Spill Site
Total Number of
Responses Described as
Given Facility Type
396
95
271
40
" 15
25
10
Storage/Treatment Containers 385
Storage/Treatment Tanks
Storage Treatment Piles
Boilers Using Waste as a
Recycl i ng/Recl amati on
Midnight Dump
Wastewater Discharge
Radiation Sites
Other
Total
LT = less than
197
58
Fuel 5
84
84
13
6
38
1,722

Percent of
Total
23
6
16
2
1
2
1
22
11
3
LT 1
4
5
I
LT 1
2
100

'  '  Sampled sites  were  not  randomly  selected.   Site  selection criteria and
     the implications  of these  criteria  are  discussed in more detail  in
     Section 3.1.1.  and  3.2.1.

-------
                                  FIGURE  5-6




1






HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES(1)
FACILITY OPERATING YEARS




\^









N^
^s









\
x
s

__ Example: 5 percent of the
facilities tabulated were
greater than 57 years (95
percent were less than
57 years) .
































(1) Sampled sites were not
— randomly selected. Site
selection criteria and the
	 implications of this cri-
teria are discussed in
— detail in Sections 3.1.1
	 and 3.2.1.
1 1 I






x

v






\





\



V
f





f





f










x
^^













































K
\


















X






50 PERCENT
FREQUENCY VALUE
FOR TABULATED FACILITY
OPERATING YEARS
EQUALS 7.6





























K





^






^
V










f












x^










i
0
o
e»
a
o»
a
     95     85      75     65  57 55      45     35

                            FACUTY OPPRATINR YPARS
25
15  (7.8)5

-------
                                  5-10
operation  in  1952,  installed  a  surface impoundment at some  later  date and
closed  in  1978,  the operating years  of the facility would be  tabulated as
26,  although  the  age  of  the surface  impoundment  is actually  less.   This
analysis indicates that  at  the time of this study two-thirds  of the facili-
ties had been operating  between  one and 38 years  with  the average (50 per-
cent frequency value) estimated at 7.6 years.

5.4  Contamination Incidents

     Four media, i.e.  groundwater,  surface  water, air and soil, were evalu-
ated for  site-related  contamination  in Section V of the  DISF.   In  the re-
mainder  of this  section,   contamination  will   be  interpreted to mean  both
documented  and  suspected  incidents/events,  unless otherwise  noted.   Sites
indicating the absence of  contamination,  and/or files not containing suffi-
cient  information  to  determine  the  presence   of  contamination, were  also
identified.  Table 5-2 summarizes the  number  of sites with contamination in
at least one of the media.

     Most  of  the  contamination originating  from these sites  was discovered
between 1979 and 1981, a time period coinciding with the  initiation of most
state  and  federal  hazardous waste monitoring programs.  For  this  reason an
accurate assessment  of the  time  period during  which site related  contam-
ination has been occurring could not be identified.  Contamination incidents
were identified at 834 sites, or 90 percent of the sites evaluated.

     A  total  of  2,019 incidents  involving  various  media  were  recorded at
these  sites,  of which 856  (42  percent) incidents  could  be documented by
sampling and analytical data.  Six hundred seventy-six sites were identified
with contamination  in two  or more  media.   For example,  of  the 626  sites
indicating soil  contamination, 367  sites  also  indicated  groundwater contam-
ination.  File data  indicated that  792 sites  were  contaminated from  inci-
dent^)  occurring  at the  site  evaluated.   File  data  for the  remaining 42
sites indicated that contamination may have originated off-site.

     5.4.1   Tabulation of  Media  Exposed to  Contamination.   Table  5-3  sum-
marizes the totalnumber of DISF responses  indicating contamination or the
absence  of  contamination   by  media.   Site files  containing  insufficient
information to  determine contamination were  also recorded for  each of the
media  evaluated and  noted  under  the appropriate heading in Table 5-3.   This
table  indicates that 32  percent  of the contamination  incidents  occurred to
groundwater.   The remaining  incidents  occurred  to either  soil (31 percent),
surface water (29 percent) or air  (8  percent).

     5.4.2  Tabulation of Media Exposed to Contamination  Incidents by Facil-
ity Type.  Table  5-4 summarizes the  totalnumber  of OISF responses  indi-
cating  media contamination  associated  with  each facility type.   This analy-
sis  suggests  that  approximately 76  percent  of  the sites associated  with
contamination incidents  were identified  as  either  landfills  (24 percent),
containers  (22  percent),  surface   impoundments  (19  percent)  or tanks (11
percent).  Table 5-4 indicates that, for most  of the incidents tabulated, in
decreasing order of occurrence, contamination to:

     0    groundwater was  associated with  landfills,  surface impound-
          ments, containers and tanks;

-------
                                  5-11
                                 Table 5-2

                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES     m
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESU;


           TABULATION OF SITES EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
Category
1
Description
Sites indicatin<
g documented
Total Number of
Sites (Described
by Category)
555
Percent of
Total
60
          contamination (to at least
          one medium)

          Sites indicating suspected         279                 30
          contamination (to at least
          one medium) and not identified
          by Category 1 above

          Sites indicating                    61                  7
          documented or suspected
          absence of contamination
          and not identified by
          Categories 1 and 2 above

          Sites for which there was           34                  4
          an absence of sufficient
          information in the file to
          make a determination of
          contamination, and not iden-
          tified by Categories 1, 2 or
          3 above
     TOTAL SITES                             929                 100


*• '  Sampled sites were  not  randomly  selected.   Site selection criteria  and
     the  implications  of  these  criteria  are discussed  in  more detail  in
     Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                         5-12
                                        Table  5-3

                                     HAZARDOUS WASTE  SITES
                              DISF  SUMMARY  OF  EVALUATED  SITES
(1)
                     TABULATION OF  MEDIA  EXPOSED  TO  CONTAMINATION  INCIDENT


Media Exposed


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil

Responses Indicating
Contamination

Documented Suspected
320 326
209 380
39 119
288 338

Responses Indicating
No Contamination

Documented Suspected
35 119
27 142
3 464
6 152
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File

129
171
304
145

Total
Responses


929
929
929
929
(1)
     Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are  discussed in  more  detail  in  Sections 3.1.1
     and 3.2.1.

-------
                                                      5-13
                                                   Table 5-4

                                              HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                                         DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
(1)
                          TABULATION OF MEDIA EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION  INCIDENT BY  FACILITY TYPE
Responses
Facility
Type


Landfill



Open Dump



Surface
Impoundment


Incinerator



Indicating
Media Exposed


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Contami

Doc.
108
76
17
64
10
21
2
30
75
64
1
77
2
1
I
1
nation

Susp.
193
185
44
167
55
52
11
47
149
139
43
133
0
1
15
2
Responses
Indicating
No Contami

Doc.
22
11
2
4
3
1
0
0
11
7
1
2
1
0
0
1
nation

Susp.
34
61
193
74
9
5
45
6
20
22
141
27
28
26
16
23
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File

39
63
140
87
18
16
37
12
16
39
85
32
9
12
12
9

Total
Responses


396
396
396
396
95
95
95
95
271
271
271
271
40
40
40
40
(1)
     Sampled sites were not  randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and  the  implications  of  these  criteria
     are discussed in more detail  in  Sections  3.1.1 and  3.2.1.

-------
                                                       5-14
                                                Table 5-4 (cont'd)(1)
                                         Responses
Responses
Insufficient
Facility
Type

Injection
Well


Land
Treatment


Transportation
Spill Site


Storage Treat-
ment Containers


Storage Treat-
ment Tanks


Media Exposed

Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Indicating
Contamination
Doc.
4
2
0
1
4
1
0
4
3
1
0
4
42
41
6
90
24
21
0
40
Susp.
5
4
4
6
12
14
5
14
2
2
2
4
179
170
62
178
83
84
36
88
Indicating
No Contamination
Doc.
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
11
11
0
2
3
3
0
1
Susp.
2
2
7
3
5
8
17
5
3
3
5
1
78
77
175
65
46
43
102
30
Information
Available
in File

4
7
4
5
2
1
3
2
2
3
3
0
75
86
142
50
41
46
59
36
Total
Responses

15
15
15
15
25
25
25
25
10
10
10
10
385
385
385
385
197
197
197
197
(1)
     Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria and the implications of these criteria
     are discussed in more detail  in Sections  3.1.1 and  3.2.1.

-------
                                                      5-15
                                               Table 5-4  (cont'd)
                                         Responses
Responses
Insufficient
Facility
Type


Storage Treat-
ment Piles


Boilers Using
Waste as Fuel


Recycling
Reclamation


Midnight
Dump


Radiation


Indicating
Media Exposed


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Contami

Doc.
8
10
1
20
0
0
1
0
8
4
1
16
9
7
3
16
0
0
1
3
nation

Susp.
26
34
19
25
1
0
0
1
41
42
19
34
52
51
10
50
1
1
1
0
No

Doc
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
Indicating
Contamination

Susp.
8
5
25
7
2
2
2
2
17
16
47
16
5
4
31
2
2
2
0
0
Information
Available
in File

12
6
11
4
2
3
2
2
17
20
17
17
16
20
39
16
3
3
4
2
Total
Responses


56
56
56
56
5
5
5
5
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
6
6
6
6
(1)
     Sampled sites were not randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and the  implications  of these criteria
     are discussed in more detail  in  Sections  3.1.1 and  3.2.1.

-------
                                  5-16
     0    surface  water  was  associated  with  landfills,  containers,
          surface impoundments and tanks;

     0    soil   was  associated   with  containers,   landfills,   surface
          impoundments and tanks; and

     0    air was  associated with  containers,  landfills,  surface  im-
          poundments, and tanks.

5.5  Events Causing Contamination

     Contaminated  sites  were  associated with  one  or more  of  the  following
events, as outlined in Section VIII  of the DISF.

          .Fire/Explosion          .Seismic Activity

          .Spill                   .Erosion

          .Leak                    .Leachate

          .Flood                   .Emission of Toxic Gases/Mists


     In the  remainder of this  section, events tabulated will  include  both
documented and suspected  events, unless otherwise noted.

     All of these events were identified at least once,  along with six other
types not  listed in the DISF.  These other events were described as a waste-
water discharge,  uncontrolled  surface  runoff,  drain overflow,  liquid  dis-
charge, radiation  exposure and "unknown."  A total  of 310 sites (33 percent)
were involved in two events and 239  sites (26 percent) in 3 or more events.

     5.5.1  Tabulation of Events Causing Contamination Incidents.   Table 5-5
summarizes the  totalnumber of events  causing  contamination  Incidents.  In
total,  1,671 contamination  events  involving  various  facility types  were
recorded  in  the  DISFs.   This  tabulation   indicates  that  approximately  73
percent of the  contamination  events  were related to  leachate  (33  percent),
leaks (22 percent) or spills (18 percent).   Of the 1,671 contaminated events
tabulated, 810  (48 percent)  could be documented from information  available
in the file.

     5.5.2 Tabulation of Events  Causing Contamination Incidents  By  Facility
Type.  Table 5-6  summarizesthe  events causing contamination incidents  at
various facility types.   Figure  5-7  compares the total  number of events and
event types  tabulated as a  percent  of the total  evaluated  for individual
facility  types.  This  figure  indicates  that leachate, leaks and spills  were
events common to most facility  types.  Since a number  of  sites contained a
multiple  number of facilities,  there were a number of cases where there was
insufficient information  available  in the  file to identify the damage  inci-
dent with  the specific facility unit  in question.  These represented approx-
imately 13 percent of  the total  and are identified in Table 5-6.

     This  analysis  also indicates  that  approximately 73  percent  of the
leachate  events were  associated with  landfills  (38 percent),  surface im-
poundments  (20  percent)  or  containers  (15  percent).   Leaks   were  found  to
occur primarily at container storage facilities.  Approximately  90 percent

-------
                                  5-17
                                 Table 5-5

                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES     m
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESUJ


            TABULATION OF EVENTS CAUSING CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic Gases/Mists
Other
Total
Documented
66
142
136
19
0
51
272
34
90
810
Suspected
36
150
225
31
2
44
274
67
32
861
Total
102
292
361
50
2
95
546
101
122
1,671
^ '  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria
     and the implications  of these  criteria  are  discussed  in  more  detail
     in Sections  3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  5-18
                              Table  5-6

                         HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                     DISF SUMMARY OF  EVALUATED SITES
(1)
  TABULATION  OF  EVENTS  CAUSING CONTAMINATION  INCIDENTS BY  FACILITY TYPE


Facility
Type
Landfill









Open
Dump








Surface
Impound-
ments










Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other



Documented
18
11
13
7
0
29
148

12
13
6
17
14
1
0
6
20

1
5
3
21
29
10
0
9
49

3
17



Suspected
22
27
48
11
1
16
180

28
5
10
21
24
2
1
7
37

8
3
8
47
101
15
2
19
125

19
4
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
2
4
4
0
0
1
7

1
0
2
2
1
0
0
0
2

0
0
1
6
7
0
0
3
1

1
0



Total
42
42
65
15
1
45
335

42
18
18
40
39
3
1
13
59

9
8
12
74
137
25
2
31
175

23
21
(1)  Sampled sites were not  randomly  selected.   Site  selection criteria and
     the  implications  of  these  criteria  are  discussed  in  more detail  in
     Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  5-19
                          Table 5-6 (cont'd)
                                            (1)
                                                    Insufficient
                                                    Information
Facility
Type
Incinerator









Injection
Well








Land
Treatment








Transporta-
tion Spill
Site








Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other

Documented
0
I
0
0
0
0
0

2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

1
4
0
2
2
0
0
0
3

0
3
0
8"
4
0
0
0
3

0
1

Suspected
0
3
6
1
0
0
3

10
2
0
1
3
0
0
0
6

1
2
0
0
0
0
0
5
14

2
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
2

0
0
Available
in File
0
4
5
1
0
2
5

2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
3

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

Total
0
8
11
2
0
2
8

14
3
0
2
3
0
0
0
7

2
6
0
4
2
0
0
6
20

2
3
0
9
5
1
0
0
5

0
1
(1)  Sampled sites were not  randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and
     the implications  of  these  criteria  are  discussed  in  more detail  in
     Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                 5-20
                         Table 5-6  (cont'd)
                                            (1)
                                                    Insufficient
                                                    Information
Facility
Type
Storage
Treatment
Containers







Storage
Treatment
Tanks







Storage
Treatment
Piles







Boilers
Using Waste
as Fuel








Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other

Documented
25
54
63
4
0
2
31

6
14
5
33
28
1
0
1
11

1
5
1
4
3
0
0
2
11

0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
0

Suspected
18
106
146
4
0
10
103

34
8
9
58
59
4
0
0
37

13
5
3
5
6
0
1
6
15

3
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
Available
in File
7
15
13
1
0
2
5

6
2
6
9
12
I
0
1
2

4
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
3

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
1

Total
50
175
222
9
0
14
139

46
24
20
100
99
6
0
2
50

18
10
4
9
11
0
1
8
29

3
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
(1)  Sampled sites were not  randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and
     the  implications  of  these  criteria  are  discussed  in  more detail  in
     Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  5-21
                          Table 5-6 (cont'd)
                                            (1)
                                                    Insufficient
                                                    Information
Facility
Type
Recycling
Reclamation








Midnight
Dump








Radiation
Site









Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other

Documented
6
10
9
2
0
0
6

2
6
4
15
10
2
0
2
9

1
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
6

Suspected
5
29
29
6
0
4
18

7
9
5
16
24
1
0
2
39

8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
1
Available
in File
1
6
6
0
0
1
2

3
0
6
7
7
0
1
3
5

1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

Total
12
45
44
8
0
5
26

12
15
15
38
41
1
1
7
53

10
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
7
(1)  Sampled sites were not  randomly  selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the  implications  of  these  criteria  are  discussed  in  more detail  in
     Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                                            5-22
                                                         FIGURE 5-7
                                              HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                                         DISF SUMMARY OF  EVALUATED SITES
                                    EVENTS CAUSING CONTAMINATION INCIDENT BY FACILITY TYPE
     600 -
   £ 400
   2
   ° 200
5    I
to    O

NOTES: EVENT TYPE

  LCH - LEACHATE
   LK-LEAK

   SP-SPU.
  FEX - FWE/EXPLOSION
   EM - EMISSION OF TOXC GASES/MISTS

   ER - EROSION

  RAD - RADIATION
   O - OTHER (USUALLY FEX, EM, OR ER)

-------
                                  5-23
of the  spill  events  were associated with containers (33 percent), tanks (19
percent),  surface  impoundments (14 percent),  recycling/reclamation  (8 per-
cent),  landfills  (8  percent) and  open  dumps (8  percent).   Air pollution
events,  i.e., emissions  of  toxic  gases and mists,  were most commonly asso-
ciated with  containers  (25  percent) and  landfills  (25 percent).  Facilities
having  the  highest  frequency  of  fires and  explosions were  containers  (29
percent) and landfills (27 percent).

5.6  Chemicals Documented in Contamination Incidents

     For this analysis,  chemical  compounds were organized into the following
general categories:

     'Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHOs)             'Inorganics

     'Volatile Non-halogenated Organics (VNHOs)        'Cyanide

     'Base Neutral  Extractables (BNEs)                 'Acids

     'Pesticides                                       'Acid Compounds

     'PCBs                                             'Alkalies
     'Metals                                           'Alcohols

     'Oil                                              'Aldehydes

     'Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds                        'Ketones
     'Asbestos                                         'Radioactive
Table 5-7  summarizes the total number  of  times  that a chemical  in  a given
category was positively  identified  by sampling and analytical  techniques as
occurring  as  contaminants in  the  various  media.  Although this  table sug-
gests that the highest percentage of documented contamination  incidents were
from metals (23 percent), VHOs (17 percent) and VNHOs (12 percent) it should
be noted that the analytical  procedures selected were based on  the judgement
of the original  field  investigator  and may not  have accurately represented
the range  of potential  contaminants at the site.  Based  on the waste types
reported at the sites evaluated in this study,  it is suspected  that a prior-
ity pollutant analysis may  have  indicated  the  presence of contaminants less
frequently identified in this study (BNEs,  acid compounds, pesticides, PCBs,
inorganics, cyanide,  acids, oil, etc).

     Sixteen of  these chemical  categories were  identified  at  least once,
along with several additional categories not listed above.  These other cat-
egories  included greases, esters, mercaptan,  varsol, sodium chlorate, fecal
coliform  and  aromatics.   This  tabulation   indicates that approximately  70
percent  of the  chemical  categories  were  identified  as  either  metals  (23
percent),   VHOs  (17  percent),  VNHOs  (12 percent), BNEs (9 percent)  or acid
compounds   (9 percent).   Table  5-8  lists the most  commonly  occurring chemi-
cals  found in  each  of  these  categories,  and  the range of concentrations
observed in the affected media.

-------
                                    5-24
                                   Table 5-7

                             HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES    m
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESu;

         TABULATION OF CHEMICALS DOCUMENTED IN CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
                                             Total Positive           Percent
Chemical Category	Identifications	of Total

Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHOs)              233                      17
Volatile Non-halogenated Organics (VNHOs)         159                      12
Base Neutral Extractables (BNEs)                  117                       9
Pesticides                                         85                       6
PCBs                                               82                       6
Metals                                            316                      23
Oil                                                26                       2
Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds                          18                       1
Inorganics                                         60                       5
Cyanide                                            40                       3
Acids                                              37                       3
Acid Compounds                                    127                       9
Alkalies                                            1                    LT 1
Alcohols                                            7                    LT 1
Aldehydes                                           2                    LT 1
Ketones                                            17                       1
Radioactive                                         9                    LT 1
Asbestos                                            3                    LT 1
Others                                              8                    LT 1

Total                                           1,347                     100


LT ~ less than

  (1)  Sampled sites were  not  randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
       the  implications  of  these  criteria  are  discussed  in more  detail  in
       Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1

-------
                                                                       5-25

                                                                   Table  5-8

                                                               HAZARDOUS  WASTE  SITES
                                                          DISF  SUMMARY  OF EVALUATED SITES
(1)
Most Frequently
Observed Chemical
Category
VHOs



VNHOs

Metals


Acid
Compounds
Contaminant Concentration Ranges
Common
Contaminants
1,1,1, trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
dichloromethane
tetrachloroethylene
chlorobenzene
dibromoethane
benzene
toluene
xylene
lead
manganese
chromium
cadmium
nickel
arsenic
mercury
pentachlorophenol
phenol
Groundwater
(mg/D
trace- 12.0
0.0-315.0
0.132-19.0
0.0-4.6
0.177
NO
0.001-80
0.0009-64.8
0.001-18.8
0.001-810
0.012-120
trace-65. 5
0.02-0.1
0.029-5.50
0.001-2.4
ND
0.0003
0.0001-2.3
Surface Water
(mg/1)
trace-1.8
trace-7.50
trace-250
0.425
0.02
ND
trace-22.0
trace-6.572
trace-1.70
trace-175
trace-8,900
0.001-10
0.1-1.0
ND
0.0-16
0.0-0.001
ND
0.011-6.920
Soil
(mg/1)
trace-1.4
trace-0.10
0.034
trace-20.5
ND
1.6
trace-43.0
trace 64.0
2.0-3.8
trace-5,750
ND
0.110-31,765
4.1
0.076-0.49
trace-510
0.0-734
0.9-46
trace-22.5
Air
(mg/1)
1,062.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
719
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
USEPA (a)
Human Health,-
Criteria 10 D
NS
2.7 ug/1
NS
0.8 ug/1
NS
NS
0.66 ug/1
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
2.2 ng/1
NS
NS
NS
USEPA (b)
Primary Drinking
Water Standards
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.05 mg/1
NS
0.05 mg/1
NS
NS
0.05 mg/1
0.002 mg/1
NS
NS
USEPA (c)
Drinking Water
Standards
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.05 mg/1
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NOTES:   ND = no data available
        NS - no standard

(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and the implications of these criteria are discussed
     in more detail in Sections 3.1.1 and  3.2.1.

SOURCE:    a.    U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency,  November 28,  1980.   Water Quality Criteria Documents; Availability.  Federal
               Register, Vol.  45,  No.  231.

          b.    U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency,  December 24,  1975.   National  Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
               40 CFR 141;  40 FR 59565,  as amended.

          c.    U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency,  July  19, 1979.   National  Secondary Drinking Water Regulations.  40 CFR  143;
               44 FR 42198.   Effective January  19,  1981.

-------
                                  5-26
5.7  Damage Incidents

     The following six affected areas were evaluated for site related damage
on the DISF.

               .  Drinking Water              .  Fauna

               .  Food Chain                  .  Human Health

               .  Flora                       .  Property Damage


In the  remainder of  this  section damage  will  be  interpreted  to  mean both
documented and suspected  incidents/events unless otherwise noted.

     Damage was  identified for  at  least  544  sites,  or 59  percent,  of the
sites evaluated.   As  noted  in  Section 5.4, higher  percentages  of  the sites
indicated contamination  (90 percent).  Damage was indicated in approximately
63 percent of the contaminated sites evaluated.  Of the 1,171 affected areas
indicating damage,  only  375   (32  percent)  could  be  documented  using  the
evaluation criteria.

     Sites indicating the  absence  of damage,  and/or files  not containing
sufficient information to determine damage, were also identified.  A tabula-
tion  of  sites identified  with damage for at  least  one  of  the  above cat-
egories is outlined in Table 5-9.

     Of note,  are the 330 sites (36 percent) identified as having damage to
two or more affected areas.  Of the 626 sites indicating soil contamination,
233 sites also indicated damage  to drinking water.   Also, of the 722 sites
indicating soil and/or surface water contamination, 260 sites also indicated
damage to flora,  fauna or the food chain.

     5.7.1      Tabulation of Number, Type and Severity of Damage Incidents.
Table 5-10 summarizes  the total  number of  DISF  responses  indicating damage
to the  above  affected areas.   Site files  not  containing  sufficient inform-
ation to determine damage were also recorded and noted under the appropriate
heading in Table  5-10.

     Table 5-10 indicates that 34 percent of the documented damage incidents
occurred to drinking  water,  with the remaining  incidents  occurring to pro-
perty  (29 percent),  flora (15 percent),  fauna (10 percent) and human health
and  food chain  (12  percent).  Table  5-10 also indicates  that of  the 929
sites evaluated,  160 sites (17 percent) indicated high environmental damage,
151 sites  (17 percent)  indicated medium environmental  damage and  287 sites
(31  percent)   indicated  low environmental  damage.   The remaining  331 site
files  indicated  no  apparent  damage  (14  percent) or  did  not  have enough
information available  (22  percent)  to make an evaluation.  Of note, are the
files  associated with the  189 sites  (20  percent) that  suggested that the
actual damage may be higher than the response described in the DISF, but the
file  contained insufficient analytical  data available to  support a higher
damage rating.

-------
                                  5-27
                                 Table 5-9

                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES     m
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESu;
                         TABULATION OF SITES DAMAGED
Category
Description
Total Number of
Sites (Described
by Category)
Percent of
  Total
          Sites indicating documented
          damage (to at least
          one affected area)

          Sites indicating suspected
          damage (to at least one
          affected area) and not
          identified by Category 1
          above.

          Sites indicating
          documented or suspected
          absence of damage and not
          identified by Categories
          1  and 2, above

          Sites for which there was
          an absence of sufficient
          information in the file to
          make a determination of
          damage and not identified
          by Categories 1,2 and 3
          above
                              236
                              308
                           25
                           33
                              162
                           17
                              223
                           24
     TOTAL SITES
                             929
                          100
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria
     and the implications of these criteria are discussed in more detail
     in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                                  5-28
                                                 Table 5-10

                                          HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                                     DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                          TABULATION OF NUMBER & SEVERITY OF DAMAGE INCIDENTS
Affected Area
       Damage

Documented Suspected
                No Damage

           Documented Suspected
                     Insufficient
                     Information
                      Available
                       in File
                    Total
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
128
16
58
39
28
106
213
81
117
123
209
53
51
0
3
1
1
1
273
445
384
396
372
417
264
387
367
370
319
352
929
929
929
929
929
929
Environmental
Human Health
                                   Severity  of Damage
                                                            Insufficient
                                                            Information
Affected Area
High
Medium
Low
Available
in File
No Apparent
Damage
Total Number
of Responses
    160
     11
151
 63
287
 89
206
372
125
394
929
929
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and the implications of
     these criteria are discussed in more  detail  in Sections  3.1.1  and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  5-29
     The analysis also indicated that out of the 929 sites evaluated, 11
sites indicated high human health damage, 63 sites (6 percent) indicated
medium human health damage and 89 sites (10 percent) indicated low human
health damage.  The remaining 766 sites indicated either no apparent damage
(i.e., there was no data available on public health damages) (42 percent) or
while there was some data, there was not enough information available to
make an evaluation (39 percent).  Of note, are the files associated with 224
sites (24 percent) that suggested that"the actual human health damage may be
higher than the severity response described in the DISF, but the file con-
tained insufficient analytical data available to support a higher damage
rating.   The total number of sites indicating various degress of environ-
mental or human health damage are graphically displayed in Figure 5-8.

     5.7.2  Tabulation of Number and Severity of Damage^Incidents by Facil-
ity Type.   Table 5-11 summarizes the DISF responses indicating damage to
each affected area by associated facility type.   This analysis indicates
that approximately 87 percent of the damage incidents were associated with
landfills (24 percent), containers (21 percent), surface impoundments (19
percent) tanks (10 percent), midnight dumps (7 percent) or open dumps (6
percent).   The remaining percent of the damage incidents were associated
with piles, recycling/reclamation facilities, land treatment, injection
wells -and 4 other categories.  A detailed breakdown of damage incidents by
facility type is tabulated in Table 5-11.   Figure 5-9 compares the total
number of damage incidents and affected areas tabulated as a percent of the
total evaluated for each facility type.  This figure indicates that drinking
water represented the area impacted most frequently for each facility type
evaluated, excluding incinerators, recycling/reclamation facilities and
boilers using waste as fuel.   (There were no damage cases recorded for the
latter facility type).   Drinking water represented between 20 and 33 percent
of the affected areas damaged for most of the facility types.

     Table 5-11 also indicates that 76 percent of the incidents involving
damage to drinking water involved landfills (27 percent), containers (21
percent),  surface impoundments (19 percent) and tanks (9 percent).   Table
5-11 also identifies the severity of damage to environment and/or human
health,  based on the tabulation of damage assessments (high,  medium,  low or
none) applying the DISF evaluation guidelines.   Landfills,  surface impound-
ments, containers, tanks,  open dumps and recycling/reclamation facilities
resulted in 86 percent of the cases involving high or medium environmental
damage.   Eighty-one percent of the cases involving high or medium human
health damage were attributed to landfills, containers, surface impound-
ments, tanks and midnight dumps.

5.8  Status of Response

     As  noted previously (Sections 5.1, 5.4), the majority of the sites
evaluated were identified with some form of environmental contamination,
either suspected or documented.   Table 5-12 summarizes the status of each
site evaluated from the standpoint of enforcement,  investigative  and reme-
dial activites.   This table indicates that 19 percent of the  files  evaluated
indicated that the sites identified were involved in either past  or present
legal or enforcement actions.   However, 511 (55  percent) site files indi-
cated that additional  environmental  investigations  were in progress or
completed.   Two hundred eighty-two (30 percent)  sites were reported to  be
involved with past or present remedial  activities.

-------
                         5-30
                       FIGURE 5-8
        HAZARDOUS  WASTE SITES
DISF SUMMARY  OF EVALUATED SITES  
-------
                                           5-31
                                        Table 5-11

                                   HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
             TABULATION OF NUMBER & SEVERITY DAMAGE INCIDENTS BY FACILITY TYPE
                                         Landfill
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
                No Damage

           Documented Suspected
     29
      2
     14
      8
      5
     17
122
 38
 59
 65
 80
 47
       27
        0
        3
        1
        1
        1
            101
            195
            153
            175
            159
            180
         Insufficient
         Information
          Available
           in File      Total

             117        396
             161        396
             167        396
             147        396
             151        396
             151        396
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Hi
55
2
gh Medium
51
14
Damage
Documented Suspected
15 22
2 12
7 14
4 17
3 20
4 9
Insufficient
Information
Available No Apparent Total Number
Low in File Damage of Responses
87 141
25 192
Open Dump
No
62
163
Damage
Documented Suspected
4 24
0 40
0 35
0 33
0 32
0 46
396
396
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
30
41
39
41
39
36

Total
95
95
95
95
95
95
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
     12
      0
 18
  3
22
13
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   37
   48
No Apparent
  Damage

    6
   31
Total Number
of Responses

     95
     95
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in more detail  in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           5-32
                                     Table 5-11 (cont'd) (1)

                                   Surface Impoundments
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     25
      3
     13
     13
      1
     12
     40
      2
83
40
40
50
70
37
        15
         0
         0
         1
         0
         0
             81
            124
            114
            114
            107
            118
         Insufficient
         Information
          Available
           in File      Total

              67         271
             104         271
             104         271
              93         271
              93         271
             104         271
                                    Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
50
11
75
37
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   84
  119
No Apparent
  Damage

    22
   102
Total Number
of Responses

     271
     271
                                        Incinerator
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     1
     0
     1
     0
     1
     0
1              0         24
0              0         22
0              0         22
0              0         21
6              0         14
1              0         21

 Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
3
1
6
2
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   22
   24
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 15         40
                                 18         40
                                 17         40
                                 19         40
                                 19         40
                                 18         40
No Apparent
  Damage

    8
   13
Total Number
of Responses

     40
     40
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in more detail  in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           5-33
                                     Table 5-11 (cont'd)

                                      Injection Well
                                                        (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     1
     0
     0
     0
     0
     2
6              13
2              04
2              06
2              06
4              04
2              04

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 4          15
                                 9          15
                                 7          15
                                 7          15
                                 7          15
                                 7          15
     High   Medium   Low
     1
     0
3
0
4
3
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   5
   6
No Apparent
  Damage

    2
    6
Total Number
of Responses

      15
      15
                                      Land Treatment
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     2
     0
     1
     0
     0
     2
     2
     0
7              2         10
4              0         16
3              0         16
1              0         17
5              0         14
4              0         13

 Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
3
0
8
1
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   4
  11
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 4          25
                                 5          25
                                 5          25
                                 7          25
                                 6          25
                                 6          25
No Apparent
  Damage

    8
   13
Total Number
of Responses

      25
      25
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in more detail  in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           5-34
                                  Table 5-11 (cont'd)
                                                     (1)
                                 Transportation Spill Site
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     2
     0
     0
     0
     0
     2
     1
     0
1              04
1              05
1              05
0              06
6              02
2              03

 Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
3
1
 1
 3
                             Insufficient
                             Information
                              Available
                               in File      Total

                                  3          10
                                  4          10
                                  4          10
                                  4          10
                                  2          10
                                  3          10
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

     3
     3
No Apparent
  Damage

    2
    3
Total Number
of Responses

      10
      10
                               Storage Treatment Containers
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     17
      3
      8
      7
      6
     18
     33
      0
99
31
52
52
92
51
         11
          1
          1
          2
          0
          -0
             138
             191
             167
             182
             164
             173
                                    Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
35
15
101
 32
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   145
   181
         Insufficient
         Information
          Available
           in File      Total

              120        385
              159        385
              157        385
              142        385
              123        385
              143        385
No Apparent
  Damage

    71
   157
Total Number
of Responses

     385
     385
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in more detail in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           5-35
                                     Table 5-11 (cont'd) (1)

                                  Storage Treatment Tanks
Affected Area
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
                             Insufficient
                             Information
                              Available
                               in File
                                      Total
Dri tking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
6
2
9
3
4
5
46
14
21
24
40
20
6
0
0
0
1
0
73
104
92
95
77
91
66
77
75
75
75
81
197
197
197
197
197
197
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
                                    Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
     16
      2
23
 8
 42
 14
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   80
   98
No Apparent
  Damage

    36
    75
Total Number
of Responses

     197
     197
                                  Storage Treatment Piles
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     2
     1
     3
     2
     1
     4
     4
     0
15
12
 8
14
15
 3
         3
         0
         0
         0
         0
         0
             22
             26
             25
             23
             22
             29
                                    Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
13
 3
19
 9
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

    14
    23
         Insufficient
         Information
          Available
           in File      Total

              14         56
              17         56
              20         56
              17         56
              17         56
              20         56
No Apparent
  Damage

    6
   21
Total Number
of Responses

     56
     56
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in more detail  in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           5-36
                                  Table 5-11 (cont'd)
                                                     (1)
                                Boilers Using Waste as Fuel
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     1
     0
0              03
0              03
0              03
0              03
0              02
0              03

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 2           5
                                 2           5
                                 2           5
                                 2           5
                                 3           5
                                 2           5
     High   Medium   Low
0
0
0
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   1
   2
No Apparent
  Damage

    3
    3
Total Number
of Responses

     5
     5
                                   Recycling/Reclamation
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     3
     1
     1
     3
     1
     2
     12
      0
21
10
10
13
27
10
        4
        0
        0
        0
        0
        0
             33
             38
             39
             35
             30
             40
                                    Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
17
 7
15
11
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   23
   35
         Insufficient
         Information
          Available
           in File      Total

              23         84
              35         84
              34         84
              33         84
              26         84
              32         84
No Apparent
  Damage

    17
    31
Total Number
of Responses

     84
     84
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in more detail in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           5-37
                                     Table 5-11 (cont'd)

                                       Midnight Dump
                                                        (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     6
     3
     3
     3
     3
     8
26
12
17
22
27
23
        1
        1
        0
        0
        0
        1
             21
             30
             26
             30
             30
             31
         Insufficient
         Information
          Available
           in File      Total

              30         84
              38         84
              38         84
              29         84
              24         84
              21         84
                                    Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
     7
     3
17
 7
16
 6
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   37
   44
No Apparent
  Damage

    7
   24
Total Number
of Responses

     84
     84
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in more detail  in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                                         5-38


                                                      FIGURE 3-9


                                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES

                                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                                  DAMAGE TO AFFECTED AREA ASSOCIATED BY FACILITY TYPE
m
o

o
z


UJ
o
<
2
<
O
   a
   ui
   i-
m

2

(E
IU
CO
      500-,
      400-
   300-
z  200-
_i
<

O
    <
    Q

    IS
    o
    LU
    U.
    U.
    <
NOTES: AFFECTED AREA



   DW -DRINKING WATER


   FC -FOOD CHAIN


   FL -FLORA


   F -FAUNA


   HH -HUMAN HEALTH


    P-PROPERTY


DW 13 -REPRESENTS PERCENT OF DOCUMENTED AND

      SUSPECTED AFFECTED AREAS ASSOCIATED WITH

      EACH FACILITY TYPE AS RECORDED IN DISF

      RESPONSES. FOR COMPLETE TABULATION SEE

      TABLE 5-11.

-------
                                  5-39
                                  Table 5-12

                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES     ,,,
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESu;


                             STATUS OF RESPONSE


                            Total  Number of Sites...

  .evaluated        ...with legal/      ...with investi-     ...with remedial
                    enforcement         gative actions       actions under-
                    action under-        underway/com-        way/completed
                    way/completed        pleted


     929                 179                511                  282
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are  discussed in  more detail  in
     Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  5-40
     Remedial activities  occurring at  these  sites included  waste removal,
drum  excavation,  leachate  collection,  excavation  of  contaminated  soil,
leachate  control,  groundwater withdrawal  and  treatment,  neutralization,
spill cleanup,  containment and recovery  systems,  cutoff  trenches, landfill
development and  installation  of  liners, as well as resident  evacuation and
property  purchase.   Expenditures  for  remedial  activities   for   the  sites
ranged from $25,000 to $153.5 million.

-------
   6.0  Epidemiological Studies Relating to Hazardous Waste Mismanagement


6.1  Purpose

     In  order to  gain a  more  accurate  overall picture  of the  extent of
health  damage attributable to  mismanaged  wastes, a  survey  of  state health
departments  was  initiated.   The aim  of the  survey  was  to establish the
number  and  types  of epidemiological investigations carried  out in relation
to  hazardous  waste problems.   Inquiries  were generally  limited to depart-
ments on the state  level.

6.2  Methodology

     The initial  contacts were the epidemiology divisions of all fifty state
health  departments.  Appropriate personnel  were queried regarding any epide-
miological  studies  or  health  surveys conducted by the  health  department or
other  state  agencies.   When  these  calls  resulted   in  referrals  to  other
agencies (e.g. state  departments of natural resources), follow-up inquiries
were made.  In some instances,  at the agency's  request,  inquiries were put
in  writing.   Copies of all  pertinent studies were  requested.   Examples of
the agencies contacted  include:

     0    Alabama Health Department  - Hazardous Materials Section,

     0    Colorado  Health  Department - Division  of  Radiation  and Hazardous
          Waste,

     0    Delaware Department of Natural Resources,

     0    Illinois  Environmental   Protection  Agency - Emergency  Response
          Division, and

     0    North Carolina Health  Department - Division  of Epidemiology.

     In  order to  qualify  as an  epidemiological  study, the  investigations
must meet the  following criteria:

     0    They must directly  pertain  to the  health  of human  populations.
          Sampling  of  environmental  media, or  fish  and animal  tissues may
          provide  valuable  information  regarding  exposure levels.   These
          measurements do  not, however, in themselves, constitute an epidem-
          iological study.

     0    They must measure the frequency  of an effect in a group.  Epidem-
          iology is  defined  as  "the study of the distribution and determ-
          inants  of  disease  in  humans  and of the  factors which  influence
          this  distribution."   Thus,   an   epidemilogical  study  cannot  be
          limited to clinical observations on one  individual.

Although the  studies  received  were  not reviewed for technical  merit,  they
were examined against the aforementioned criteria.

-------
                                   6-2
6.3  Results

     Forty-six states responded to the survey requests, producing a total of
11 studies.  Seven of  these  studies  met the criteria  in  Section 6.2, i.e.,
they pertained directly  to  the measurement of health effects in human popu-
lations.   Techniques  utilized  in these  investigations generally  fall  into
one of the  following categories:

     0    Review of vital statistics  and other mortality and morbidity data.
          Examples  of this  type  of  information  include  birth  and  death
          certificates, state cancer  registries, hospital  and clinic records
          and school  and  workplace absenteeism data.

     0    Health  interview  and  survey  questionnaire data.   This  method
          employs questionnaires  that are either administered  by  an inter-
          viewer  or  filled  out by  the  study  participants.  The  question-
          naires  may cover  one or  more  areas,  including:  health status
          (medical history, nature,  frequency and duration of symptoms), and
          personal data (age, sex, occupation and other lifestyle factors).

     0    Biomonitoring.    This  encompasses  clinical  measures  of  health
          status  including  physical  examinations;  laboratory   analysis  of
          blood, urine, hair, and body fat; and lung function testing.

Table  6-1  presents a summary of the  survey  results  by state.   Descriptions
of the 7  studies meeting the criteria  are  tabulated in Table 6-2.

6.4  Conclusions

     There  is  some  evidence that the  number  of  studies obtained  may not
accurately  reflect  the  overall  extent  of the  health assessment  work  cur-
rently being performed.  Several health officials cited studies  presently in
progress while  others expressed  reluctance  to release data that  they  con-
sidered  politically  sensitive.   In  addition,  the  survey  did  not  encompass
work  being done by  universities, non-profit  organizations,  citizens groups
and other levels  of government.

     Even taking these factors  into account, however, the volume of epidemi-
ological  work being  carried  out appears to be relatively insignificant when
compared  against  the potential  number  of  hazardous waste  mismanagement
incidents.   Although the survey did not specifically seek to account for the
paucity  of data, costs  emerged as  the major  impediment  to performing  more
epidemiological   studies.   Some  health  officials   cited areas  warranting
closer examination,  should funding become available.

-------
                  6-3
                 Table 6-1
STATUS OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES BY STATE
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District
of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mai ne
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
No Studies Studies Studies In
Available Available Progress
X
X
X

X
1
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
1
1

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X

X
X
1
X
X
1
1
X
X
X
I
X
X
1
X

-------
                                                                           6-4

                                                                        Table 6-2

                                                     DESCRIPTIONS OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
STATE
STUDY DESCRIPTION
       TECHNIQUES UTILIZED
    Review of      Health      Bio-
Vital Statistics   Survey   monitoring
                                                                                               RESULTS
Louisiana       Health survey of Alsen
                community residents
Maine           Epidemiological  study of the
                hypothesized adverse health
                consequences of  the Gray,  Maine
                well-water contamination episode

Virginia        Trichloroethylene investigation,
                Danville, Virginia, 1977

Wisconsin       Multivariate analysis of a
                cohort of mobile home resi-
                dents exposed to formaldehyde

Tennessee       Design of environmental  health
                effects studies  stemming from
                the potential for human  expo-
                sure to toxic waste in Memphis,
                Tennessee

Connecticut     Housatonic River PCB study:
                statistical analysis
Pennsylvania    Polychlorinated biphenyl  report.
                Old Forge, Lackawanna County
                                                                               No obvious abnormality  in mortality  statistics;
                                                                               not possible to evaluate questionnaire  data;  high
                                                                               proportion of upper respiratory  and  respiratory
                                                                               problems.

                                                                               No evidence of "persisting  deleterious  effects".
                                                                               No TCE in blood samples;  unable  to  determine  from
                                                                               questionnaire data that toxic  effects were  apparent.

                                                                               Irritant effects, swollen glands, and diarrhea were
                                                                               associated with log formaldehyde concentration.


                                                                               Actual study design has not yet  been implemented.
                                                                               PCB levels were not associated with  a  greater
                                                                               degree of symptoms.  Persons eating  fish  from  the
                                                                               Housatonic have (statistically)  significantly
                                                                               higher PCB levels  than those not eating the  fish.

                                                                               PCB serum levels of residents are  similar  to those
                                                                               found in "uncontaminated" areas.   There appeared
                                                                               to be no medical problems which  can  be attributed
                                                                               to PCB.

-------
Sect i on A

-------
                                   A-l



                                 APPENDIX A

                       DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY FORM (DISF)

                            General Instructions

     The purpose of the DISF is to provide a brief, succinct summary of each
case.   The DISF provides blank spaces for appropriate responses, usually an
"X" marking next to information categories (Sections I through XII).   All
qualifying comments and explanatory notes are to be contained in the
"General Comments" narrative which is appended to the form.   These comments
are keyed to the form with an asterisk (*) placed at the section heading.
The only exceptions to this general rule are brief phrases which specifical-
ly clarify a determination; for example, where two choices are checked, a
brief note to explain this decision is required.   An asterisk (*) and
footnote are to be used in these cases.   The form is to remain blank in
cases where information is lacking, for example,  where identification
numbers have not been assigned, where there is no record of concern for
possible contamination, or where information on quantities of generated or
disposed waste is not available.

                            Specific Instructions

DISF Reference Numbers                           Instructions
     1,2,3,4,5,6                   Provide site name,  address and county.

     7                             Provide site operator's  name and address.
                                   If same as 1-6 above,  enter "(Same as
                                   above)".   If information is not avail-
                                   able,  enter "(Not available)".   If the
                                   site is a midnight dump, enter "(Not
                                   Applicable)".

     8                             Provide property owner's name and address
                                   if different from the  operator of the
                                   site.   If the realty owner and site
                                   operator are identical,  enter "(Same as
                                   above)".   If the information is not
                                   available enter "(Not  available)".   If
                                   the site is a midnight dump, enter "(Not
                                   Applicable)".

     9                             Provide site latitude  and longitude in
                                   degrees,  minutes and seconds.   If the
                                   site encompasses an entire city or
                                   county, or is  the site of ocean disposal,
                                   enter  "(Not Applicable)".

     10                            Provide identification numbers,  if avail-
                                   able.   Site Tracking System (STS),  Noti-
                                   fication Information Service (NOTIS), Re-
                                   source Conservation and  Recovery Act
                                   Identification (RCRA I.D.) and  Dun &

-------
                              A-2
                              Bradstreet (D&B) numbers are obtainable
                              from USEPA Division of Air and Hazardous
                              Materials Office (DAHM).   Field Investi-
                              gation Team (FIT) (or National Project
                              Management Office (NPMO)) numbers are
                              obtainable from USEPA Regional FIT teams,
                              Deputy Project Officer.   Indicate the FIT
                              number in parentheses after the NPMO
                              number.   State ID numbers can be obtained
                              from the respective state agency files.

11                            Indicate most appropriate description of
                              facility type.   Facility types are also
                              referred to in the DISF and accompanying
                              report as site descriptions or categor-
                              ies.   If a facility is composed of a
                              variety of process types, indicate only
                              those processes responsible for or
                              affected by the damage incident.

                                   CONTAINER:  A portable device in
                                   which material is stored, trans-
                                   ported,  or otherwise managed.
                                   Containers are commonly 30- or
                                   55-gallon steel  drums, although
                                   jugs, bottles, or drums of any other
                                   capacity are also considered to be
                                   containers.   Additionally, tanker
                                   trucks (typically 5,000-6,000 gallon
                                   capacity) are considered to be con-
                                   tainers  in that they are mobile.

                                   LANDFILL FACILITY:   A waste disposal
                                   site where operating practices have
                                   included the periodic application of
                                   earthen  cover material over deposit-
                                   ed wastes.

                                   INCINERATOR:  An enclosed device in
                                   which hazardous wastes are thermally
                                   decomposed via controlled combustion
                                   procedures.   Examples include rotary
                                   kilns, fluidized bed and liquid
                                   injection incinerators.

                                   INJECTION WELL:   An excavation that
                                   is not a surface impoundment in
                                   which liquid hazardous wastes are
                                   injected for ultimate disposal.

                                   LAND TREATMENT FACILITY:  A site
                                   where hazardous wastes are deposited
                                   on the soil -surface or incorporated
                                   within the soil, for the purpose of
                                   treatment and/or disposal.

-------
A-3
     MIDNIGHT DUMP:   A site where poten-
     tially corrosive, ignitable, re-
     active, or toxic wastes have been
     surreptitiously and illegally dispos-
     ed.

     OPEN DUMP:   A waste disposal site
     where cover material has not gener-
     ally been applied.

     PILE:  An accumulation of
     non-containerized,  non-flowing solid
     hazardous waste.

     RECYCLING/RECLAMATION FACILITY:   A
     facility which treats, reclaims, or
     otherwise recovers  discarded
     hazardous materials for the purpose
     of re-use or re-sale.   Typical
     examples are solvent and waste oil
     recovery operations.

     SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT:  A natural
     basin, man-made excavation, or
     bermed area in which liquid
     hazardous wastes, or wastes con-
     taining free liquids are stored,
     treated, or disposed.   Surface
     impoundments are formed primarily in
     earthen materials,  and may or may
     not  be equipped with synthetic
     liners.   Examples include precipi-
     tation, aeration, and evaporation
     ponds and lagoons.

     TANK:  A stationary, non-earthen
     device in which hazardous waste  is
     stored or treated.   Tanks are typi-
     cally constructed of steel,
     aluminum, concrete  or plastic,  and
     may  vary in capacity from a few
     hundred gallons to  several  million
     gallons.   Tanks may be covered or
     uncovered,  indoors  or outdoors,  and
     above-ground or underground.

     Other categories  may be added at the
     discretion  of the reviewer.   These
     other categories  may include, for
     example,  abandoned  buildings, trans-
     fer  stations,  loading docks,  waste-
     water discharges, building founda-
     tions, etc.

-------
                              A-4
12                            Indicate the first date of the incident
                              or discovery of the incident.   Enter only
                              dates which can be substantiated in fed-
                              eral, state or local  agency files.   In
                              general, these will be dates of site
                              investigations by governmental agencies
                              in response to citizen complaints or
                              other reports.   Where two distinct damage
                              incidents have occurred both dates should
                              be entered and annotated on page two,
                              using the procedures  discussed in
                              "General Instructions".

13                            Indicate status of facility (active or
                              inactive) and the year operations began
                              and terminated (if inactive).   If damage
                              incident was a midnight dump or spill  do
                              not complete item IV.   If only a portion
                              of site is still active, both active and
                              inactive should be entered and annotated
                              briefly, using procedures discussed in
                              "General Instructions" above.

14                            Indicate media exposed to contamination
                              and whether this exposure is documented
                              or suspected.   "Contamination" is defined
                              as the presence of pollutants in ground-
                              water, surface water,  soil or air,  as
                              identified by standard sampling and
                              analytical techniques.  Specific discus-
                              sions of standard sampling techniques  may
                              be found in ASTM Standard D140-70 (ex-
                              tremely viscous liquids), ASTM Standard
                              D346-75 (crushed or powdered material),
                              ASTM Standard D420-69 (soil or rock-like
                              material), ASTM Standard D1462-65
                              (soil-like material)  and in "Test Methods
                              for the Evaluation of Solid Waste,
                              Physical/ Chemical Methods" (USEPA,
                              Office of Solid Wastes, Washington,
                              D.C.).  Standard analytical techniques
                              include gas chromatography, gas chromato-
                              graphy/mass spectroscopy, etc. as dis-
                              cussed in the December 3, 1979 Federal
                              Register.  A complete discussion of
                              acceptable test methods for arsenic,
                              barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury,
                              silver and selenium may be found in
                              "Methods for Analysis of Water and
                              Wastes" (Environmental Monitoring and
                              Support Laboratory, Office of Research
                              and Development, USEPA).  Analytical
                              procedures for endrin, lindane,
                              methoxychlor, toxaphene, 2,4-D, and

-------
A-5
2,4,5-TP Si 1 vex may be found in "Methods
for Benzidene Chlorinated Organic Com-
pounds, Pentachlorophenol, and Pesticides
in Water and Wastewater" (op. cit.).
"Pollutants" are defined as substances
not naturally found in the site-specific-
environment that may interfere with the
best use of, or interfere with the affect-
ed resource.

"Documented" is interpreted as informa-
tion developed from monitoring and/or
sampling and analytical data available
from direct investigative forces, permits
(e.g., NPDES, U.I.C.) engineering re-
ports, federal or state enforcement
actions (e.g., court cases, suits), etc.
Contaminants are "documented", if water,
soil and air sampling data indicate the
presence of pollutants above detectable
limits.  (Detection limits may vary
according to sample site, instrument
sensitivity, presence of interfering
contaminants, and preparation and an-
alytical methodologies, however,  in most
cases, are in the parts per billion
range.)  "Suspected" is interpreted as
information developed from newspaper
articles, citizen complaints and prelimi-
nary inspections.   Where no analytical
data are available and there are studies
and/or reports indicating that any of the
respective media were not contaminated by
the incident in question, so indicate.
"Documented no contamination" cases are
defined as those for which air,  water or
soil or air sampling results indicate no
detectable contamination or where there
appears to be low potential due  to fac-
ility type or maintenance of sound man-
agement practices at the facility.   In
cases where preliminary site inspections
revealed no apparent contamination,  but
sampling was nevertheless recommended,
contamination is "suspected."  If file
data indicate that contaminants  may have
originated off-site, enter the approp-
riate numerical footnote(s) and  an-
notation^) on page two.

Key sampling and analytical results  which
support the responses in this section are
to be discussed in "General Comments".

-------
                              A-6
15                            Indicate documented or suspected areas
                              damaged by contamination.   "Damage"  is
                              defined as the presence of pollutants
                              that may cause interference with,  loss in
                              value of or harm to human  health,  drink-
                              ing water, the food chain,  flora,  fauna,
                              or property.   Damage is to be considered
                              as "Documented" according  to the same
                              evaluation criteria discussed in 14
                              above,  with certain additional  criteria:

                                   Documented damage to  human health
                                   should be based on authoritative
                                   references correlating sickness,
                                   injury,  or death to contamination
                                   events occuring at the facility.
                                   These references may  include, but
                                   shall not be limited  to, hospital
                                   reports,  OSHA citations, regulatory
                                   agency reports, facility operating
                                   reports,  and epidemiological
                                   studies.

                                   Documented damage to  drinking water
                                   should be based on authoritative
                                   references correlating excessive
                                   contaminant concentration levels  in
                                   the water supply with contamination
                                   events occurring at the facility.
                                  "Excessive contaminant concentrations"
                                   are defined as those  constituents
                                   that exceed USEPA National  Interim
                                   Primary or Secondary  Drinking Water
                                   Standards or USEPA Human Health
                                   criteria  for maximum  contaminant
                                   levels in water supplies.   Where
                                   applicable, maximum contaminant
                                   levels associated with incremental
                                   life-time cancer risks shall  be
                                   evaluated relative to 10   exposed
                                   population.   [The following assump-
                                   tions are considered  to be valid
                                   with respect to human health  cri-
                                   teria:   the exposed individual  is a
                                   70-kilogram male; the average daily
                                   consumption of estuarine and  fresh-
                                   water organisms is 6.5 grams; and
                                   the average daily consumption of
                                   water is  two liters.   A complete
                                   discussion of the development of
                                   human health criteria may be  found
                                   in the introductory sections  of the
                                   November  28, 1980 Federal  Register
                                   (Vol. 45, No.  231).]

-------
                              A-7
                                   Documented damage to food chain and
                                   flora should be based on authorita-
                                   tive references correlating visable
                                   vegetation stress with contamination
                                   events occurring at the site.

                                   Documented damage to food chain or
                                   fauna should be based on authorita-
                                   tive references (usually bioassay
                                   studies) correlating damage to
                                   domestic animals or their products
                                   that are intended for consumption,
                                   fish or wildlife with contamination
                                   events occurring at the site.

                                   Documented damage to property should
                                   be based on authoritative references
                                   correlating property damage with
                                   contamination events occurring at
                                   the site.   These references may
                                   include, but not be limited to,
                                   insurance claims, regulatory
                                   reports, OSHA citations, and en-
                                   forcement or other legal actions.
                                   Additionally, documented damages to
                                   drinking water (e.g., restriction or
                                   closure of wells) are considered
                                   documented damage to property and
                                   should be annotated on page three
                                   with the appropriate numerical
                                   footnote.

                              Damage to the food chain and to fauna is
                              interpreted as "suspected" where the
                              contaminated site is located on or ad-
                              jacent to agricultural land or to water
                              bodies.   All  other evidence of potential
                              damage is interpreted as "suspected."  If
                              there are reliable studies or reports
                              indicating that any of these media were
                              not contaminated by the incident in
                              question, so indicate.   If file data
                              indicate that damage may have been caused
                              by contaminants that originated off-site,
                              enter the appropriate numerical  footnote,
                              and annotation (s) on page three.

                              Key sampling and analytical  results which
                              support the responses in this section
                              will  be discussed in "General Comments".

16                            Briefly list any relevant epidemiological
                              studies which mention documented or
                              suspected health impacts resulting from

-------
                              A-8
                              the incident in question.   Key sampling
                              and analytical  results  which support the
                              responses in this section  will be dis-
                              cussed in "General  Comments".   If there
                              is no evidence  of such  studies,  indicate
                              "(Not Available)".

17                            Indicate the documented or suspected
                              event causing the incident.   If more than
                              one event is suspected, so indicate.   In
                              specific cases  where there is  evidence  of
                              methane generation  (resulting  from waste
                              degradation), the "event-causing inci-
                              dent" should be indicated  as "suspected
                              fire/ explosion", and it should be noted
                              as "potential"  because  of  the  presence  of
                              methane using the format described in
                              "General Instructions"   Similarly, where
                              a potential  hazard  of flooding exists
                              (for example, in filled lagoons) "sus-
                              pected flood" should be indicated with  an
                              explanatory  note.  Other indicators,  such
                              as evidence  of  airborne particulates or
                              unknown odors,  should be listed.

18                            Indicate the primary characterization of
                              the waste (organic  vs.  inorganic), quan-
                              tity of waste involved  or  potentially
                              involved in  the incident in question, and
                              whether this information is documented  or
                              suspected.   All wastes  generated by the
                              facility, including those  hauled offsite,
                              should be tabulated.   "Documented" waste
                              quantities should be based on  facility
                              records, permit applications,  etc.  If
                              information  on  waste quantity  is unavail-
                              able, that part of  the  form should remain
                              blank.   For  waste quantities specify
                              units (gallons, tons, drums, cubic yards,
                              etc.).   The  "unknown" category will
                              describe sites  where information is
                              lacking, for example, where waste is
                              buried in an unknown form  and  in an
                              unknown quantity.  The  comments section
                              should provide  brief comments  related to
                              the quantities  of waste (e.g., propor-
                              tions;  as percentage of capacity of
                              facility; historic  rate of disposal,
                              etc.).   Specifics will  be  contained in
                              the final section,  "General Comments".

19                            Indicate the major chemicals documented
                              or suspected to have caused contamination
                              of the respective media listed.   Use the

-------
                              A-9
                              following categories:  volatile halogenat-
                              ed organics (VHO's),  non-halogenated
                              organics (VNHO's),  base neutral  extrac-
                              tables (BNEs),  pesticides,  polychlor-
                              inated biphenyls (PCBs),  metals,  oil,
                              ammonia/ ammonia compounds, inorganics,
                              cyanide, acids, acid  compounds,  alkalies,
                              alcohols, aldehydes,  ketones,  radioactive
                              materials and asbestos.   Enter parenthet-
                              ically those chemicals that are  found in
                              highest concentrations or which  are the
                              major suspected contaminants.   If defini-
                              tive data on contaminants are  not avail-
                              able, list general  chemical groupings and
                              indicate "suspected."

20                            List principal  sources of chemical  analy-
                              ses used to document  the  contamination
                              indicated in 19 above, if available.   If
                              the information was derived from a per-
                              mit, list the permit  application number.
                              If the sampling results are presented in
                              a laboratory report,  list the  agency per-
                              forming analytical  work.

21                            Indicate whether legal,  remedial  and/or
                              investigative action  has  been  undertaken
                              in response to the  incident in question.
                              Differentiate between completed  and
                              on-going activities by circling  the
                              appropriate word.   Remedial costs should
                              be provided if available.  Closure and
                              site reclamation costs should  not be in-
                              cluded in cost estimates.  If  USEPA con-
                              cluded that no further action  was war-
                              ranted, indicate this by  annotating
                              "Status of Response"  and  note:   "Investi-
                              gative Action Complete—see General
                              Comments".

22                            Provide sources of  information used to
                              complete the DISF.   This  information
                              should include the  file (e.g.,  site
                              tracking system [STS]),  reports,  and/or
                              consent orders and  the title,  author and
                              date of each document.  Include  the file
                              number, the regional  office, the name and
                              title of the official  administrator and
                              phone number, if available.

23                            Indicate the perceived severity  of envi-
                              ronmental and human health damage as
                              HIGH, MEDIUM, or LOW,  according  to the
                              following guidelines.

-------
A-10
     HIGH human health damage is assigned
     when a damage incident results in
     death, or when a community water
     supply is closed or restricted.   (In
     the latter case also enter the
     appropriate numerical footnote and
     annotation on page five).

     MEDIUM human health damage is assign-
     ed when a damage incident results in
     severe injury or closure of more
     than one private drinking water
     well.   (In the latter case, also
     enter the appropriate numerical
     footnote and annotation on page
     five).

     LOW human health damage is assigned
     when a damage incident results in
     minor injury or the closure of a
     single private drinking water well.
     (In the latter case, also enter the
     appropriate numerical footnote and
     annotation on page five).

     HIGH environmental damage is assign-
     ed when contamination of water
     and/or air exceeds applicable stan-
     dards by ten times, when damage to
     food chain or flora occurs over an
     area greater than one acre, or when
     massive kills occur to fauna.

     MEDIUM environmental damage is
     assigned when contamination of water
     and/or air exceeds applicable stan-
     dards, when damage to food chain or
     flora occurs over an area greater
     than one-half acre (but less than
     one acre), or when limited kills
     occur to fauna.

     LOW environmental damage is assigned
     when detectable contaminants do not
     exceed applicable standards, when
     damage to food chain or fauna occurs
     in limited areas only, when bioassay
     studies confirm tissue damage to
     fauna, or when limited soil contam-
     ination is confirmed by sampling and
     analytical data.

If there is reason to believe that the
severity of damage may be higher than the

-------
                              A-ll
                              assigned value, but information contained
                              in the file is not sufficient to support
                              a higher rating, enter an asterisk (*) in
                              the right-hand margin and a footnote on
                              page five of the DISF that refers the
                              reader to "General Comments".

                              Do not make any notations in Section III
                              if there has been no apparent damage at
                              the site.

                              Discuss the rationale for the ratings in
                              item 24 with any other pertinent comments
                              relating to the incident in question.  In
                              most cases the rating may be determined
                              only after a thorough review of the file
                              is completed.

24                            Indicate overall facility description,
                              including previous and current site
                              activity and surrounding land uses.
                              Describe events or incidents that promp-
                              ted investigation and source of pollut-
                              ants.   List in detail the results of
                              significant analytical data used in
                              support responses in Section V,VI,IX.  If
                              information is available, describe soil
                              conditions, depth to groundwater, direc-
                              tion of groundwater flow, presence and
                              proximity of potable wells,  information
                              concerning affected population,  vegeta-
                              tion stress, property damage,  etc.   This
                              data will  substantiate the perceived
                              severity of environmental and human
                              health damage as indicated in item 23.
                              If no detailed information exists,  so
                              state.   Describe remedial measures being
                              conducted at the site.   List all  recom-
                              mendations provided by the investigative
                              teams,  including those of USEPA FIT,  the
                              State,  local health departments,  etc.
                              Describe any record of compliance with
                              these recommendations.   The  accompanying
                              damage report Contamination  and Events
                              will  be interpreted to mean  both docu-
                              mented and suspected incidents/events
                              unless otherwise noted.

-------
                                    A-12
                     DAMAGE INCIDENT SUMMARY FORM (DISF)

                          (Notes 1 thru 24 refer to
                             DISF instructions)
I.    Site Identification
     A.    Site Name (1)

     B.    Street (2)

     C.    City (3)

     D.    State (4)

     E.    Zip Code (5)

     F.    County Name (6)

     G.    Site Operator Information (7)

          1.    Name

          2.    Street

          3.    City

          4.    State

          5.    Zip Code



     H.    Realty Owner Information (8)

          1.    Name

          2.    Street

          3.    City

          4.    State

          5.    Zip Code



     I.    Latitude/Longitude (9)

     J.    Identification Numbers (10)

          1.    STS Site No.

          2.    NPMO Site No. (FIT No.)

-------
                                  A-13
          3.   NOTIS No.

          4.   RCRA ID. No.

          5.   D & B No.

          6.   State ID No.
II.  Site Description

     A.   Type  (11)
                 Landfill Facility
                 Open Dump
                 Surface Impoundment
                 Incinerator
                 Injection Well
                 Land Treatment
                 Transportation Spill Site
III. Date of Incident/Discovery (12)


IV.  Status of Operations (13)

     	 Active (Year operations began:

     	 Inactive (Year operations began:
V.   Exposed Media (14)
                                   CONTAMINATION
       Storage/Treatment Containers
       Storage/Treatment Tanks
       Storage/Treatment Piles
       Boilers Using Waste as Fuel
       Recycling/Reclamation
       Midnight Dump
   )   (Year of closure:
                              Documented
Suspected
               NO CONTAMINATION
Documented
            Ground Water

            Surface Water

            Air

            Soil

-------
                                    A-14
VI.  Affected Areas (15)
          Human Health



          	 Worker



          	 Non-worker



          Drinking Water



          Food Chain



          Flora



          Fauna



          Property Damage
                                       DAMAGE
                              Documented
Suspected
NO DAMAGE



Documented
VII. Epidemiological Studies (16)
VIII.Event Causing Incident (17)             Documented



     	 Fire/Explosion                     	



     	 Spill                              	



     	 Leak                               	



     	 Flood                              	



     	 Seismic Activity                   	



     	 Erosion (wind or water)            	



     	 Leachate                           	



     	 Emission of Toxic Gases/Mists      	



     	 Other (	)      	
                    Suspected

-------
                                A-15

IX.   Waste Characterization

     A.    Waste Types (18)

                         Organic  Inorganic  Documented  Suspected  Quantity

     	  Sludge
          (pumpable)     	  	  	  	  	
     	  Solid

     	  Liquid

               Bulk
               Contain-
               erized
          Containerized
          Gas
     	  Unknown

     B.    Comments
     C.    Chemicals  Causing Contamination (19)

                                             Documented          Suspected
          Air
          Surface Water
          Ground  Water
          Soil
     D.    Source  (20)

-------
                                A-16

X.    Status of Response (21)

     	  Enforcement or Other Legal Action Underway/Completed

     	  Remedial Action Underway/Completed
          -  Remedial Cost:   $
          Investigative Action Underway
XI.  Sources of Information (22)

   Source          Location                  Contact           Phone No.
                                             High      Medium      Low

XII. Severity of Damage- (23)

     A.   Environmental                      	      	      	

     B.   Human Health                                             	

-------
Section B.I

-------

-------
B.I  Region I Summary

     B.I.I  Region I Overview.  The study team evaluated and completed DISFs
for 41 sites in Region I.Many of these sites contained multiple facilities.
A  total  of  89 facility types were  used in  describing  the sites  in this
region.  Of the 89  facility types evaluated, 28 percent were containers, 25
percent were  landfills,  11  percent  were tanks and  10  percent  were surface
impoundments.   The remaining 26 percent of the facility types were described
by  various  other  categories.   As  discussed  in  Sections  3.1  and  3.2  the
reader should  note  for the following discussion that the data bases and the
selection criteria  utilized on  this  study  limit  the applicability  of  the
conclusion reached herein to other populations of hazardous waste sites.

     Contamination, either documented or suspected, was identified in all of
the sites evaluated.   At 35 of the sites, or 85  percent,  contamination was
documented.   Thirty-two  percent  of the  contamination  incidents  occurred to
soil,   with  the remaining  incidents  occurring to  groundwater  (32 percent),
surface water (30 percent) and air (6 percent).  Of the 120 responses origi-
nally  indicating  contamination,  only 65 (54 percent)  could be  documented
using  the  evaluation  criteria developed in Section 3.1.4.  Each  site  was
evaluated for  damage  occurring  to  life, property  and  various natural  re-
sources.   This  evaluation  focused  on  six  potentially  affected  areas,  in-
cluding drinking water, food chain,  flora, fauna,  human health and property.
Damage,  (either  documented  or  suspected),  was identified  in  at  least  30
sites, or  73  percent of  the sites  evaluated.  Of  the  62 affected  areas
originally indicating damage, only 32 (52 percent)  could be documented using
the evaluation criteria.   Approximately  44  percent of the documented damage
incidents occurred  to property,  with the remaining  incidents  occurring to
drinking water (34 percent), flora (19 percent) and human health (3 percent).
There  was  one incident  involving documented  damage  to  human  health.   This
incident involved  a fire  at  a landfill  reportedly  making  nearby residents
ill.   Seventy-five percent of the incidents causing the damage  or contamin-
ation  described above  were due to leachate  (37 percent),  leaks  (23 percent)
or  spills  (15 percent).    These  incidents involved  contamination  caused by
volatile halogenated organics, volatile nonhalogenated organics  or metals in
69 percent of the incidents tabulated.

     B.I.2  Sources.  The  study  team  preliminarily  identified  54  files  in
Region I  for review.  File  sources included  32 FIT  Files,  21 S&A Files and 1
enforcement file.   One file was not  reviewed  because  the FIT team had negoti-
ated a confidentiality agreement  with the site owners.   Based  upon a review
of  the remaining  53 sites,  12 were  eliminated from the study  because they
did not conform to  the Selection Criteria summarized in Section  3.1,  Table
3-1.

     B.I.3  Tabulation of Site Descriptions  by Facility  Type.   Each site  was
evaluated and  categorized  by one or more  of  the  following fourteen  site
descriptions as listed in Section IIA of the DISFs.

          Landfill  Facility             .     Storage/Treatment  Containers
          Open Dump                     .     Storage/Treatment Tanks
          Surface  Impoundment           .     Storage/Treatment  Piles
          Incinerator                    .     Boilers Using  Waste as Fuel
          Injection Well                 .     Recycling/Reclamation
          Land Treatment                 .     Midnight Dump
          Transportation  Spill  Site      .     Other

-------
                                  B.l-2
     For the  41 sites evaluated  in  the  region,  8 of these  categories  were
identified at least  once,  along  with an  additional  4 "other" categories not
listed in the DISF.   These  other categories included wastewater discharges,
buried sludge pits,  a harbor  and an  auto  repair shop  grease pit.   Table
B.l-1 summarizes the  total  number of facility types  used  in describing the
41 sites  evaluated.   Many of these  sites contained  multiple facilities.   A
total of 89 facility types were used in describing the sites in this region.
Of the 89 facility types  evaluated, approximately 82  percent were identified
as either  containers (28  percent),  landfills (25 percent),  tanks  (11  per-
cent), surface  impoundments  (10  percent) or midnight dumps  (8 percent).   A
total of 26 sites were described by 2 or  more facility types and 14 sites  by
three or more  facility types.

     B.I.4  Contamination Incidents.  Four media, i.e.  groundwater, surface
water, air and  soil,  were evaluated for site-related contamination in  Sec-
tion V of the DISF.  In the remainder of  this section, contamination will  be
interpreted to  mean  both  documented and  suspected incidents/ events, unless
otherwise  noted.   Sites  indicating  the absence of contamination,  and/or
files  not  containing  sufficient information to  determine the  presence  of
contamination,  were  also  identified.  Table B.l-2 summarizes  the  number  of
sites identified with contamination in at  least one of the above media.

     Contamination incidents were  identified  at  all  of the sites evaluated.
A  total  of  120 incidents  involving various media  were recorded  at  these
sites of which  65  (54 percent) could be  documented  by sampling and analyti-
cal  data.   Forty sites were  identified  with contamination  in  two or  more
media.  For example, of the 38 sites indicating soil  contamination, 35 sites
also  indicated  groundwater contamination.  File data indicated that 39 sites
were  contaminated  from incident(s)  occurring at the  site evaluated.   File
data  for the  remaining 2  sites indicated that contamination may have origi-
nated off-site.

     B.I.4.1  Tabulation  of  Media  Exposed  to   Contamination.   Table  B.l-3
summarizes  the  total  number  of  DISF  responses  indicating contamination  or
the  absence  of contamination found by media.   Site files  not containing
sufficient  information to  determine  contamination  were also  recorded for
each  of the  media  evaluated  and noted, under  the  appropriate  heading  in
Table  B.l-3.    This  table  indicates  that   32  percent of  the contamination
incidents  occurred  to  soil.   The  remaining incidents  occurred  to either
groundwater (32 percent),  surface water  (30 percent) or  air  (6 percent).  In
many  cases, contamination to more than one media occurred at any particular
site.

     B.I.4.2    Tabulation  of  Media  Exposed  to  Contamination  Incidents  by
Facility Type.   Table B.l-4  summarizes  the  total number  of DISF  responses
indicating  media  contamination  associated with each  facility  type.   This
analysis suggests that approximately 94 percent of the sites associated with
contamination incidents  were  identified as either  landfills  (31  percent),
containers  (28  percent),  surface impoundments (14 percent),  tanks (11 per-
cent) or midnight dumps (10 percent).  Table  B.l-4 indicates that, for most

-------
                                  B.l-3
                                 Table B.l-1

                                USEPA REGION I
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES      m
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESu;
                   TABULATION OF SITE DESCRIPTIONS  BY  TYPE
Facility
Type
Landfill
Open Dump
Surface Impoundment
Incinerator
Storage/Treatment Contai
Storage/Treatment Tanks
Recycl i ng/Recl amati on
Midnight Dump
Other
Total
Total Number of
Responses Described as
Given Facility Type
22
4
9
4
ners 25
10
4
7
4
89
Percent of
Total
25
5
10
5
28
11
5
8
5
100
*• ^  Sampled sites  were not randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria and
     the implications  of these  criteria  are  discussed in  detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  B.l-4
                                 Table B.l-2

                               USEPA REGION I
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
           TABULATION OF SITES EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
                                        Total  Number of
                                        Sites  (Described      Percent of
Category  Description                   by Category)            Total


1         Sites indicating documented        35                    85
          contamination (to at least
          one medium)

2         Sites indicating suspected          6                    15
          contamination (to at least
          one medium) and not identified
          by Category 1 above

3         Sites indicating                    0                     0
          documented o_r suspected
          absence of contamination
          and not identified by
          Categories 1 and 2 above

4         Sites for which there was           0                     0
          an absence of sufficient
          information in the file to
          make a determination of
          contamination, and not iden-
          tified by Categories 1, 2 or
          3 above
     TOTAL SITES                             41                   100
' '  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.l-5
                                       Table B.l-3

                                      USEPA REGION I
                                  HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES

                  TABULATION OF MEDIA EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENT

                                                                 Insufficient
                     Responses Indicating  Responses Indicating  Information      Total
Media Exposed            Contamination       No Contamination     Available     Responses
                                                                   in File
                     Documented Suspected  Documented  Suspected
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
29
16
1
19
9
20
7
19
I
2
1
0
1
1
4
0
1
2
28
3
41
41
41
41
^ '  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection  criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in  Section  3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                                      B.l-6

                                                    Table  B.l-4

                                                   USEPA REGION  I
                                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                                          DISF  SUMMARY OF  EVALUATED SITES
                          TABULATION OF  MEDIA  EXPOSED  TO  CONTAMINATION  INCIDENT  BY FACiLITY TYPE

Facility
Type


Landfill



Open Dump



Surface
Impoundment


Incinerator





Media Exposed


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Responses
Indicating
Responses

Contamination

Doc.
7
7
0
3
1
0
0
0
3
2
0
2
0
0
0
0

Susp.
15
15
5
17
3
4
0
4
6
7
3
7
0
0
1
0
Indicati
ng
No Contamination

Doc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Susp.
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
4
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File

0
0
16
2
0
0
4
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
3
0

Total
Responses


22
22
22
22
4
4
4
4
9
9
9
9
4
4
4
4
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly  selected.  Site selection criteria and the  implications of  these
     criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                                  B.l-7

                                                Table B.l-4
Facility
Type
           Media Exposed
                    Responses
                    Indicating
                    Contamination
                                        Doc.
                                         Susp.
Responses
Indicating
No Contamination
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File
  Total
Responses
                                        Doc.
          Susp.
Injection
Well
           Groundwater
           Surface Water
           Air
           Soil
Land
Treatment
(2)
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Transportation
Spill Siteu;
           Groundwater
           Surface Water
           Air
           Soil
Storage Treat-
ment Containers


Storage Treat-
ment Tanks


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
3
2
0
5
1
0
0
1
17
16
5
16
7
7
2
6
2
3
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
2
I
2
1
1
4
1
1
2
19
1
1
1
4
2
25
25
25
25
10
10
10
10
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implications of these
     criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                                       B.l-8

                                                Table B.l-4 (cont'd)
                                                (1)
Facility
Type
Media Exposed
Responses
Indicating
Contamination
                                        Doc.
                              Susp.
Responses
Indicating
No Contamination
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File
  Total
Responses
                    Doc.
          Susp.
Storage Treat
ment Piles
             .(2)
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Boilers Using
Waste as Fuel
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Recycling
Reclamation


Midnight
Dump


(1) Sampled
criteria
(2) Facility
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
sites were not randomly
are discussed in detail
type not identified in
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
selected.
in Section
2
2
0
I
6
5
1
7
Site
3.1.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
selection
1 and 3.2.
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
criteria and the
1.
2
2
2
3
0
1
5
0
implications

4
4
4
4
7
7
7
7
of these

files evaluated.

-------
                                  B.l-9
containers (28  percent),  surface  impoundments (14 percent),  tanks  (11 per-
cent) or midnight  dumps  (10 percent).   Table B.l-4 indicates that,  for most
of the incidents tabulated, in decreasing order of occurrence, contamination
to:

          0    groundwater was  associated with  landfills,  containers, sur-
               face impoundments,  and tanks;
          0    surface  water  was  associated  with  landfills,  containers,
               surface impoundments, and tanks;
          0    soil  was  associated  with  containers,  landfills,   surface
               impoundments, and tanks; and
          0    air  was  associated  with  containers,  landfills,  surface  im-
               poundments, and tanks.

     B.I.5 Events Causing Contamination.   Contaminated sites were associated
with one or more of the following events,  as outlined in Section VIII of the
DISF.

          Fire/Explosion           .    Seismic Activity
          Spill                     .    Erosion
          Leak                     .    Leachate
          Flood                    .    Emission of Toxic Gases/Mists

     In the  remainder of  this section,  events  tabulated will  include both
documented and suspected events, unless otherwise noted.

     Seven of the above events were identified at least once, along with one
other type  not  listed  in the  DISF.   This  other  event  was described  as  a
wastewater discharge.  A total of 13 sites (32 percent) were involved in two
events and 14 sites  (34 percent) in three or more events.

     B.I.5.1  Tabulation  of Events Causing  Contamination  Incidents.  Table
B.l-5 summarizes the total number of events causing contamination incidents.
In  total,  81  contamination  events  involving  various facility  types were
recorded  in  the  DISFs.   For  this region,  this tabulation  indicates that
approximately 75 percent of the contamination events  were related to leachate
(37  percent),  leaks  (23  percent) or  spills  (15 percent).   Of  the  81 con-
tamination events tabulated, 36 (44 percent) could be documented from infor-
mation available in the file.

     B.I.5.2  Tabulation of Events Causing Contamination Incidents By Facil-
ity  Type.  Table B.l-6 summarizes the events causing contamination incidents
at  various  facility  types.   Since  a   number  of sites  contained  a  multiple
number of  facilities,  there were  a number of cases where there was insuffi-
cient information available in the file to identify the damage incident with
the  specific  facility unit in question.   These represented approximately 17
percent of the total and are identified in  Table B.l-6.

     This  analysis  indicates  that approximately 80  percent  of the  leachate
events were  associated  with landfills (40 percent),  containers (27 percent)
or  surface  impoundments  (13 percent).  Leaks were found to occur primarily
at  container storage  facilities  (43  percent),  landfills  (23  percent)  and
tanks (14 percent).  Approximately 77 percent of the spill events were

-------
                                  B.I-10
                                 Table B.l-5

                                USEPA REGION I
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES

            TABULATION OF EVENTS CAUSING CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS


Event	              Documented
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic Gases/Mists
Other
Total
7
4
1
0
0
2
19
2
1
36
1
8
18
1
0
0
11
5
1
45
8
12
19
1
0
2
30
7
2
81
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are  discussed in  detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.I-11
                                        Table B.l-6

                                       USEPA REGION I
                                   HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
           TABULATION OF EVENTS CAUSING CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS BY FACILITY TYPE
                                                                 Insufficient
                                                                 Information
Facility
Type
Landfill









Open
Dump








Surface
Impound-
ments








Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other

Documented
1 ,
0
0
0
0
1
6

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2

0
0

Suspected
1
6
8
0
0
0
16

3
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2

0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
5

2
0
Available
in File
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0

1
0

Total
2
6
8
0
o
0
22

4
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
3

0
0
* 1
3
3
1
0
1
7

3
0
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria  and  the
     implications of these criteria are  discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.I-12
                                   Table B.l-6 (cont'd)
                                                       (1)
Facility
               Event
                          Documented     Suspected
                                                  Insufficient
                                                  Information
                                                   Available
                                                   in File
                              Total
Incinerator
Injection
WellCZJ
      Fire/Explosion
      Spills
      Leaks
      Flood  ,
      Seismic Activity
      Erosion     ^
      Leachate
      Emission of Toxic
        Gases/Mists
      Other
                         0
                         0
                         0
                         0
                         0
                         0
                         0

                         0
                         0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

4
0
      Fire/Explosion
      Spills
      Leaks
      Flood
      Seismic Activity
      Erosion
      Leachate
      Emission of Toxic
        Gases/Mists
      Other
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

4
0
Land
Treatment
(2)
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
  Gases/Mists
Other
Transporta-
tion/SDill
Site129
      Fire/Explosion
      Spills
      Leaks
      Flood
      Seismic Activity
      Erosion
      Leachate
      Emission of Toxic
        Gases/Mists.
      Other
Cl)  SampTeasites were not randomly selected.Site selection
     implications of these "criteria are discussed in detail in
     3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.
                                                      criteria ana the
                                                      Section 3.1.1 and

-------
                                           B.I-13
                                     Table B.l-6 (cont'd)
                                                         (1)
                                                              Insufficient
                                                               Information
Facility
Type
Storage
Treatment
Containers







Storage
Treatment
Tanks







Storage
Treatment
Pilesu;








Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other

Documented
2
1
2
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0










Suspected
2
4
13
0
0
0
15

3
0
1
2
5
0
0
0
5

1
0









Available
in File
1
2
2
0
0
0
2

1
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
0

0
0










Total
5
7
17
0
0
0
17

4
0
2
4
8
0
0
0
5

1
0









Boilers
Using Waste
as Fuelu;
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
  Gases/Mists
Other
(T)Sampled sites were not randomly selected.Site  selection  criteria  and  the
     implications of these criteria are  discussed  in  detail  in  Section 3.1.1 and  3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files  evaluated.

-------
                                           B.l-14
                                     Table  B.l-6  (cont'd)
                                                         (1)


Facility
Type
Recycling
Reclamation








Midnight
Dump











Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other



Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0



Suspected
1
1
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
1
1
4
0
0
0
4

1
1
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
2
2
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0



Total
1
3
2
0
0
0
2

0
0
2
1
4
0
0
0
4

1
1
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and  the
     implications of these criteria are  discussed  in  detail  in  Section 3.1.1 and  3.2.1.

-------
                                  B.I-15
associated with storage or treatment facilities (all types) (42 percent) and
landfills  (35 percent).   Air pollution  events,  i.e.,   emissions  of toxic
gases and  mists,  were most commonly associated with  landfills (36 percent)
and  containers (27  percent).  Facilities  having  the  highest  frequency of
fires and explosions were containers (36 percent) and landfills and midnight
dumps (each 18 percent).

     B.I.6  Chemicals Documented in Contamination Incidents.  For this anal-
ysis,  chemicalcompounds  were organized  into  the following  general  cate-
gories:

          Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHOs)          .    Inorganics
          Volatile Non-halogenated Organics (VNHOs)     .    Cyanide
          Base Neutral Extractables (BNEs)              .    Acids
          Pesticides                                    .    Acid Compounds
          PCBs                                          .    Alkalies
          Metals                                        .    Alcohols
          Oil                                           .    Aldehydes
          Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds                     .    Ketones
          Asbestos                                      .    Radioactive

Table B.l-7  summarizes  the total  number of times that a chemical in a given
category was  positively  identified by sampling and analytical  techniques as
occurring as contaminants  in the various media.

     Twelve  of these  chemical categories  were identified at  least  once,
along  with two additional  categories not  listed  above.   These  other cat-
egories  included greases and  esters.  This tabulation indicates that approx-
imately 69 percent of the chemical  categories were  identified as either VHOs
(31 percent),  VNHOs  (23  percent)  or metals (15 percent).   Table B.l-8 lists
the most commonly occurring chemicals found in each of these categories,  and
the range of concentrations observed in the affected media.

     B.I.7  Damage Incidents.   The following six affected areas were evalu-
ated for site related damage on the  DISF.

          Drinking Water                .     Fauna
          Food Chain                    .     Human  Health
          Flora                         .     Property Damage

     In  the  remainder of  this section damage  will  be interpreted  to mean
both documented and suspected  incidents/events unless otherwise  noted.

     Damage  was  identified for  at least  30  sites,  or 73 percent, of  the
sites  evaluated.   As  noted   in  Section  B.I.4  all  of  the sites  indicated
contamination.  Damage  was indicated  in  approximately  73  percent of  the
contaminated  sites  evaluated.  Of the  62 affected areas indicating  damage
only 32 (52 percent) could be documented using the evaluation criteria.

     Sites  indicating the absence  of damage,  and/or   files not  containing
sufficient information to determine damage, were also identified.  A tabula-
tion of  sites identified  with damage for  at  least one  of the above  cate-
gories is outlined in Table B.l-9.  Of note, are the  18 sites  (44 percent)

-------
                                      B.I-16
                                    Table B.l-7

                                   USEPA REGION I
                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                         DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES

              TABULATION OF CHEMICALS DOCUMENTED IN CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS


                                                  Total Positive           Percent
Chemical Category	Identifications	of Total

Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHOs)                   29                      31
Volatile Non-halogenated Organics (VNHOs)              22                      23
Base Neutral Extractables (BNEs)                       10                      11
Pesticides                                              1                       1
PCBs                                                    4                       4
Metals                                                 14                      15
Oil                                                     1                       1
Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds                               1                       1
Inorganics                                              0                       0
Cyanide                                                 1                       1
Acids                                                   0                       0
Acid Compounds                                          2                       2
Alkalies                                                0                       0
Alcohols                                                I                       1
Aldehydes                                               0                       0
Ketones                                                 6                       6
Radioactive                                             0                       0
Asbestos                                                0                       0
Others                                                  2                       2

Total                                                  94                     100
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and
     3.2.1.

-------
                                             B.I-17
                                     Table B.l-8
                                   USEPA REGION I
                                HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                           DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                                           (1)
                  CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED BY MEDIA
Most Frequently
Observed
Chemical Category
          Contaminant
                                     Contaminant Concentration Range
  Groundwater
      (mg/1)
Surface water  boil      Air
    (mg/1)    (rag/kg)  (mg/1)
VHOs
VNHOs
Metals
1,1,1 trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
dichloromethane
benzene
toluene
xylene
lead
manganese
chromium
0.003-  2.68  0.009- 1.60
0.011- 43.0   0.004- 0.840
0.230- 19.0   trace- 7.70
0.009-  6.00  0.004-22.0
0.0064-29.0   0.001- 2.40
0.020- 18.8   0.040- 1.70
0.034-  8.1   trace- 0.16
0.39- 120     trace- 0.24
0.140-  0.334     ND
            0.080-  1.37  ND
            trace-  0.10  ND
                 ND       ND
                 ND       ND
            0.78-   3.54  ND
                 ND       ND
            trace-  0.630 ND
                 ND       ND
            0.110-960     ND
NOTES:
     ND = no data available
     (1)     Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
        the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
        3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  B.I-18
                                 Table B.l-9

                               USEPA REGION I
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                         TABULATION OF SITES DAMAGED
Category
Description
Total Number of
Sites (Described
by Category)
   Percent of
»     Total
          Sites indicating documented
          damage (to at least
          one affected area)

          Sites indicating suspected
          damage (to at least one
          affected area) and not
          identified by Category 1
          above

          Sites indicating
          documented or suspected
          absence of damage and not
          identified by Categories
          1  and 2 above

          Sites for which there was
          an absence of sufficient
          information in the file to
          make a determination of
          damage and not identified
          by Categories 1,2 and 3
          above
                              19
                              11
                           46
                           27 .
                              10
                           24
     TOTAL SITES
                             41
                          100
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  B.l-19
identified  as  having damage to two  or  more  affected  areas.  Of the 38 sites
indicating  soil  contamination, 17  sites also  indicated damage to drinking
water.   Also, of the 41 sites indicating soil and/or surface water contami-
nation, 10 sites also indicated damage to flora,  fauna  or  the food chain.

     B.I.7.1   Tabulation  of  Number, Type and Severity  of Damage Incidents.
Table B.I-10 summarizes the total number of DISF responses indicating damage
to  the  above  affected areas.   Site  files not containing sufficient informa-
tion to  determine  damage were also  recorded and noted under the appropriate
heading in Table B.l-10.

     Table  B.l-10  indicates  that  43 percent of  the documented  damage  in-
cidents  occurred to property, with the  remaining  incidents  occurring to
drinking water (33  percent),  flora (20  percent)  and human  health (3 per-
cent).

     Table  B.l-10  indicates  that  of the 41 sites evaluated,  24 sites  (58
percent) indicated high environmental damage, 4 sites (10 percent) indicated
medium environmental  damage  and  6 sites (15 percent) indicated low environ-
mental damage.  The  remaining 7  site files  indicated no apparent damage (5
percent) or did  not have enough information available  (12  percent) to make
an  evaluation.  Of  note,  are  the files associated with the 9 sites (22 per-
cent) which suggested that the actual damage may be higher than the response
described in  the  DISF,  but the file contained  insufficient  analytical  data
available to support a higher damage rating.

     The analysis also indicated that out of the 41 sites evaluated, no site
indicated high human health  damage, 8 sites (20  percent)  indicated  medium
human  health   damage  and  3  sites  (7   percent)  indicated low  human  health
damage.  The  remaining  30 sites  indicated  no apparent  damage  (i.e.,  there
was no data available on public health damages) (39 percent) or while there
was some data  there was not enough information available to make an evalua-
tion (34 percent).  Of note, are the files associated with 17 sites (41 per-
cent) which suggested that the actual human health damage may be higher than
the severity response described in the DISF,  but the files contained insuffi-
cient analytical  data available to support a higher  damage rating.

     B.I.7.2   Tabulation  of  Number and Severity of  Damage   Incidents  by
Facility Type.  Table B.l-11 summarizes the DISF responses indicating  damage
to  each  affected area by associated facility type.  This analysis indicates
that approximately 82 percent of  the damage incidents were  associated  with
storage facilities  (42  percent),  landfills  (28 percent)  or surface impound-
ments (12 percent).   The  remaining  18  percent of  the damage  incidents  were
associated  with  open dumps,  incinerators,  recycling/reclamation,  and  mid-
night dumps.

     Table B.l-11 also  indicates  that  80 percent  of the  incidents involving
damage to drinking  water  involved  containers and  tanks  (39 percent) ,  land-
fills (28 percent) and surface impoundments (13 percent).  Table B.l-11 also
identifies  the severity of damage to environment and/or human health.   Land-
fills,  storage facilities and  surface impoundments  resulted in  88 percent of
the cases  involving high  or  medium environmental  damage and 33  percent of
the cases involving high or medium human  health damage.

-------
                                                        B.l-20

                                                     Table B.I-10

                                                    USEPA REGION I
                                                HAZARDOUS WASTE  SITES
                                           OISF  SUMMARY OF EVALUATED  SITES
                                TABULATION  OF  NUMBER  & SEVERITY OF DAMAGE  INCIDENTS
Affected Area
       Damage

Documented Suspected
              No Damage

         Documented Suspected
                   Insufficient
                   Information
                    Available
                     in File
                    Total
Drinking Wat
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
11
0
6
0
1
14
8
1
2
2
14
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
4
7
18
8
12
33
29
32
8
16
41
41
41
41
41
41
Environmental
Human Health
                                   Severity  of  Damage
     24
      0
4
8
                                                            Insufficient
                                                            Information
Affected Area
High
Med
Low
Available
in File
No Apparent
Damage
Total Number
of Responses
6
3
 5
14
 2
16
41
41
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and  the  implications  of these criteria
     are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1  and  3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.l-21
                                        Table B.l-11

                                       USEPA REGION I
                                   HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES     m
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESu;

             TABULATION OF NUMBER & SEVERITY DAMAGE INCIDENTS BY FACILITY TYPE
                                         Landfill
                                                  No Damage
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Documented Suspected     Documented Suspected
     0
     0
     1
     0
     1
     0
11
 1
 3
 1
 7
 9
        1
        0
        0
        0
        0
        0
             1
             2
             2
             1
             8
             2
         Insufficient
         Information
          Available
           in File      Total

              9          22
             19          22
             16          22
             20          22
              6          22
             11          22
                                    Severity of Damage


Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health


High
7
0


Medium
0
0


Low
1
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
14
16


No Apparent
Damage
0
6


Total Number
of Responses
22
22
                                         Open Dump
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
     1
     0
     0
     0
     0
     1
1              00
0              00
1              01
0              00
2              01
1              01

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 2          4
                                 4          4
                                 2          4
                                 4          4
                                 1          4
                                 1          4
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medi urn   Low
     1
     0
0
1
0
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   3
   2
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    1
Total Number
of Responses

     4
     4
IT)Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1 and
     3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.l-22
                                     Table B.l-11 (cont'd)(1)
                                   Surface Impoundments
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     2
     0
5              10
0              00
3              00
1              00
3              04
2              00

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 3          9
                                 9          9
                                 6          9
                                 8          9
                                 2          9
                                 7          9
     High   Medium   Low
1
0
0
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   6
   6
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    3
Total Number
of Responses

     9
     9
                                        Incinerator
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
0              04
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00

 Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
0
0
0
0
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 0          4
                                 4          4
                                 4          4
                                 4          4
                                 4          4
                                 4          4
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   4
   4
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    0
Total Number
of Responses

     4
     4
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.l-23
                                     Table B.I-11 (cont'd)(1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
                                      Injection Well
                                                    (2)
       Damage                 No Damage

Documented Suspected     Documented Suspected
                                    Severity of Damage
     High   Medi urn   Low
  Insufficient
  Information
   Available
    in File
                         Insufficient
                         Information
                          Available
                           in File
                        Total
No Apparent
  Damage
Total Number
of Responses
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
                                      Land Treatment
       Damage

Documented Suspected
     No Damage

Documented Suspected
                                    Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
  Insufficient
  Information
   Available
    in File
         Insufficient
         Information
          Available
           in File
          Total
No Apparent
  Damage
Total Number
of Responses
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                           B.I-24
                                     Table B.I-11 (cont'd)(1)
                                 Transportation Spill  Site^ '
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
Damage
Documented Suspected
Severity
High Medium Low

No Damage
Documented Suspected
of Damage
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File Total

Insufficient
Information
Available No Apparent Total Number
in File Damage of Responses


Storage Treatment Containers
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
Damage
Documented Suspected
1 11
0 1
1 5
0 0
0 9
2 9
Severity
High Medium Low
3 02
0 10
No Damage
Documented Suspected
1 6
0 6
0 5
0 6
0 10
0 6
of Damage
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File Total
6 25
18 25
14 25
19 25
6 25
8 25
Insufficient
Information
Available No Apparent Total Number
in File Damage of Responses
17 3
17 7
25
25
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                           B.l-25
                                     Table B.l-11 (cont'd)
                                                          (1)
                                  Storage Treatment Tanks
       Damage.

Documented Suspected
     No Damage

Documented Suspected
                                                                      Insufficient
                                                                      Information
                                                                       Available
                                                                        in File
                                                                 Total
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
0
0
0
0
0 % 4-

3
0
2
0
4 '
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
2
3
4
2
2
7
6
7
2
3 •
10
10
10
10
10
10
                                    Severity of Damage


Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health


High
1
0


Medium
0
0


Low
0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
8
8


No Apparent Total Number
Damage
1
2
\ 	
of Responses
10
10
                                  Storage Treatment Piles'
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
                              No Damage

                         Documented Suspected
                         Insufficient
                         Information
                          Available
                           in File
          Total
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
                           Insufficient
                           Information
                            Available
                             in  File
                No Apparent
                  Damage
Total Number
of Responses
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                           B.I-26
                                     Table B.I-11 (cont'd)(1)
Affected Area
                                Boilers Using Waste as Fuel
                                                           (2)
       Damage                 No Damage

Documented Suspected     Documented Suspected
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File
Total
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage


Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health



High


Severity


Medium Low


of Damage
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File






No Apparent Total Number
Damage of Responses




Recycl ing/Reclamation



Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage




Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health

Dama

Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0




High
0
0

Si-

Suspected
2
0
0
0
2
2
Severity



Medium Low
0 0
0 0

No Damage

Insufficient
Information
Available
Documented Suspected in F^3
1
0
0
0
0
0
of Damage
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
4
3
0 i
0 4
0 4
0 4
1 1
0 2






Total
4
4
4
4
4
4



No Apparent Total Number
Damage of Responses
0 4
1 4


(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                           B.l-27
                                     Table B.l-11 (cont-'d)
                                                          (1)
                                       Midnight Dump
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     1
     0
     0
     0
     0
     1
     1
     0
3              00
0              00
1              01
0              00
4              03
3              03

 Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
0
1
0
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   6
   5
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 3          7
                                 7          7
                                 5          7
                                 7          7
                                 0          7
                                 0          7
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    2
Total Number
of Responses

     7
     7
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  B.I-28
     B.I.8  Status of Response.   Table B.I-12 summarizes  the  status of each
site  evaluatedfrom  the  standpoint  of  enforcement,  investigative  and re-
medial  activites.   This  table indicates  that only 22 percent  of  the files
evaluated indicated that  the  sites identified were involved  in either past
or  present  legal  or enforcement  actions.   However,  33 (80  percent) site
files  indicated  that additional  environmental  investigations  were  in prog-
ress or completed.  Fifteen  (37  percent)  sites were reported to be involved
with past or present remedial activities.

     Table  B.I-12  also compares  the damage incident type with the  remedial
activities  and  related  costs for  sites  having  cost  data  available.  These
activities  included removal  of wastes and groundwater withdrawal and treat-
ment.  Available data on  expenditures for remedial activities for the sites
ranged from  $500,000 to $570,000.

-------
                                  B.I-29
                                Table B.I-12

                               USEPA REGION I
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                                       (1)
                             STATUS OF RESPONSE
   evaluated
                            Total Number of Sites.
     ...with legal/
     enforcement
     action under-
     way/completed
               ...with investi-
               gative actions
               underway/com-
               pleted
...with remedial
actions under-
way/completed
     41
                              33
                                   15
                      DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
Damage    Facility
Incident    type
          Location
               Remedial Activity
     Costs ($)
1.   Leaks
SI
2.   Leachate   SI, I,
               STC
Burnville, RI  Removal  of wastes

Smithfield, RI Removal  of drums,
               withdrawal of
               groundwater and
               treatment of
               contaminated water
     500,000

     570,000
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------

-------
Section B.2

-------

-------
B.2  Region  II  Summary

     B.2.1   Region  II Overview.   The  study  team  evaluated  and  completed
DISFs for  214  sites in  Region II.   Many of  these  sites  contained multiple
facilities.   A total of 380 facility types were used in describing the sites
in this region.  Of  the  380 facility types evaluated, 35 percent were land-
fills, 22 percent were  containers,  13 percent were surface impoundments and
7 percent were tanks.  The remaining 23 percent  of  the  facility types were
described by various  other categories.  As  discussed in  Sections  3.1  and
3.2, the reader should note for the following discussion that the data bases
and the selection criteria utilized on this study limit the applicability of
the conclusions reached herein to other populations of hazardous waste sites.

     Contamination,   either documented  or  suspected,  was identified  in  at
least 199 sites, or 93 percent of the sites evaluated.  At 121 of the sites,
or  57  percent, contamination  was  documented.  Thirty-three  percent of the
contamination  incidents  occurred to  groundwater,  with the  remaining inci-
dents occurring to soil  (28 percent), surface water (28 percent) and air (11
percent).   Of  the  480 responses  originally  indicating contamination,  only
173 (36 percent)  could be documented using the evaluation criteria developed
in  Section  3.1.4.   Each  site  was  evaluated  for  damage  occurring to life,
property,  and  various  natural  resources.  This  evaluation focused  on  six
potentially  affected areas,  including drinking  water,  food chain,  flora,
fauna, human health and property.  Damage, (either documented or suspected),
was identified in at least 137 sites, or 64 percent of the sites evaluated.
Of the 286 affected areas originally indicating damage, only 93  (32 percent)
could be documented using  the evaluation criteria.  Approximately 36 percent
of the documented damage  incidents  occurred to property,  with the remaining
incidents occurring to  drinking water  (28  percent),  flora (18  percent),
human health (7  percent),  fauna and food chain  (11 percent).   There were 7
incidents  involving  documented  damage  to  human  health.   Seventy-eight
percent of the incidents causing the damage or contamination described above
were  due  to leachate  (42  percent),  leaks  (23 percent)  or  spills  (13 per-
cent).  These  incidents  involved contamination  caused by  volatile  haloge-
nated organics,  volatile  nonhalogenated  organics or metals in 55 percent of
the incidents tabulated.

     B.2.2   Sources.  The  study team preliminarily  identified  253  files  in
Region II  for  review.   File  sources  included  125 FIT  Files   and  128 S&A
Files.  Based  upon  a review of  the 253 sites, 39 were eliminated  from the
study because  they  did  not conform to the  Selection Criteria summarized in
Section 3.1,  Table 3-1.

     B.2.3  Tabulation of Site Descriptions by Facility Type.   Each site was
evaluated and  categorized  by one  or more of  the  following fourteen  site
descriptions as listed in Section IIA of the  DISFs.
          Landfill  Facility             .     Storage/Treatment Containers
          Open Dump                     .     Storage/Treatment Tanks
          Surface Impoundment           .     Storage/Treatment Piles
          Incinerator                   .     Boilers Using Waste as Fuel
          Injection Well                 .     Recycling/Reclamation
          Land.Treatment                .     Midnight Dump
          Transportation Spill Site     .     Other

-------
                                    B.2-2
identified at least  once,  along with an additional 3 "other" categories not
listed in  the DISF.   These other categories  included  wastewater discharge,
chemical/physical  treatment,  and well  field.   Table  B.2-1  summarizes  the
total number  of  facility  types  used in describing  the  214 sites evaluated.
Many of these sites  contained multiple facilities.  A  total  of 380 facility
types were used in describing the sites in this region.  Of the 380 facility
types evaluated,  approximately  83  percent  were identified  as  either land-
fills (35  percent),  containers  (22  percent), surface  impoundments  (13 per-
cent), tanks  (7  percent),  or midnight dumps  (6 percent).  A  total  of 112
sites were  described by 2 or more  facility  types  and  37  sites  by  three or
more facility types.

     B.2.4  Contamination Incidents.  Four media,  i.e.  groundwater,  surface
water, air and soil,  were evaluated for site-related  contamination  in Sec-
tion V of the DISF.  In the remainder of this section,  contamination will be
interpreted to mean  both documented and suspected incidents/events,  unless
otherwise  noted.   Sites  indicating the  absence  of contamination,  and/or
files not  containing  sufficient  information to determine the  presence of
contamination, were  also  identified.   Table B.2-2  summarizes the  number of
sites identified  with contamination in at least one  of the above media.

     Contamination incidents  were identified in  at least 199  sites,  or 93
percent of the sites evaluated.   A  total  of 480 incidents involving various
media were recorded  at these  sites  of which 173 (36 percent) could be docu-
mented by  sampling  and analytical   data.   One-hundred and  sixty-two  sites
were  identified  with contamination  in  two or more  media.   For example, of
the  133   sites   indicating  soil  contamination, 108  sites  also  indicated
groundwater contamination.  File  data  indicated  that 191 sites were contam-
inated from incident(s) occurring at the site evaluated.  File data for the
remaining  eight   sites indicated  that  contamination   may  have  originated
off-site.

     B.2.4.1   Tabulation of  Media Exposed to Contamination.    Table   B.2-2
summarizes the total  number  of DISF responses  indicating contamination or
the  absence   of  contamination  found  by media.  Site  files  not containing
sufficient  information to  determine contamination  were also  recorded  for
each of the media evaluated and noted under the  appropriate heading in Table
B.2-3  This table  indicates  that 33 percent  of  the contamination  incidents
occurred to  groundwater.   The  remaining  incidents occurred  to either soil
(28  percent), surface  water  (28 percent)  or  air  (11  percent).   In many
cases, contamination  to more than one media  occurred at any particular site.

     B.2.4.2      Tabulation of Media Exposed to Contamination Incidents by
Facility Type.  Table  B.2-4 summarizes the  total  number  of DISF  responses
indicating  media contamination  associated with  each   facility type.   This
analysis suggests that approximately 87 percent of  the  sites associated with
contamination incidents  were  identified as  either^ landfills  (34  percent),
containers (23 percent),  surface  impoundments (15  percent), tanks  (  8 per-
cent) or midnight  dumps (7 percent).  Table B.2-4  indicates  that,  for most
of the incidents  tabulated, in decreasing order of  occurrence, contamination
to:

-------
                                    B.2-3
                                 Table  B.2-1

                                USEPA REGION II
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES      m
                       DISF SUMMARY OF  EVALUATED SITESUJ
                   TABULATION OF SITE DESCRIPTIONS  BY  TYPE
Total Number of
Facility Responses Described as
Type Given Facility Type
Landf i 1 1
Open Dump
Surface Impoundment
Incinerator
Injection Well
Land Treatment
Transportation Spill Site
Storage/Treatment Containers
Storage/Treatment Tanks
Storage/Treatment Pile
Boilers Using Waste as Fuel
Recycl i ng/Recl amati on
Midnight Dump
Wastewater Discharge
Other
Total
131
20
50
7
1
1
2
82
25
7
3
12
23
13
3
380
Percent of
Total
35
5
13
2
0
0
1
22
7
2
1
3
6
3
1
100
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly  selected.   Site  selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria  are  discussed in detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                    B.2-4
                                  Table B.2-2

                               USEPA REGION II
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
           TABULATION OF SITES EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
                                        Total Number of
                                        Sites (Described      Percent of
Category       Description                by Category)          Total


1         Sites indicating documented        121                   57
          contamination (to at least
          one medium)

2         Sites indicating suspected          78                   36
          contamination (to at least
          one medium) and not identified
          by Category 1 above

3         Sites indicating                    12                    6
          documented or suspected
          absence of contamination
          and not identified by
          Categories 1 and 2 above

4         Sites for which there was            3                    1
          an absence of sufficient
          information in the file to
          make a determination of
          contamination, and not iden-
          tified by Categories 1, 2 or
          3 above
     TOTAL SITES                             214                  100
(1)  Sampled sites were  not  randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these  criteria are discussed in detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                             B.2-5
Media Exposed
                                        Table B.2-3

                                      USEPA REGION II
                                  HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
TABULATION OF MEDIA EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENT

                                               Insufficient
   Responses Indicating  Responses Indicating  Information
       Contamination       No Contamination     Available
                                                 in File
   Documented Suspected  Documented  Suspected
  Total
Responses
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
76
36
12
49
83
101
39
84
9
3
0
1
15
22
79
22
31
52
84
58
214
214
214
214
         (1)  Sampled sites were not  randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and
              the implications of these  criteria  are discussed in detail  in  Section
              3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                                        B.2-6

                                                     Table  B.2-4

                                                   USEPA REGION II
                                               HAZARDOUS WASTE  SITES
                                          DISF  SUMMARY  OF EVALUATED SITES
(1)
                          TABULATION OF  MEDIA  EXPOSED  TO  CONTAMINATION  INCIDENT  BY  FACILITY TYPE

Facility
Type


Landfill



Open Dump



Surface
Impoundment


Incinerator





Media Exposed


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Responses
Indicating


Contamination

Doc.
29
15
6
14
1
0
1
3
8
6
0
9
0
0
1
0

Susp.
71
67
19
59
12
11
3
11
30
29
10
30
0
0
4
0
Responses
Indicating


No Contamination

Doc.
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
0
1

Susp.
9
14
46
13
3
2
6
1
4
5
21
5
6
6
0
6
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File

17
34
60
45
4
7
10
5
5
9
19
6
0
1
2
0

Total
Responses


131
131
131
131
20
20
20
20
50
50
50
50
7
7
7
7
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria and the  implications of these  criteria  are
     discussed in detail  in Section  3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                                       B.2-7

                                               Table  B.2-4  (cont'd)
        (1)
                                        Responses
Responses
Insufficient
Facility
Type


Injection
Well


Land
Treatment


Transportation
Spill Site


Storage Treat-
ment Containers


Storage Treat-
ment Tanks


Indicating
Media Exposed


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Contami

Doc.




0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
1
6
1
2
0
3
nation

Susp.




0
1
1
1
I
1
0
1
52
46
20
55
15
16
12
16
Indicating
No

Doc




0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Contamination

Susp.




0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
8
10
26
5
5
5
9
4
Information
Available
in File

1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
16
23
35
16
3
2
4
2
Total
Responses


1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
82
82
82
82
25
25
25
25
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and  the implications  of these criteria are
     discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1  and  3.2.1.

-------
                                                       B.2-8
                                                Table B.2-4 (cont'd)
        (1)
                                        Responses
Responses
Insufficient
Facility
Type


Storage Treat-
ment Piles


Boilers Using
Waste as Fuel


Recycling/
Reclamation


Midnight
Dump


Wastewater
Discharge



Media Exposed


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Indicati
ng
Contamination

Doc.
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
2
0
3

Susp.
3
4
4
4
0
0
0
0
6
5
4
6
16
19
5
16
5
6
0
5
Indicating

No Contamination

Doc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Susp.
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
5
3
0
0
5
0
1
1
10
3
Information
Available
in File

2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
5
3
3
5
4
13
6
5
4
3
2
Total
Responses


7
7
7
7
3
3
3
3
12
12
12
12
23
23
23
23
13
13
13
13
7JT)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria
     are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
            and the implications of these criteria

-------
                                    B.2-9
          0    groundwater  was  associated with  landfills,  surface impound-
               ment, containers, tanks,  and midnight dumps;
          0    surface water was associated with landfills, surface impound-
               ments, containers, tanks, and midnight dumps;
          0    soil  was  associated with  landfills,   surface  impoundments,
               containers, tanks, midnight dumps; and
          0    air was associated with landfills, surface impoundments,
               containers, tanks, midnight dump, and incinerators.

     B.2.5   Events  Causing  Contamination.   Contaminated sites were associ-
ated with  one  or more of the following events,  as outlined in Section VIII
of the DISF.

          Fire/Explosion           .    Seismic Activity
          Spill                    .    Erosion
          Leak                     .    Leachate
          Flood                    .    Emission of Toxic Gases/Mists

     In  the  remainder of  this  section, events tabulated  will  include both
documented and suspected events,  unless otherwise noted.

     Seven of  these events  were identified at  least once,  along with one
other  type not listed  in the DISF.  This other event was described as waste-
water  discharge.   A total  of 91  sites (43 percent)  were involved  in two
events and 31 sites  (14 percent)  in three or more events.

     B.2.5.1  Tabulation  of Events Causing  Contamination Incidents.   Table
B.2-5  summarizes the total number of events causing contamination incidents.
In  total,  360  contamination events involving  various facility  types were
recorded  in  the  DISFs.   For this region,  this  tabulation  indicates that
approximately  78  percent  of  the  contamination   events  were  related  to
leachate  (42 percent),  leaks (23 percent) or spills  (13  percent).   Of the
360  contamination   events  tabulated,  177 (49  percent) could  be  documented
from information available  in the file.

     B.2.5.2  Tabulation of Events Causing Contamination Incidents By Facil-
ity Type.  Table B.2-6 summarizes the events causing contamination incidents
at  various  facility types.  Since  a  number of  sites contained  a multiple
number of  facilities,  there were a number of cases where there was insuffi-
cient  information available in the file to identify the damage incident with
the  specific facility unit in question.  These represented  approximately 1
percent of the total and are identified  in Table B.2-6.

     This  analysis  indicates  that approximately 80 percent of  the leachate
events were  associated  with landfills  (48 percent), containers (18 percent)
or  surface  impoundments  (14 percent).   Leaks were  found  to  occur primarily
at  surface impoundment and  container and tanks storage facilities.   Approx-
imately  66  percent  of  the  spill  events  were-'associated with  storage  or
treatment  facilities  (all  types) (41 percent) and  surface  impoundments (25
percent).  Air pollution  events,  i.e.,  emissions  of toxic gases  and  mists,
were most commonly associated with landfills (40 percent) and storage con-

-------
                                    B.2-10
                                 Table B.2-5

                                USEPA REGION II
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       OISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES

            TABULATION OF EVENTS CAUSING CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS


Event	Documented	Suspected   Total
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic Gases/Mists
Other
Total
10
26
30
3
0
12
77
13
6
177
3
22
51
4
0
1
73
24
5
183
13
48
81
7
0
13
150
37
11
360
(1)  Sampled sites were not  randomly  selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these  criteria  are discussed in detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                               B.2-11
                                       Table B.2-6

                                      USEPA REGION II
                                  HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES

        TABULATION OF EVENTS CAUSING CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS BY FACILITY TYPE


Facility
Type
Landfill









Open
Dump








Surface
Impound-
ments










Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other



Documented
2
2
1
0
0
7
50

7
1
2
2
1
0
0
0
1

1
0
0
1
1
2
0
1
5

0
1



Suspected
2
4
9
2
0
1
56

18
1
1
3
6
0
0
0
9

2
1
0
2
23
1
0
0
26

6
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
0
1
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0



Total
4
6
11
2
0
8
107

25
2
3
5
7
0
0
0
10

3
1
0
3
24
3
0
1
31

6
1
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and
     the implications  of these  criteria  are  discussed in  detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                               B.2-12
                                    Table  B.2-6  (cont'd)
                                                        (1)


Facility
Type
Incinerator









Injection
Well








Land /2\
Treatment^ '








Transporta-
tion Spill
Site










Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other



Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
2.
2
0
0
0
1

0
0



Suspected
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0



Tote
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
1

0
0
(1)  SampTea sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files  evaluated.

-------
                                               B.2-13
                                    Table  B.2-6  (cont'd)
                                                        (1)
                                                              Insufficient
                                                               Information
racility
Type
Storage
Treatment
Containers







Storage
Treatment
Tanks







Storage
Treatment
Piles







Boilers
Using Waste
as Fuel








Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other

Documented
2
6
9
0
0
0
5

1
0
0
6
4
0
0
0
1

0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
0

Suspected
1
20
43
0
0
0
36

10
1
1
7
10
2
0
0
9

5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
Available
in File
0
0
2
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

Total
3
26
54
0
0
0
41

11
I
I
13
14
2
0
0
10

5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
0
UJSampled sites  were  not  randomly  selectedT Site  selection  criteria and
     the implications  of these  criteria  are  discussed in  detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                               B.2-14
                                    Table B.2-6 (cont'd)
                                                        (1)

Facility
Type
Recycling
Reclamation








Midnight
Dump








Wastewater
Discharge










Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other


Documented
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
4

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0


Suspected
0
3
2
1
0
0
1

1
0
0
6
10
0
0
0
11

4
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1

0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0


Total
0
4
2
1
0
0
2

1
0
0
7
10
1
0
0
15

4
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1

0
0
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.Site  selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are  discussed in  detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                    B.2-15
tainers (17 percent).  Facilities  having the highest frequency of fires and
explosions were  landfills (31 percent),  containers  (23  percent),  and open
dumps (23  percent).

     B.2.6  Chemicals Documented in Contamination Incidents.  For this anal-
ysis,  chemicalcompounds  were  organized  into  the following  general  cate-
gories:

          Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHOs)         .     Inorganics
          Volatile Non-halogenated Organics (VNHOs)    .     Cyanide
          Base Neutral Extractables (BNEs)             .     Acids
          Pesticides                                   .     Acid Compounds
          PCBs                                         .     Alkalies
          Metals                                       .     Alcohols
          Oil                                           .     Aldehydes
          Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds                    .     Ketones
          Asbestos                                     .     Radioactive

Table  B.2-7 summarizes the total  number of times that a chemical in a given
category was  positively  identified by sampling and analytical techniques as
occurring as contaminants  in the various media.

     Sixteen  of  these chemical  categories were  identified at  least  once.
This  tabulation  indicates  that approximately  54 percent  of  the  chemical
categories were identified as either metals (21 percent), VHOs (19 percent),
or VNHOs (15 percent).  Table B.2-8 lists t.ie most commonly occurring chemi-
cals  found  in  each of  these  categories, and  the range of  concentrations
observed in the affected media.

     B.2.7  Damage Incidents.   The following six  affected areas were evalu-
ated for site  related damage on the  DISF.
          Drinking Water                .    Fauna
          Food Chain                    .    Human Health
          Flora                         .    Property Damage

     In the  remainder of  this  section  damage  will  be  interpreted  to mean
both documented and  suspected incidents/events unless  otherwise noted.

     Damage was  identified for at least  138  sites,  or  64 percent,  of the
sites  evaluated.   As  noted  in Section  B.2.4,  all  of the sites  indicated
contamination  (92  percent).   Damage  was indicated in  approximately  70 per-
cent of  the  contaminated  sites  evaluated.  Of the  286  affected  areas in-
dicating damage, only  93  (32  percent) could be documented  using the evalu-
ation criteria.

     Sites indicating  the absense of damage,  and/or  files  not containing
sufficient information to determine damage, were ,a>so identified.  A tabula-
tion of sties  identified with damage  for at least one of the above categories
is outlined in Table  B.2-9.   Of note, are the 86 sites (40  percent)  identi-
fied as having damage to two or more affected areas.   Of the 133 sites  indi-
cating soil  contamination, 57 sites also indicated damage to drinking water.
Also,  of the  163  sites indicating soil  and/or  surface  water  contamination,
68 sites also  indicated damage to flora,  fauna or the food chain.

-------
                                        B.2-16
                                      Table B.2-7

                                   USEPA REGION II
                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES     ,,,
                          DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESUj

              TABULATION OF CHEMICALS DOCUMENTED IN CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS


                                                  Total Positive           Percent
Chemical Category	Identifications	of Total

Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHOs)                   53                     19
Volatile Non-halogenated Organics (VNHOs)              41                     15
Base Neutral Extractables (BNEs)                       25                      9
Pesticides                                             11                      4
PCBs                                                   20                      7
Metals                                                 60                     21
Oil                                                     21
Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds                               6                      2
Inorganics                                             25                      9
Cyanide                                                 3                      1
Acids                                                   8                      3
Acid Compounds                                         19                      7
Alkalies                                                0                      0
Alcohols                                                2                      1
Aldehydes                                               0                      0
Ketones                                                 3                      1
Radioactive                                             1                      0
Asbestos                                                2                      1
Others                                                	0                    	0

Total                                                 281                    100

    (1)  Sampled sites were  not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
         the implications of  these  criteria are discussed  in  detail  in Section
         3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                             B.2-17
                                       Table B.2-8
                                      USEPA REGION II
                                   HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              OISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                                            (1)
                CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED BY MEDIA
Most Frequently
Observed
Chemical Category  Contaminant
                                   Contaminant Concentration Range
                             GroundwaterSurface WaterSoilAir
                                 (mg/1)         (mg/1)    (mg/kg)  (mg/1)
VHOs
VNHOs
Metals
1,1,1 tn'chloroethane
trichloroethylene
dichloromethane
benzene
toluene
xylene
lead
arsenic
chromium
trace-  1.36   trace- 1.8
0.012-  3.3    trace- 7.50
0.132-  2.0
0.002- 72.5
0.0009-30.0
0.015-  0.35   trace- 1.20
0.05- 100    LT 0.10-65.0
0.003-  3.4     0.076-4.6
trace- 10.0     0.01- 1.91
13.5- 17.0
 0.09- 0.5
trace- 2.00
trace- 1.1  ND
ND          ND
ND          ND
18.5- 43.0  ND
trace-64.0  ND
 2.0-  3.8  ND
1500-5750   ND
 7.0- 41.0  ND
85-31765    ND
NOTES:
     ND = no data available
     LT = less than
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                    B.2-18
                                 Table B.2-9

                               USEPA REGION II
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                         TABULATION OF SITES DAMAGED
Category
Description
Total Number of
Sites (Described
by Category)
Percent of
  Total
          Sites indicating documented
          damage (to at leasl
          one affected area)

          Sites indicating suspected
          damage (to at least one
          affected area) and not
          identified by Category 1
          above

          Sites indicating
          documented or suspected
          absence of damage and not
          identified by Categories
          1  and 2 above

          Sites for which there was
          an absence of sufficient
          information in the file to
          make a determination of
          damage and not identified
          by Categories 1,2 and 3
          above
                              56
                              81
                           27
                           37
                              25
                           12
                              52
                           24
     TOTAL SITES
                            214
                          100
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                    8.2-19
     B.2.7.1   Tabulation of  Number,  Type and Severity of Damage Incidents.
Table B.2-10 summarizes the total number of DISF responses indicating damage
to  the  above affected areas.  Site files  not containing sufficient inform-
ation to determine damage were also recorded and noted under the appropriate
heading in Table B.2-10.

     Table  B.2-10  indicates  that  36  percent  of  the documented  damage in-
cidents  occurred to  property,  with  the  remaining incidents  occurring to
drinking water  (28 percent),  flora (18  percent)  and human  health (7 per-
cent).  Documented damage to  food  chain and fauna represented the remaining
11 percent of the incidents*recorded.

     Table  B.2-10  indicates  that  of  the 214  sites  evaluated,  35  sites (16
percent)  indicated  high  environmental   damage,  26  sites  (13  percent) in-
dicated medium  environmental  damage and 57 sites (27 percent) indicated low
environmental  damage.   The  remaining  96  site files indicated  no  apparent
damage  (14 percent)  or  did not have enough  information available  (31 per-
cent) to make  an evaluation.   Of note,  are the files associated with the 21
sites (10 percent) which suggested that the actual  damage may be higher than
the  response described  in   the  DISF,  but the file  contained  insufficient
analytical  data available to support a higher damage  rating.

     The analysis  also  indicated  that  out of the  214  sites  evaluated,  2
sites (1  percent)  indicated  high  human health damage, 6  sites  (3  percent)
indicated medium human  health damage  and  7  sites  (3 percent)  indicated low
human health damage.   The  remaining 199  sites indicated no  apparent damage
(49 percent) or did not have enough information available to make an evalua-
tion (44 percent).  Of  note,  are the files  associated with  6  sites (3 per-
cent) which suggested that the actual  human health damage may be higher than
the severity response  described  in the DISF,  but  the  file contained insuf-
ficient analytical data available to support a higher damage rating.

     B.2.7.2   Tabulation  of  Number  and  Severity  of Damage  Incidents  by
Facility Type.   Table B.2-11 summarizes  the DISF responses  indicating damage
to each affected area  by associated facility  type.  This analysis  indicates
that approximately 81  percent of the damage  incidents were  associated with
landfills  (36 percent),  storage  facilities (30 percent)  or surface  impound-
ments (15  percent).  The remaining  19  percent of the damage  incidents were
associated with midnight dumps, open dumps, incinerators,  recycling/reclama-
tion, and 6 other categories.

     Table  B.2-11 also  indicates that  82 percent of the  incidents  involving
damage  to   drinking water  involved landfills  (39  percent), containers and
tanks (27 percent) and surface impoundments (16 percent).   Table B.2-11 also
identifies   the severity of damage to environment and/or human health.  Land-
fills, storage  facilities and surface  impoundments  resulted in 83 percent of
the cases  involving  high or  medium environmental-damage "and 74 percent of
the cases involving high or medium human  health  damage.

     B.2.8  Status  of Response.  Table B.2-12  summarizes the  status of each
site  evaluatedfrom the  standpoint of  enforcement, investigative  and re-
medial  activites.  This  table indicates  that only 20 percent of the  files
evaluated indicated that the  sites  identified were  involved in  either past
or present  legal  or enforcement actions.   However, 128 (60 percent) site

-------
                                                        B.2-20

                                                    Table B.2-10

                                                   USEPA REGION II
                                               HAZARDOUS WASTE  SITES
                                          DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                               TABULATION OF NUMBER & SEVERITY OF DAMAGE INCIDENTS
Affected Area
       Damage

Documented Suspected
             No Damage

        Documented Suspected
                    Insufficient
                    Information
                     Available
                      in File
                     Total
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
25
2
16
7
7
33
58
21
24
42
44
9
8
0
1
1
0
0
40
84
45
67
53
78
83
107
128
97
110
94
214
214
214
214
214
214
Environmental
Human Health
                                   Severity  of  Damage
                                                            Insufficient
                                                            Information
Affected Area
High
Medium
Low
Available
in File
No Apparent
Damage
Total Number
of Responses
      35
       2
26
 6
57
 7
66
94
 30
105
214
214
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and  the  implications  of these
     criteria are discussed in detail  in  Section 3.1.1  and  3.2.1.

-------
                                             B.2-21
                                        Table B.2-U

                                       USEPA REGION II
                                   HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                                         (1)
             TABULATION OF NUMBER & SEVERITY DAMAGE INCIDENTS BY FACILITY TYPE
                                         Landfil
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
     9         43
     0         15
     4         20
     2         32
     0         22
     9         13
                                                  No Damage
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
Documented Suspected
     4        20
     0        47
     1        13
     1        34
     0        34
     0        44
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File
    53
    69
    87
    62
    75
    65
                                    Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
     ~T~      8~~   5T
      0        33
  Insufficient
  Information
   Available
    in File
     71
     76
No Apparent
  Damage
    2T
    49
                        Total
                         131
                         131
                         131
                         131
                         131
                         131
     Total  Number
     of Responses
         131
                                         Open Dump
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
     1         8
     0         2
     4         2
     0         2
     0         3
     0         1
Affected Area
     No Damage

Documented Suspected
     1         4
     0         8
     0         4
     0         6
     0         5
     0         8
                                    Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
  Insufficient
  Information
   Available
    in File
         Insufficient
         Information
          Available
           in File      Total
              5          20
             10          20
             10          20
             12          20
             12          20
             11          20
No Apparent
  Damage
     Total  Number
     of Responses

-------
                                             B.2-22
                                     Table B.2-11 (cont'd)

                                   Surface Impoundments
                                                          (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
                No Damage

           Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     5
     0
     3
     1
     0
     6
      6
      0
16              29
 5              0        22
 7              0        11
14              0        14
 9              0        15
 5              0        23

  Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              "in File      Total

                                 18         50
                                 23         50
                                 29         50
                                 21         50
                                 26         50
                                 16         50
     High   Medi urn   Low
 2
 1
8
1
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   29
   33
No Apparent
  Damage

     5
    15
Total Number
of Responses

     50
     50
                                        Incinerator
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
                Np^ Damage

           Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
      0
      0
 0              07
 0              07
 0              07
 0              06
 1              03
 0              07

  Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
 0
 0
1
0
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 0           7
                                 0           7
                                 0           7
                                 1           7
                                 3           7
                                 0           7
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   4
   5
No Apparent
  Damage

    2
    2
Total Number
of Responses

     7
     7
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                             B.2-23
                                     Table B.2-11 (cont'd)

                                      Injection Well
                                                          (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
0              01
0              01
0              01
0              01
0              01
0              01

 Severity^ of Damage

            Insufficient
            Information
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 0           1
                                 0           1
                                 0           1
                                 0           1
                                 0           1
                                 0           I

Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health


High
0
0


Medium Low
0 0
0 0
Land T

Damage

Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage

Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0

Suspected
1
0
0
0
1
0
Aval
in


reatment

No

lable No Apparent Total Number
File Damage
0 1
0 1

Damage

Documented Suspected
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
of Responses
1
1
Insufficient
Information
Available






in File Total
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
      0
      0
0
0
0
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

     1
     1
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    0
Total Number
of Responses

     1
     1
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                             B.2-24
                                     Table B.2-11 (cont'd)

                                 Transportation Spill Site
                                                          (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
      0
      0
0              02
0              01
0              01
0              01
1              0         1
1              00

 Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
0
0
0
0
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Tota

                                 0           2
                                 1           2
                                 1           2
                                 1           2
                                 0           2
                                 1           2
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

     1
     1
No Apparent
  Damage

    1
    1
Total Number
of Responses

     2
     2
                               Storage Treatment Containers
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     1
     0
     0
     1
     2
     4
      2
      0
26
 8
14
18
20
16
        3
        0
        1
        1
        0
        0
            17
            32
            18
            26
            25
            33
         Insufficient
         Information
          Available
           in File      Total

              35         82
              42         82
              49         82
              36         82
              35         82
              29         82
                                    Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
            Insufficient
            Information
             Available    No Apparent
              in File   •-   Damage
2
1
10
 0
    56
    51
    12
    30
Total Number
of Responses

     82
     82
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                             B.2-25
                                   Table B.2-11 (cont'd)
                                                        (1)
                                  Storage Treatment Tanks
Effected Area
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File
                                      Total
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Hora
Fauna
Human Health
°roperty Damage
0
0
0
0
1
0
9
2
4
6
8
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
12
9
10
8
12
9
11
12
9
8
9
25
25
25
25
25
25
Effected Area

Environmental
Human Health
                                    Severity of Damage
     High   Mediurn   Low
      0
      0
0
0
3
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

    18
    18
No Apparent
  Damage

    4
    7
Total Number
of Responses

     25
     25
                                  Storage Treatment Piles
Effected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     I
3              02
1              03
0              02
2              03
3              02
2              03

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 2           7
                                 3           7
                                 5           7
                                 2           7
                                 2           7
                                 1           7
     High   Medium   Low
            Insufficient
            Information
             Available    No Apparent
              in File       Damage
      0
      0
0
0
1
0
     4
     5
    2
    2
Total Number
of Responses

     7
     7
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                             B.2-26
                                   Table B.2-11 (cont'd)
                                                        (1)
                                Boilers Using Waste as Fuel
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
0              02
0              02
0              02
0              02
0              01
0              02

 Severity of Damage

            Insufficient
            Information
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Tote

                                 1           3
                                 1           3
                                 1           3
                                 1           3
                                 2           3
                                 1           3
Available No Apparent Total Number
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health



Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
High
0
0

Dama

Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0
Medi urn
0
0
Recyc

ge

Suspected
2
0
1
2
2
1
Low in File
0 1
0 1
ling/Reclamation

Damage of Responses
2
2

No Damage

Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0

Suspected
5
6
5
5
5
6
3
3
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
5
6
6
5
5
5





Tota
12
12
12
12
12
12
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
            Insufficient
            Information
             Available    No Apparent
              in File    •--  Damage
      0
      0
1
0
0
0
6
7
5
5
Total Number
of Responses

     12
     12
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                             B.2-27
                                     Table B.2-11 (cont'd)(1)

                                       Midnight Dump
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
     1
     0
     2
     0
     0
     1
6              02
4              05
3              02
9              06
7              04
5              06

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 14         23
                                 14         23
                                 16         23
                                  8         23
                                 12         23
                                 11         23
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
      2
      0
1
1
1
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

    17
    16
No Apparent
  Damage

    2
    6
Total Number
of Responses

     23
     23
                                      Wastewater Discharge
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
2              03
1              03
1              02
5              00
0              03
0              04

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 8          13
                                 9          13
                                10          13
                                 8          13
                                10          13
                                 9          13
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medi urn   Low
      1
      0
0
0
1
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

    10
     7
No Apparent
  Damage

    1
    6
Total Number
of Responses

    13
    13
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                    B.2-28
  .evaluated
                                 Table B.2-12

                               USEPA REGION II
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES

                             STATUS OF RESPONSE

                            Total Number of Sites...
                                          (1)
        ...with legal/
        enforcement
        action under-
        way/completed
               ...with investi-
               gative actions
               underway/com-
               pleted
                    ...with remedial
                    actions under-
                    way/completed
     214
             43                  128

          DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
                                        48
Damage
Incident
Facility
  type
Location
Remedial Activity
Costs ($)
1.  Leachate
2. Leaks
3. Leaks
4. Leaks
   OD
   STC
   SI,STC,
     STT

   SI, STT
Pemberton, NJ  Remedial action by
               Burlington County
               Health Department.
               Details not available

Jamesburg, NJ  Remove drums from
               indoor to outdoor
               with fire safety
               measure and site
               cleanup
Oswego, NY


Moira, NY
5. Leachate    LF, STC   Edison, NJ
Remove drums
Develop secure
landfill on-site
for PCB wastes

Control leachate
see page (short-term)
6. Leachate    LF, STC
             Niagara Falls, Evacuate residents and
             NY             purchase properties in
                            the immediate area
                         30,000
                         45,000
300,000
50,000
(Phase I)
                                        300,000
                                        (short-term)
                                        2.3-153.5 million
                                        dollars (long-term)

                                        4,000,000
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                    B.2-29
files indicated  that additional environmental  investigations  were in prog-
ress  or completed.   Forty-eight  (22  percent)  sites  were  reported  to  be
involved with past or present remedial activities.

     Table B.2-12 also  compares the damage incident type  with the remedial
activities and  related costs  for  sites having  cost data  available.  These
activities  included  site  cleanups,  drum  removal  and disposal,  landfill
development",   leachate control,  resident evacuation,  and property purchases.
Expenditures  for  remedial  activities  for  the sites ranged  from $30,000  to
$153.5 million.

-------
Section B.3

-------
B.3  Region III Summary

     B.3.1   Region III  Overview.   The  study team  evaluated  and  completed
DISFs for  164  sites in Region III.  Many  of these  sites contained multiple
facilities.  A total of 317 facility types were used in describing the sites
in this  region.  Of the 317 facility types evaluated, 27 percent were land-
fills, 19 percent were containers, 14 percent were surface impoundments, and
9 percent  were  tanks.   The remaining 31 percent  of  the  facility types were
described  by various other categories.  As discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2
the reader  should  note  for the following discussion that the data bases and
the selection criteria utilized on this study limit the applicability of the
conclusion reached herein  to other populations of hazardous waste sites.

     Contamination, either documented or suspected,  was identified in 151 of
the sites  evaluated.  At  93  of the sites, or 57  percent,  contamination was
documented.  Thirty-eight percent of the contamination incidents occurred to
groundwater, with  the remaining  incidents occurring  to soil  (28  percent),
surface water (27 percent) and air (7 percent).   Of the 366 responses origi-
nally indicating  contamination,  only  126  (34  percent)  could  be documented
using the   evaluation  criteria developed  in Section 3.1.4.   Each  site  was
evaluated  for  damage occurring  to life,  property  and various  natural  re-
sources.   This evaluation focused on six potentially affected areas, includ-
ing drinking  water, food  chain,  flora, fauna,  human health  and  property.
Damage,   (either  documented or suspected), was  identified  in  at  least  119
sites, or   73  percent  of  the  sites  evaluated.    Of  the  301 affected  areas
originally  indicating damage, only 96 (32 percent) could be documented using
the evaluation criteria.   Approximately  44 percent  of the  documented damage
incidents occurred to drinking water, with the remaining incidents  occurring
to  property (28  percent),  flora  (10 percent),  human health  (6  percent),
fauna  and   foodchain,   (12  percent).   There were  six  incidents  involving
documented  damage  to human  health.   There  were  11  sites where  documented
damage to  drinking water  occurred from an  unknown  source  or  sources.   At
these sites public  water  supply  wells had to be closed or  restricted due to
groundwater contamination.  Sixty-eight percent  of the incidents causing the
damage or  contamination described  above were due to  leachate  (33  percent),
leaks (18 percent) or spills (17  percent).  These  incidents involved contami-
nation  caused by   volatile  halogenated  organics,  volatile  nonhalogenated
organics  or metals  in 64 percent of the  incidents tabulated.

     B.3.2  Sources.  The  study  team preliminarily identified  182  files in
Region III   for  review.   File  sources  included  67 FIT Files,  105  S&A Files
and 10  Enforcement Files.  Based  upon a  review  of the 182 sites,  18 were
eliminated  from  the  study because  they  did not  conform  to  the  Selection
Criteria  summarized in Section 3.1, Table 3.1-1.

     B.3.3   Tabulation of Site Descriptions by Facility Type.   Each site was
evaluated  and  categorized  by one or  more  of  the  following  fourteen  site
descriptions as listed in Section IIA of the DISFs.

          Landfill  Facility             .     Storage/Treatment  Containers
          Open Dump                     .     Storage/Treatment  Tanks
          Surface Impoundment           .     Storage/Treatment  Piles
          Incinerator                   .     Boilers  Using  Waste as Fuel
          Injection Well                .     Recycling/Reclamation
          Land Treatment                .     Midnight Dump
          Transportation Spill Site     .     Other

-------
                                   B.3-2
     For the 164 sites evaluated in the region, all of these categories were?
identified at  least  once,  along with an additional 3 "other" categories not
listed in the OISF.  These other categories included liquid discharges, open
burning,  and  "unknown" facility sources.  Table B.3-1  summarizes  the totil
number of facility  types  used in describing the 164  sites evaluated.  Many
of these sites contained multiple facilities.  A total of 317 facility types
were used in describing the sites in this region.  Of the 317 facility types
evaluated,  approximately 75 percent  were identified as either landfills (27
percent), containers  (19 percent),  surface impoundments (14 percent), tanks
(9  percent)  or  midnight  dumps  (6  percent).   Approximately 96 sites were
described by  2 or  more  facility types  and  48 sites by 3  or more facility
types.

     B.3.4  Contamination Incidents.   Four media,  i.e.  groundwater,  surface
water,  air and  soil,  were  evaluated for site-related  contamination  in Sec-
tion V of the DISF.  In the remainder of this section, contamination will be
interpreted to mean  both  documented  and suspected  incidents/ events, unless
otherwise  noted.   Sites  indicating the  absence  of  contamination,  and/or
files  not  containing  sufficient  information to determine the presence  of
contamination, were  also  identified.  Table B.3-2 summarizes  the  number of
sites identified with  contamination in at least one of the above media.

     Contamination  incidents  were  identified  at  151  (92  percent)  of  the
sites  evaluated.   A  total  of  366   incidents  involving various media were
recorded at  these sites of  which 126  (34 percent) could  be  documented  by
sampling and analytical data.   One hundred twenty-four sites were  identified
with contamination  in two  or more  media.   For example,  of the  102  sites
indicating soil contamination, 94 sites  also indicated groundwater contamina-
tion.  File data indicated that 131 sites were  contaminated from incident(s)
occurring at  the  site evaluated.   File data  for the  remaining 20  sites
indicated that contamination may have originated off-site.

     B.3.4.1  Tabulation  of  Media   Exposed  to Contamination.  Table  B.3-3
summarizes the  total  number  of  OISF responses  indicating  contamination  or
the  absence  of  contamination found by media.  Site files  not  containing
sufficient  information to  determine contamination  were also  recorded  for
each of the media evaluated and noted under the appropriate heading in Table
B.3-3.   This table  indicates  that  38 percent of the contamination  incidents
occurred to  groundwater.   The remaining  incidents occurred  to either soil
(28 percent), surface water (27 percent) or air (7 percent).  In many cases,
contamination to more  than one media occurred at any particular site.

     B.3.4.2   Tabulation  of  Media  Exposed to  Contamination  Incidents  by
Facility Type.  Table B.3-4  summarizes  the total  number  of DISF  responses
indicating media  contamination  associated with  each  facility  type.   This
analysis suggests that approximately 74 percent of the sites associated with
contamination  incidents were  identified  as  either landfills  (27  percent),
containers (19  percent),  surface  impoundments  (13 percent),  tanks  (9 per-
cent)  or open dumps  (6  percent).   Table B.3-4 indicates  that, for  most of
the  incidents  tabulated,  in  decreasing order of  occurrence, contamination
to:

-------
                              B.3-3
                            Table B.3-1

                           USEPA REGION III
                       HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                  OISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
              TABULATION OF SITE DESCRIPTIONS BY TYPE
Total Number of
Facility Responses Described as
Type Given Facility Type
Landfill
Open Dump
Surface Impoundment
Incinerator
Injection Well
Land Treatment
Transportation Spill Site
Storage/Treatment Containers
Storage/Treatment Tanks
Storage/Treatment Piles
Boilers Using Waste as Fuel
Recycling/Reclamation
Midnight Dump
Other
Total
85
19
43
4
4
9
3
60
28
10
I
12
20
19
317
Percent of
Total
27
6
14
1
1
3
1
19
9
3
0
4
6
6
100
Sampled sites were  not  randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
the implications of  these  criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
3.1.1 and  3.2.1.

-------
                              B.3-4
                            Table B.3-2

                          USEPA REGION III
                       HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                  DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
      TABULATION OF SITES EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
Category
1
Description
Sites indicatim
Total Number of
Sites (Described
by Category)
3 documented 93
Percent of
Total
57
     contamination (to at least
     one medium)

     Sites indicating suspected         58                  35
     contamination (to at least
     one medium) and not identified
     by Category 1 above

     Sites indicating                    9                   6
     documented or suspected
     absence of contamination
     and not identified by
     Categories 1 and 2 above

     Sites for which there was           4                   2
     an absence of sufficient
     information in the file to
     make a determination of
     contamination, and not iden-
     tified by Categories 1, 2 or
     3 above
TOTAL SITES                             164                 100
Sampled sites were  not  randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
the implications of  these  criteria are discussed in  detail  in Section
3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.3-5
Media Exposed
                                       Table B.3-3

                                      USEPA REGION III
                                  HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
TABULATION OF MEDIA EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENT

                                               Insufficient
   Responses Indicating  Responses Indicating  Information
       Contamination       No Contamination     Available
                                                 in File
   Documented Suspected  Documented	Suspected
  Total
Responses
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
71
25
7
23
68
75
18
79
11
9
I
2
8
41
124
46
6
14
14
14
164
164
164
164
         "(TJSampled sites were  not  randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
              the implications of  these  criteria are discussed in  detail  in Section
              3.1.1 and  3.2.1.

-------
                                                       B.3-6

                                                    Table B.3-4

                                                   USEPA REGION III
                                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                                          DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                          TABULATION OF MEDIA EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENT BY FACILITY TYPE
Responses
Facility
Type


Landfill



Open Dump



Surface
Impoundment


Incinerator



Indicating
Media Exposed


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Contamination

Doc.
17
8
2
3
2
1
1
1
4
3
9
1
0
0
0
0

Susp.
52
50
9
40
16
17
3
15
35
29
6
33
0
0
3
1
Responses
Indicating
No

Doc
7
7
1
2
1
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Contamination

Susp.
8
18
69
28
0
0
13
1
0
6
31
5
2
2
0
2
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File

1
2
4
12
0
1
2
2
0
3
6
4
2
2
1
1

Total
Responses


85
85
85
85
19
19
19
19
43
43
43
43
4
4
4
4
(I)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and  the  implications  of  these
     criteria are discussed in detail  in  Section 3.1.1  and  3.2.1.

-------
                                                      B.3-7

                                               Table B.3-4 (cont'd)
        (1)
                                        Responses
Responses
Insufficient
Facility
Type


Injection
Well


Land
Treatment


Transportation
Spill Site


Storage Treat-
ment Containers


Storage Treat-
ment Tanks


Indicating
Media Exposed


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Contami

Doc.
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
4
0
1
3
2
0
0
1
nation

Susp.
2
3
1
3
6
6
2
7
1
0
0
1
42
33
11
38
18
13
4
19
Indicating
No Contami

Doc.
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
1
0
0
1
nation

Susp.
0
0
3
1
2
3
7
2
0
1
2
0
8
13
39
12
6
11
19
6
Information
Available
in File

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
4
11
9
7
1
4
5
2
Total
Responses


4
4
4
4
9
9
9
9
3
3
3
3
60
60
60
60
28
28
28
28
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and  the  implications  of  these
     criteria are discussed in  detail  in  Section 3.1.1  and  3.2.1.

-------
                                                      B.3-8

                                                Table B.3-4  (cont'd)(1)
                                         Responses
Responses
Insufficient
Facility
Type


Storage Treat-
ment Piles


Boilers Using
Waste as Fuel


Recycling
Reclamation


Midnight
Dump



Media Exposed


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Indicating

Contamination

Doc.
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1

Susp.
7
8
3
7
0
0
0
0
11
8
3
9
15
15
2
15
Indicating

No Contamination

Doc.
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

Susp.
1
1
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
2
2
15
2
Information
Available
in File

0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Total
Responses


10
10
10
10
1
1
1
1
12
12
12
12
20
20
20
20
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and  the  implications  of these
     criteria are discussed in detail  in  Section 3.1.1  and  3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.3-9
          0    groundwater  was associated  with  landfills,  containers,  and
               surface impoundment;
          0    surface water  was  associated with landfills, containers, and
               surface impoundments;
          0    soil  was  associated with  landfills,  containers,  and surface
               impoundments; and
          0    air  was associated  with  containers,  landfills,  and surface
               impoundments.

     B.3.5   Events Causing Contamination.   Contaminated  sites  were  asso-
ciated with one or more of the following events, as outlined in Section VIII
of the DISF.
          Fire/explosion                .     Seismic Activity
          Spill                         .     Erosion
          Leak                          .     Leachate
          Flood                         .     Emission of Toxic Gases/Mists

     In  the  remainder of  this section,  events  tabulated  will  include both
documented and suspected events, unless otherwise noted.

     Seven of  these  events were identified at  least  once, along with three
other types not  listed in the DISF.  These other events were described as a
liquid  discharge,  runoff, and  "unknown".  A total  of fifty-five  sites  (34
percent) were  involved in two events and 43 sites  (26 percent) in three or
more events.

     B.3.5.1  Tabulation  of Events Causing  Contamination  Incidents.   Table
B.3-5 summarizes the total number of events causing contamination incidents.
In  total,  320  contamination  events  involving  various facility  types were
recorded  in  the  DISFs.    For  this region,  this tabulation  indicates that
approximately 68 percent  of the contamination  events were related to leach-
ate  (33  percent),  leaks  (18  percent) or  spills (17  percent).   Of the  320
contamination  events  tabulated,  208  (65  percent)  could be  documented from
information available in the file.

     B.3.5.2  Tabulation of Events Causing Contamination Incidents By Facil-
ity Type.  Table B.3-6 summarizes  the events causing contamination incidents
at  various  facility types.   Since  a  number of sites contained  a multiple
number of facilities,  there were  a number of cases where there was insuffi-
cient information available in the file to identify the damage incident with
the specific facility  unit in question.   These represented approximately 10
percent of the  total and are identified in  Table B.3-6.

     This analysis  indicates  that approximately 70 percent  of  the leachate
events were  associated with landfills  (38 percent),  surface impoundments  (17
percent) or containers (15 percent).  Leaks were found to occur primarily at
container storage facilities.  Approximately 70 percent  of the spill  events
were associated  with storage  or  treatment facilities (all  types)  (51 per-
cent),  landfills  (10 percent), and surface impoundments  (9 percent).  Air
pollution events, i.e., emissions  of  toxic gases and mists,  were most com-
monly associated with  containers  (32  percent)  open dumps  (14  percent),  and
incinerators  (14 percent).  Facilities having the highest frequency of fires
and  explosions  were  landfills (48 percent) and containers  and  dumps  (24
percent).

-------
                                   B.3-10
                                 Table B.3-5

                                USEPA REGION III
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES

            TABULATION OF EVENTS CAUSING CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
Event	Documented	Suspected   Total
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic Gases/Mists
Other
Total
14
40
35
1
0
15
70
3
30
208
6
14
21
4
0
9
37
9
12
112
20
54
56
5
0
24
107
12
42
320
(1)Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection  criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                             B.3-11
                                       Table B.3-6

                                      USEPA REGION III
                                  HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES     m
                             DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESu;
          TABULATION OF EVENTS CAUSING CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS BY FACILITY TYPE

Facility
Type
Landfill









Open
Dump








Surface
Impound-
ments









Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other


Documented
8
5
6
0
0
10
37

0
1
1
5
3
0
0
1
4

0
0
0
2
8
1
0
2
9

0
4


Suspected
6
5
6
0
0
7
35

2
0
2
4
5
0
0
1
9

3
1
0
5
9
2
0
6
24

2
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
2
3
2
0
0
I
2

I
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
2

0
0
0
2
3
0
0
3
0

0
0


Total
16
13
14
0
0
18
74

3
1
4
11
9
0
0
2
18

3
1
0
9
20
3
0
11
33

2
4
(1)  Sampled sites  were  not  randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and
     the implications  of these  criteria  are  discussed in  detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                         B.3-12
                              Table  B.3-6  (cont'd)
                                                   (1)


Facility
Type
Incinerator









Injection
Well








Land
Treatment








Transporta-
tion Spill
Site










Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other



Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
1

0
0



Suspected
0
2
3
0
0
0
1

3
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
5

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0



Total
0
2
3
0
0
0
1

4
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1

1
4
0
0
0
0
0
3
5

1
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
2

0
0
Sampled sites were not randomly selected.
the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
          B.3-13
Table B.3-6 (cont'd)
                    (1)
Insufficient

Facility


Type Event Documented
Storage Fire/Explosion
Treatment Spills
Containers Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Storage Fire/Explosion
Treatment Spills
Tanks Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Storage Fire/Explosion
Treatment Spills
Piles Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
{•toilers Fire/Explosion
Using Waste Spills
as Fuel (2) Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
(1) Sampled sites were not randomly se
the implications of these criteria
3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2) Facility type not identified in fi
4
17
14
0
0
0
3

1
0
1
8
6
0
0
0
3

0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
4

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
lected.


Suspected
3
16
19
0
0
1
26

6
0
0
9
11
0
0
0
6

1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
3

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
Site selection
are discussed in detail

les eval

uated.
Information
Available
in File
0
5
4
0
0
0
0

3
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
0

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
criteria and
in Section




Total
7
38
37
0
0
1
29

10
0
1
20
19
0
0
0
9

2
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
9

0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0





-------
                                              B.3-14
                                    Table B.3-6 (cont'd)
                                                        (1)


Facility
Type
Recycling
Reclamation








Midnight
Dump











Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other



Documented
0
3
2
0
0
0
2

0
1
1
4
4
0
0
0
0

0
3



Suspected
0
5
5
0
0
0
3

1
1
3
5
4
0
0
1
12

2
1
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
2
2
0
0
0
1

2
0
2
3
2
0
0
0
2

0
0



Total
0
10
9
0
0
0
6

3
2
6
12
10
0
0
1
14

2
4
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in  detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.3-15
     B.3.6  Chemicals Documented in Contamination Incidents.  For this anal-
ysis,  chemicalcompounds  were organized  into the  following  general cate-
gories:
          Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHOs)         .    Inorganics
          Volatile Non-halogenated Organics (VNHOs)    .    Cyanide
          Base Neutral Extractables (BNEs)             .    Acids
          Pesticides                                   .    Acid Compounds
          PCBs                                         .    Alkalies
          Metals                                       .    Alcohols
          Oil                                          .    Aldehydes
          Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds                    .    Ketones
          Asbestos                                     .    Radioactive

Table  B.3-7  summarizes  the total  number of times that a chemical in a given
category was  positively  identified by sampling and analytical techniques as
occurring as contaminants in the various media.

     Sixteen  of these  chemical  categories were  identified at  least once.
This  tabulation indicates  that approximately 64  percent of  the  chemical
categories were  identified  as either VHOs (29 percent), metals (19 percent)
or VNHOs (16  percent).  Table B.3-8 lists the most commonly occurring chemi-
cals  found in  each of  these categories, and the  range  of  concentrations
observed in the  affected media.

     B.3.7  Damage Inc idents.   The following six  affected  areas were evalu-
ated for site  related damage on the  DISF.
          Drinking Water                .     Fauna
          Food Chain                    .     Human Health
          Flora                         .     Property Damage

     In  the  remainder of  this  section damage will be  interpreted to mean
both documented  and  suspected  incidents/events unless otherwise noted.

     Damage was  identified for at least 119  sites, or 73 percent,  of the
sites  evaluated.  As noted in Section B.3.4,  higher percentages of the sites
indicated contamination (92 percent).  Damage was indicated in approximately
79 percent of the  contaminated sites evaluated.  Of the 301  affected areas
indicating damage,  only 96 (32 percent) could be documented using the evalu-
ation criteria.

     Sites  indicating  the  absence of damage,  and/or  files  not containing
sufficient information to determine damage, were also identified.  A tabula-
tion of  sites identified  with  damage for. at  least one  of the  above cat-
egories is outlined  in  Table  B.3-9.   Of note,  are the  88 sites (54 percent)
identified as having damage to two or more affected areas.   Of the 102 sites
indicating soil  contamination,  61 sites  also  indicated damage  to  drinking
water.    Also, of the 127 sites indicating soil and/or  surface water contam-
ination, 58 sites also indicated damage to  flora, fauna or the food chain.

     B.3.7.1   Tabulation of  Number,  Type  and  Severity of  Damage Incidents.
Table B.3-10 summarizes the total  number of DISF responses  indicating damage
to the above  affected  areas.   Site files not  containing sufficient inform-
ation to determine  damage were also recorded  and noted  under the appropriate
heading in  Table B.3-10.

-------
                                       B.3-16
                                      Table B.3-7

                                   USEPA REGION III
                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES     ,,,
                          DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESUJ

           TABULATION OF CHEMICALS DOCUMENTED IN CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
                                                  Total Positive           Percent
Chemical Category	Identifications	of Total

Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHOs)                   58                       29
Volatile Non-halogenated Organics (VNHOs)              33                       16
Base Neutral Extractables (BNEs)                       13                        6
Pesticides                                              5                        3
PCBs                                                   10                        5
Metals                                                 38                       19
Oil                                                     0                        0
Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds                               2                        1
Inorganics                                              6                        3
Cyanide                                                 4                        2
Acids                                                   5                        3
Acid Compounds                                         19                       10
Alkalies                                                0                        0
Alcohols                                                2                        1
Aldehydes                                               1                        0
Ketones                                                 3                        2
Radioactive                                             1                        0
Asbestos                                                1                        0
Others                                                  0                        0

Total                                                 201                      100
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.3-17
                                       Table B.3-8

                                   USEPA REGION III
                                HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                           DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
             CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED BY MEDIA
Most Frequently
Observed
Contaminant Concentration Range
Chemical Category Contaminant
VHOs


VNHOs


Metals


1,1,1 trichloroethane
trichl oroethy 1 ene
tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
benzene
toluene
xylene
lead
nickel
chromium
Groundwater
(mg/1)
0.006- 0.50
0.001-12.0
0.002- 3.20
0.001- 0.50
0.001- 0.40
0.001- 1.00
0.001- 0.36
0.029- 5.50
0.006- 0.32
Surface Water
(mg/1)
0.009- 1.60
0.004- 0.840
trace- 7.70
0.004-22.0
0.001- 2.40
0.040- 1.70
trace- 0.16
trace- 0.24
NO
Soil Air
(rag/ kg) (mg/1)
0.080-1.37
trace-0.10
ND
ND
0.78 - 3.54
ND
trace-0.630
ND
0.110-960
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NOTES:

     ND = no data available
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.3-18
                                 Table B.3-9

                               USEPA REGION III
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                                       (1)
                         TABULATION OF SITES DAMAGED
Category
Description
Total Number of
Sites (Described
by Category)
Percent of
  Total
          Sites indicating documented
          damage (to at least
          one affected area)

          Sites indicating suspected
          damage (to at least one
          affected area) and not
          identified by Category 1
          above

          Sites indicating
          documented or suspected
          absence of damage and not
          identified by Categories
          1 and 2 above

          Sites for which there was
          an absence of sufficient
          information in the file to
          make a determination of
          damage and not identified
          by Categories 1,2 and 3
          above
                              62
                              57
                           38
                           35
                              21
                           13
                              24
                           15
     TOTAL SITES
                            164
                          100
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                                       B.3-19

                                                    Table  B.3-10

                                                   USEPA REGION III
                                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                                          DISF  SUMMARY  OF  EVALUATED SITES
                               TABULATION  OF  NUMBER &  SEVERITY OF  DAMAGE  INCIDENTS
Affected Area
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
                    Insufficient
                    Information
                     Available
                      in File
                    Total
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
42
4
10
7
6
27
49
22
27
26
58
23
13
0
1
0
0
0
45
108
98
82
82
92
15
30
28
27
18
22
164
164
164
164
164
164
Environmental
Human Health
                                   Severity  of  Damage
                                                            Insufficient
                                                            Information
Affected Area
High
Medium
Low
Available
in File
No Apparent
Damage
Total Number
of Responses
     29
      2
38
23
44
35
39
52
17
52
164
164
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and  the  implications  of  these
     criteria are discussed in detail  in  Section 3.1.1 and  3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.3-20
     Table B.3-10  indicates  that 44  percent of  the  documented  damage  in-
cidents occurred to  drinking  water,  with the remaining  incidents occurring
to property (28 percent),  flora (10  percent) and  human  health  (6 percent).
Documented damage to  food  chain and  fauna represented the remaining 12 per-
cent of  the  incidents  recorded.  Of  note are  11 sites  where  one  or  more
public water  supply  wells were  contaminated  by  VHOs  and  were  closed  or
restricted.

     Table B.3-10  indicates  that of  the 164 sites evaluated,  29 sites  (18
percent)   indicated  high  environmental   damage,  38 sites  (23  percent)  in-
dicated medium environmental  damage and 41 sites (25  percent) indicated low
environmental  damage.   The remaining  56 site  files  indicated  no apparent
damage (10 percent)  or  did not have  enough information available to make an
evaluation (24  percent).  Of note,  are the files associated  with the  82
sites (50 percent)  which suggested that the actual  damage may be higher than
the  response  described  in the  DISF,   but  the  file  contained  insufficient
analytical data available to support a  higher  damage rating.

     The   analysis  also  indicated that  out  of the 164  sites  evaluated,  2
sites  indicated  high human health  damage,  23  sites  (14  percent) indicated
medium human  health  damage and 35  sites  (21 percent)  indicated low  human
health damage.  The  remaining  104 sites indicated no  apparent damage (i.e.,
there was no  data  available  on public health damages) (32 percent) or  while
there was some data,  there was not enough information available to make an
evaluation (32 percent).  Of  note, are the files associated with 82  sites
(50  percent)  which  suggested that the actual  human  health damage may  be
higher than the severity response described in the DISF,  but the file con-
tained insufficient  analytical data  available  to  support a higher damage
rating.

     B.3.7.2    Tabulation  of   Number  and Severity  of Damage  Incidents  by
Facility  Type.  Table B.3-11 summarizes the DISF responses indicating damage
to each affected area  by associated  facility type. This analysis indicates
that approximately 70 percent of  the  damage  incidents were  associated with
storage facilities (32  percent),  landfills  (23  percent)  or surface impound-
ments  (15 percent).  The remaining 30  percent of the damage  incidents  were
associated with open  dumps (10 percent), midnight dumps  (8  percent) incin-
erators,   recycling/reclamation,  (5   percent)  and 5  other  categories  (7
percent).

     Table B.3-11 also  indicates  that  71 percent of the  incidents involving
damage to  drinking water  involved  containers and tanks  (34  percent)  land-
fills  (24 percent),   and  surface impoundments  (13 percent).   Table B.3-11
also identifies the  severity  of damage to environment and/or human health.
Landfills, storage facilities and surface impoundments resulted  in 75 per-
cent of  the  cases  involving  high  or  medium  environmental  damage and  78
percent of the cases  involving high or medium  human health damage.

     B.3.8  Status of Response.  Table  B.3-12 summarizes  the  status of each
site evaluated  from  the  standpoint  of enforcement,  investigative  and  re-
medial  activates.  This table  indicates  that only 17 percent  of the  files
evaluated indicated  that the  sites  identified were involved  in either past
or  present  legal  or enforcement actions.    However,   76  (46 percent)  site
files  indicated  that additional  environmental  investigations were in  prog-
ress or  completed.   Forty-two  (26 percent)  sites were  reported  to  be in-
volved with past or present remedial activities.

-------
                                            B.3-21
                                         Table B.3-11

                                       USEPA REGION III
                                   HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES*
             TABULATION OF NUMBER & SEVERITY DAMAGE INCIDENTS BY FACILITY TYPE
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
                                         Landfi11
                                                  No Damage
Documented Suspected     Documented Suspected
     5
     1
     3
     2
     2
     0
35
11
16
14
27
17
       10
        0
        1
        0
        0
        0
            28
            64
            57
            61
            49
            59
         Insufficient
         Information
          Available
           in File      Total

              7          85
              9          85
              8          85
              8          85
              7          85
              9          85
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
High
11
0
Dama
Documented
10
0
1
1
2
1
Medium
16
4
3£
Suspected
3
5
8
9
9
6
Insufficient
Information
Available No Apparent Total Number
Low in File Damage of Responses
16 24
10 28
Open Dump
No
18
43
Damage
Documented Suspected
1 3
0 9
0 4
0 4
0 5
0 10
85
85
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
2
5
6
5
3
2

Total
19
19
19
19
19
19
                                    Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
      3
      0
4
0
6
7
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  i]T_File

   6
   9
No Apparent
  Damage

     0
     3
Total Number
of Responses

    19
    19
IDSampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.3-22
                                     Table B.3-11 (cont'd)(1)
                                   Surface Impoundments
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
                No Damage

           Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     2
     1
     1
     3
     1
     2
     5
     2
 20
 12
  8
  8
 19
 15
        3
        0
        0
        0
        0
        0
             13
             21
             22
             23
             18
             18
         Insufficient
         Information
          Available
           in File      Total

              5         42
              9         42
             12         42
              9         42
              5         42
              8         42
                                    Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
12
 3
6
8
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   14
   15
No Apparent
  Damage

    6
   15
Total Number
of Responses

    43
    43
                                        Incinerator
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
                No Damage

           Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
 0              02
 0              03
 0              03
 0              03
 2              01
 1              02

  Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 2          4
                                 1          4
                                 1          4
                                 1          4
                                 1          4
                                 1          4
     High   Medium   Low
     0
     0
 1
 0
0
1
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   3
   2
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    1
Total Number
of Responses

     4
     4
(I)Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.3-23
                                     Table B.3-11 (cont'd)

                                      Injection Well
                                                          (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     1
     0
     0
     0
     0
     2
      1
      0
3              00
1              01
2              02
2              02
4              00
1              01

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 0           4
                                 2           4
                                 0           4
                                 0           4
                                 0           4
                                 0           4
     High   Medium   Low
2
0
1
3
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in_File

    0
    1
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    0
Total Number
of Responses

     4
     4
                                      Land Treatment
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
4              13
4              05
2              06
1              07
3              06
4              05

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 1           9
                                 0           9
                                 I           9
                                 1           9
                                 0           9
                                 0           9
     High   Medium   Low
      0
      0
1
0
4
1
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in_file

    1
    2
No Apparent
  Damage

    3
    6
Total Number
of Responses

  9
  9
(I)Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.3-24
                                     Table B.3-11 (cont'd)(1)

                                 Transportation Spill Site
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     1
1              0         1
1              01
0              02
0              02
2              00
1              00

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 1           3
                                 1           3
                                 1           3
                                 1           3
                                 1           3
                                 1           3
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
High
0
0
Dama
Documented
3
0
0
0
1
4
Medium
2
1
Storage T
fli
Suspected
34
11
12
12
23
17
Insufficient
Information
Available
Low in File
1 0
1 0
reatment Containers
No Damage
No Apparent Total Number
Damage of Responses
0
1

Documented Suspected
2 16
1 39
0 37
0 39
0 27
0 32
3
3
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
5
9
11
9
9
7

Total
60
60
60
60
60
60
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
     9
     0
14
 5
10
11
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   21
   27
No Apparent
  Damage

    6
   17
Total Number
of Responses

     60
     60
(T)Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.3-25
                                     Table B.3-11 (cont'd)

                                  Storage Treatment Tanks
                                                          (1)
                                                  No Damage
                                             Insufficient
                                             Information
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Documented Suspected
2 16
- 0 7
1 4
0 4
0 11
2 9
Documented "Suspected
1 6
0 17
0 13
0 16
0 9
0 9
Available
in File
3
4
10
8
8
8
Total
28
28
28
28
28
28
                                    Severity of Damage
Insufficient
Information
Available No Apparent Total Number
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health



Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
, High
8
0

Dama

Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0
Medium Low in
7
3
Storage

3i

Suspected
5
4
2
2
1
0
3 8
5 16
Treatment

No

File Damage of Responses
2
4
Piles

Damage

Documented Suspected
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
5
4
4
6
5
28
28
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
2
1
4
4
3
5





Total
10
10
10
10
10
10
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
High   Medium   Low
0
0
2
0
3
1
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

     3
     4
No Apparent
  Damage

    2
    5
Total Number
of Responses

     10
     10
(I)Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.3-26
                                     Table B.3-11 (cont'd)
                                                          (1)
                                Boilers Using Waste as Fuel
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
0              0         1
0              0         1
0              0         1
0              01
0              01
0              0         1

 Severity of Damage

            Insufficient
            Information
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File

                                 0
                                 0
                                 0
                                 0
                                 0
                                 0
                                      Tot;

                                        1
                                        1
                                        1
                                        1
                                        1
                                        1
Available No Apparent Total Number
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health



Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
High
0
0

Dama

Documented
1
0
0
0
0
0
Medium
0
0
Recyc

Si-

Suspected
8
4
2
4
7
5
Low in File
0 0
0 0
ling/Reclamation

Damage of Responses
1
1

No Damage

Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0

Suspected
2
4
4
4
1
3
1
1
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
1
4
6
4
4
4





Tot;
12
12
12
12
12
12
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
     4
     0
4
2
1
3
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in_File

   3
   6
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    1
Total Number
of Responses

    12
    12
TOSampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.3-27
                                     Table B.3-11 (cont'd)(1)

                                       Midnight Dump
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
                No Damage

           Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     2
     0
11              08
 6              0        11
 7              0        10
 7              0        11
 9              0        10
12              08

  Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 1          20
                                 3          20
                                 3          20
                                 2          20
                                 1          20
                                 0          20
     High   Medium   Low
 4
 2
4
3
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   8
   8
No Apparent
  Damage

    2
    7
Total Number
of Responses

     20
     20
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.3-28
                                  Table B.3-12

                               USEPA REGION III
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                             STATUS OF RESPONSE
  .evaluated
                            Total  Number of Sites...
     ...with legal/
     enforcement
     action under-
     way/completed
               ...with investi-
               gative actions
               underway/com-
               pleted
                    ...with remedial
                    actions under-
                    way/completed
    164
          28
                    76
                    42
                      DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ACTIVITY


1.
2.
3.
Damage
Incident
Spill
Leak
Spill
Unknown
Facility
type
LF
SI
Unknown
Location
Pittsburgh,
PA
E. Peters-
burg, PA
S.E. Pennsyl-
vania
Remedial Activity
Removal of contaminated
soil
Repair berms, removal
of soil
Treat public water
supply (wells) with
Costs ($)
up to $24
million
70,000
25,000
per well
4.    Spill
     Spill
     Leak

     Leak
SI
MD
LF
Staunton, VA


Chester, PA
activated carbon
adsorbents

Repair berms, remove     150,000
spillage and soil

Remove waste and soil    3,000,000
Ft.  Belvoir,   Gas interception and     3,000,000
VA             treatment
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.3-29
     Table B.3-12 also  compares  the damage incident  type  with the remedial
activities and  related costs  for  sites  having  cost data  available.  These
activities included  removal  of wastes and groundwater withdrawal and treat-
ment.    Expenditures  for  remedial  activities  for  the sites   ranged  from
$25,000 to $24 million.

-------
Section B.4

-------
B.4  Region IV Summary

     B.4.1   Region IV Overview.   The  study  team  evaluated  and  completed
DISFs  for  151 sites  in Region IV.   Many of  these  sites  contained multiple
facilities.  A total of 279 facility types were used in describing the sites
in this  region.   Of the 279 facility types evaluated,  17 percent were con-
tainers, 18  percent were  landfills,  12  percent  were tanks  and 16 percent
were surface  impoundments.   The  remaining 27 percent of  the facility types
were described  by  various  other  categories.   As discussed  in Sections 3.1
and  3.2  the reader should  note  for the  following  discussion  that the data
bases and the selection criteria utilized on this study limit the applicabi-
lity of the  conclusion reached  herein  to  other  populations  of  hazardous
waste sites.

     Contamination, either documented or suspected,  was identified in 146 of
the  sites  evaluated.   At 120  of the sites,  or 79 percent, contamination was
documented.  Thirty-seven percent of the contamination incidents occurred to
soil, with the  remaining  incidents  occurring to surface water (33 percent),
groundwater (28 percent), and air (3 percent).  Of the 312 responses origin-
ally indicating  contamination, only  190 (61  percent)  could  be documented
using  the  evaluation  criteria developed in  Section 3.1.4.   Each  site  was
evaluated  for  damage  occurring to  life, property  and  various  natural  re-
sources.  This evaluation focused on six potentially affected areas, includ-
ing  drinking  water, food  chain,  flora,  fauna,  human health  and  property.
Damage,  (either  documented  or suspected),  was  identified  in at  least  81
sites,   or  54 percent  of the  sites evaluated.   Of the 151  affected  areas
originally indicating damage,  only 47 (31 percent) could be documented using
the  evaluation criteria.  Approximately  30  percent  of the documented damage
incidents  occurred  to flora,  with the remaining  incidents occurring  to
drinking water (28 percent), fauna (23  percent), property (11 percent), food
chain  (6 percent)  and human  health  (2  percent).   There was one incident
involving  documented  damage  to  human  health.   This  incident  involved  a
chemical reaction   in  containers  at a  reclamation  facility  sending  nearby
residents  to  the  hospital.   Seventy-eight percent  of the  incidents  causing
the  damage  or contamination  described  above  were  due to  leachate (32 per-
cent),  leaks (25  percent)  or  spills (21 percent).  These incidents involved
contamination caused by volatile  halogenated  organics,  volatile nonhalogen-
ated organics or metals in 46 percent of the incidents tabulated.

     B.4.2  Sources.   The  study  team preliminarily identified 200 files  in
Region  IV  for  review.   File sources included 200  S&A  Files.  Based  upon  a
review  of  the sites,  49 were eliminated from the study  because they did not
conform to  the Selection Criteria summarized  in Section 3.1, Table 3-1.

     B.4.3   Tabulation of Site Descriptions  by Facility  Type.   Each site was
evaluated  an3  categorized  by one  or  more  of  the  foTTowTng  fourteen  site
descriptions as listed  in Section IIA of the DISFs.

          Landfill  Facility             .    Storage/Treatment Containers
          Open Dump                     .    Storage/Treatment Tanks
          Surface  Impoundment            .    Storage/Treatment Piles
          Incinerator                   .    Boilers Using Waste  as Fuel
          Injection Well                .    Recycling/Reclamation
          Land Treatment                .    Midnight Dump
          Transportation Spill  Site      .    Other

-------
                                   B.4-2
     For the 151  sites  evaluated in the region, 11 of these categories were
identified at  least  once.   Table B.4-1 summarizes the total  number  of fac-
ility types used in describing the 151 sites evaluated.  Many of these sites
contained multiple facilities.   A  total  of 279 facility types  were  used in
describing the sites  in this region.   Of the  279  facility  types evaluated,
approximately 78 percent  of the  sites were identified as  either containers
(27 percent),  landfills (18 percent), tanks (12  percent),  surface impound-
ments (16 percent) or midnight dumps (5 percent).  A total  of 84 sites were
described by 2 or more facility types and 30 sites by three or more facility
types.

     B.4.4  Contamination Incidents.  Four media,  i.e. groundwater,  surface
water,  air and soil,  were evaluated for site-related  contamination  in Sec-
tion V of the DISF.  In the remainder of this section,  contamination  will be
interpreted to mean  both documented and suspected incidents/events,  unless
otherwise  noted.   Sites  indicating  the  absence  of contamination,  and/or
files  not  containing  sufficient information  to  determine  the  presence of
contamination, were  also identified.   Table B.4-2 summarizes the  number of
sites identified with contamination in at least  one  of the above media.

     Contamination incidents were  identified at 146 of the sites evaluated.
A  total  of  312  incidents  involving  various  media  were recorded at  these
sites of which 190 (61 percent) could be documented by sampling  and analyti-
cal data.  One hundred seven sites were identified with contamination in two
or more media.  For example, of the 114 sites indicating  soil contamination,
60 sites also indicated groundwater contamination.  File  data indicated that
143 sites  were contaminated  from  incident(s)  occurring at  the site  evalu-
ated.   File data for  the  remaining 3 sites indicated that contamination may
have originated off-site.

     B.4.4.1  Tabulation  of  Media Exposed  to Contamination.   Table  B.4-3
summarizes the total number  of  DISF responses  indicating  contamination or
the  absence  of  contamination found  by media.   Site  files  not containing
sufficient  information  to  determine contamination  were also  recorded  for
each of the media evaluated and noted under the appropriate heading in Table
B.4-3.   This table indicates  that  37 percent of the contamination incidents
occurred to soil.  The  remaining incidents occurred to either surface water
(32 percent), groundwater  (28 percent),  or air (3 percent).  In many cases,
contamination to more than one media occurred at any particular site.

     B.4.4.2   Tabulation  of Media  Exposed to  Contamination  Incidents by
Facility Type.  Table B.4-4  summarizes  the total number of DISF responses
indicating  media  contamination  associated with  each facility type.   This
analysis suggests that approximately 77 percent of the sites associated with
contamination  incidents were identified as either containers (26 percent),
landfills (16  percent), tanks (12 percent),  surface  impoundments (18 per-
cent) or midnight  dumps (5 percent).  Table B.4-4  indicates  that, for most
of the incidents  tabulated, in decreasing order of occurrence, contamination
to:

     0    groundwater  was  associated with  landfills,  containers,
          surface impoundment, and  tanks;

-------
                                   B.4-3
                                 Table  B.4-1

                               USEPA REGION IV
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES      ,,,
                       DISF SUMMARY OF  EVALUATED SITESUJ
                   TABULATION OF  SITE  DESCRIPTIONS  BY  TYPE
Facility
Type
Landfill
Open Dump
Surface Impoundment
Incinerator
Injection Well
Land Treatment
Total Number of
Responses Described as
Given Facility Type
50
20
44
15
2
5
Storage/Treatment Containers 74
Storage/Treatment Tanks
Storage/Treatment Piles
Recycl i ng/Recl amati on
Midnight Dump
Other
Total
34
6
14
15
0
279
Percent of
Total
18
7
16
5
1
2
27
12
2
5
5
0
100
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly  selected.  Site  selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria  are  discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.4-4
                                 Table B.4-2

                               USEPA REGION IV
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES     ,,x
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESUJ
           TABULATION OF SITES EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
                                        Total  Number of
                                        Sites  (Described      Percent of
Category  Description                     by Category)          Total


1         Sites indicating documented       120                    79
          contamination (to at least
          one medium)

2         Sites indicating suspected         26                    17
          contamination (to at least
          one medium) and not identified
          by Category 1 above

3         Sites indicating                    1                     1
          documented or suspected
          absence of contamination
          and not identified by
          Categories 1 and 2 above

4         Sites for which there was           4                     3
          an absence of sufficient
          information in the file to
          make a determination of
          contamination, and not iden-
          tified by Categories 1, 2 or
          3 above
     TOTAL SITES                            151                   100
(1)  Sampled sites were not  randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria and
     the implications of these  criteria  are discussed in detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.4-5
                                       Table B.4-3

                                      USEPA REGION IV
                                  HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES      m
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESu;

                  TABULATION OF MEDIA EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENT
Media Exposed
Responses Indicating
    Contamination
Responses Indicating
  No Contamination
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File
                     Documented Suspected  Documented  Suspected
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
  Total
Responses
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
50
56
3
81
38
45
6
33
8
2
0
0
9
8
55
7
46
40
87
30
151
151
151
151

-------
                                                       B.4-6

                                                    Table B.4-4

                                                   USEPA REGION IV
                                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                                          DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                          TABULATION OF MEDIA EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENT BY FACILITY TYPE

Facility
Type


Landfill



Open Dump



Surface
Impoundment


Incinerator





Media Exposed


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Responses
Indicating


Contamination

Doc.
19
23
1
21
3
9
0
15
23
20
0
23
4
6
0
9

Susp.
11
11
0
11
6
5
1
3
17
18
0
10
6
6
1
3
Responses
Indicating


No Contamination

Doc.
6
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0

Susp.
1
5
18
5
2
1
5
2
1
0
24
1
5
3
5
3
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File

13
11
31
13
9
4
14
0
2
5
19
10
0
0
9
0

Total
Responses


50
50
50
50
20
20
20
20
44
44
44
44
15
15
15
15
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and  the  implications  of these  criteria
     are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1  and  3.2.1.

-------
                                                        B.4-7
Transportation
Spill Site (2)
                                                Table  B.4-4  (cont'd)(1)
                                         Responses
                                        Responses
Insufficient
Facility
Type

Injection
Well


Land
Treatment


Media Exposed

Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface water
Air
Soil
Indicating
Contamination
Doc.
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
4
Susp.
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
Indicating
No Contamination
Doc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Susp.
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
Information
Available
in File

1
1
1
2
2
1
3
1
Total
Responses

2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Storage Treat-
ment Containers


Storage Treat-
ment Tanks


Storage Treat-
ment Piles


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
19
24
3
47
11
11
0
18
2
1
0
4
16
25
5
18
11
11
2
7
1
3
2
1
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
10
4
25
3
1
2
13
1
0
0
1
0
27
19
41
5
11
10
19
8
2
2
3
1
74
74
74
74
34
34
34
34
6
6
6
6
(I)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implications of these criteria
     are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files  evaluated.

-------
                                                       B.4-8

                                                Table B.4-4 (cont'd)
                                                (1)
                                         Responses
                                        Responses
Insufficient
Facility
Type
Media Exposed
Indicating
Contamination
Doc. Susp.
Indicating
No Contamination
Doc. Susp.
Information
Available
in File
Total
Responses
Boilers Using, «\ Groundwater
Waste as Fuel*1 ' Surface Water
Air

Recycling
Reclamation


Midnight
Dump

Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil

4
4
1
10
4
5
0
9

4
8
1
2
5
4
1
4

0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

1
0
6
0
1
0
4
0

5
2
6
2
4
5
10
2

14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
Other
     (2)
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection criteria and the  implications  of these criteria
     are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

(2)  Facility type not identified in files  evaluated.

-------
                                   B.4-9
     0    surface water  was associated with  landfills,  containers,
          surface impoundments,  and tanks;
     0    soil  was  associated  with  containers,  landfills,  surface
          impoundments, and tanks; and
     0    air was associated with containers,  landfills,  surface im-
          poundments,  and tanks.

     B.4.5  Events Causing Contamination.   Contaminated sites were associated
with one or more of the following events,  as outlined in  Section VIII of the
DISF.

          Fire/Explosion                .     Seismic Activity
          Spill                         .     Erosion
          Leak                          .     Leachate
          Flood                         .     Emission of  Toxic Gases/Mists

     In  the  remainder of  this  section, events tabulated will  include both
documented and suspected  events, unless otherwise noted.

     Seven of  these events  were  identified at  least once,  along  with one
other type not  listed  in the DISF.  This other event was  described as uncon-
trolled  surface  runoff.  A  total  of  40 sites (26  percent)  were involved in
two events and 33 sites (22 percent) in three or more events.

     B.4.5.1  Tabulation  of Events  Causing  Contamination  Incidents.  Table
B.4-5 summarizes the total number of  events causing contamination incidents.
In  total,  250  contamination events  involving  various  facility  types  were
recorded  in  the  DISFs.   For  this  region,  this  tabulation  indicates  that
approximately 78 percent of the contamination events were related to leachate
(32 percent),  leaks (25  percent) or  spills (21 percent).   Of  the  250 con-
tamination  events  tabulated,   157  (63 percent)  could  be  documented  from
information available  in  the  file.

     B.4.5.2  Tabulation of Events Causing Contamination  Incidents By Facil-
ity Type.  Table B.4-6 summarizes the  events causing contamination incidents
at  various  facility types.  Since a  number of  sites contained  a  multiple
number of  facilities,  there were a  number of cases where there was  insuffi-
cient information available in the file to identify the damage incident with
the specific  facility  unit in  question.  These  represented  approximately 10
percent of the  total and are identified  in Table B.4-6.

     This  analysis  indicates that approximately 73  percent of  the  leachate
events were associated with landfills  (32 percent), containers (21  percent)
or  surface  impoundments  (20 percent).   Leaks  were  found to  occur primarily
at  container  storage  facilities.   Approximately  62 percent  of the  spill
events were associated with storage  or treatment facilities (all  types) (50
percent) and surface impoundments (12 percent).   Air pollution events,  i.e.,
emissions  of  toxic gases   and  mists,   were  most  commonly  associated  with
containers (33  percent)  and incinerators  (22 percent).   Facilities  having
the highest frequency of fires and explosions were containers (39 percent).

-------
                                  B.4-10
                                Table B.4-5

                               USEPA REGION  IV
                           HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES      ,,,
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESu;

            TABULATION  OF  EVENTS CAUSING CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic Gases/Mists
Other
Total
Documented
9
34
34
2
0
5
51
3
19
157
Suspected
4
19
29
3
0
4
30
3
1
93
Total
13
53
63
5
0
9
81
6
20
250
(1)  Sampled sites  were not randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria and
     the implications  of these  criteria  are  discussed in  detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                              B.4-11
                                       Table B.4-6

                                      USEPA REGION IV
                                  HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
              TABULATION OF EVENTS CAUSING CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS BY FACILITY TYPE

Facility
Type
Landfill









Open
Dump








Surface
Impound-
ments









Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other


Documented
4
3
5
0
0
3
30

0
6
1
7
8
0
0
3
9

0
1
1
8
8
1
0
1
12

1
8


Suspected
2
4
7
3
0
1
14

1
1
1
3
1
1
0
0
4

1
0
0
3
7
0
0
1
16

0
2
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
1
1
0
0
0
3

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
1

0
0


Total
6
8
13
3
0
4
47

1
7
2
10
9
1
0
3
13

1
1
2
13
18
1
0
2
29

1
10
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria and the  implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in  detail  in  Section 3.1.1 and  3.2.1.

-------
                                             B.4-12
                                   Table B.4-6 (cont'd)
                                                       (1)
                                                                Insufficient
                                                                Information
Facility
Type
Incinerator









Injection
Well








Land
Treatment








Transporta-
tion Spill
Site (2)








Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other

Documented
0
1
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

Suspected
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
V
- o
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
Available
in File
0
4
5
1
0
2
5

0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

Total
0
5
6
1
0
2
5

2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
2

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
(1)  Sampled sites  were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and the  implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed  in  detail  in  Section 3.1.1 and  3.2.1.

(2)  Facility type  not identified in files  evaluated.

-------
                                              B.4-13
                                    Table B.4-6 (cont'd)
                                                        (1)
                                                              Insufficient
                                                               Information
Facility
Type
Storage
Treatment
Containers







Storage
Treatment
Tanks







Storage
Treatment
Piles







Boilers
Using Waste
as Fuel(2)








Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other

Documented
5
17
22
1
0
2
20

1
8
1
11
9
0
0
0
4

0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
2

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

Suspected
2
16
20
2
0
2
9

2
0
0
3
8
0
0
0
4

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
Available
in File
5
5
2
0
0
1
2

1
1
4
4
4
1
0
1
1

2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0 ,
0

Total
12
38
44
3
0
5
31

4
9
5
18
21
1
0
1
9

2
2
0
1
3
0
0
0
3

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and the  implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed  in  detail  in  Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

(2)  Facility type not identified in files  evaluated.

-------
                                              B.4-14
                                    Table  B.4-6  (cont'd)
                                                        (1)
                                                                 Insufficient
                                                                 Information
Facility
Type
Recycling
Reclamation








Midnight
Dump









Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other

Documented
1
2
2
0
0
0
2

1
2
0
7
4
0
0
0
1

0
1

Suspected
0
5
7
0
0
0
1

0
1
0
1
2
1
0
0
7

0
0
Available
in File
1
1
1
0
0
1
0

1
0
1
1
2
0
0
1
1

0
0

Total
2
8
10
0
0
1
3

2
3
1
9
8
1
0
1
9

0
1
(1)  Sampled sites  were not  randomly  selected.   Site  selection criteria and the  implica-
     tions of these criteria are  discussed  in  detail  in  Section  3.1.1 and  3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.4-15
     B.4.6  Chemicals Documented in Contamination Incidents.  For this anal-
ysis,  chemicalcompounds  were organized  into  thefollowing  general  cate-
gories:

          Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHOs)         .     Inorganics
          Volatile Non-halogenated Organics (VNHOs)    .     Cyanide
          Base Neutral Extractables (BNEs)             .     Acids
          Pesticides                                   .     Acid Compounds
          PCBs                                         .     Alkalies
          Metals                                       .     Alcohols
          Oil                                          .     Aldehydes
          Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds                    .     Ketones
          Asbestos                                     .     Radioactive

Table  B.4-7  summarizes  the total  number of times that a chemical in a given
category was  positively  identified  by sampling and analytical techniques as
occurring as contaminants in the various media.

     Fourteen of  these  chemical  categories  were  identified  at  least once,
along  with  five additional  categories  not listed  above.   These other cat-
egories  included mercaptan,  varsol,   sodium  chlorate,  fecal  coliform  and
aromatics.   This  tabulation  indicates that approximately 46  percent of the
chemical categories were identified as either VHOs (11  percent),  VNHOs (11
percent) or metals (24 percent).  Table B.4-8 lists the most commonly occur-
ring chemicals  found  in  each of these categories,  and the  range of concen-
trations observed in the  affected media.

     B.4.7  Damage Incidents.  The  following six  affected  areas  were evalu-
ated for site related damage on the DISF.

          Drinking Water                .     Fauna
          Food Chain                    .     Human Health
          Flora                         .     Property Damage

     In  the  remainder of  this section damage  will be  interpreted to mean
both documented  and suspected incidents/events unless otherwise noted.

     Damage  was identified  for  at  least  81  sites, or  54  percent,  of  the
sites  evaluated.  As noted in Section B.4.4,  higher percentages of the sites
indicated contamination  (96 percent).   Damage was indicated in approximately
55 percent of the  contaminated sites evaluated.  Of the 151  affected areas
indicating damage, only 47 (31 percent) could be documented using the evalu-
ation criteria.

     Sites  indicating  the absence  of damage,  and/or  files  not containing
sufficient information to determine damage, were also  identified.  A tabula-
tion of  sites  identified  with damage for at  least one  of the  above cat-
egories  is outlined in  Table B.4-9.  Of note,  are the  38 sites (25 percent)
identified as having damage to two or more affected areas.   Of the 114 sites
indicating soil  contamination, 32  sites  also indicated damage  to drinking
water.    Also,  of  the 130 sites  indicating  soil and/or surface water con-
tamination,   44  sites  also  indicated  damage to  flora, fauna or  the  food
chain.

-------
                                       B.4-16
                                      Table B.4-7

                                   USEPA REGION IV
                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES     m
                          DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESUJ

              TABULATION OF CHEMICALS DOCUMENTED IN CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS


                                                  Total Positive           Percent
Chemical Category	Identifications	of Total

Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHOs)                   38                       11
Volatile Non-halogenated Organics (VNHOs)              36                       11
Base Neutral Extractables (BNEs)                       35                       10
Pesticides                                             34                       10
PCBs                                                   25                        7
Metals                                                 81                       24
Oil                                                     62
Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds                               4                        1
Inorganics                                              0                        0
Cyanide                                                24                        7
Acids                                                  11                        3
Acid Compounds                                         30                        9
Alkalies                                                0                        0
Alcohols                                                2                        1
Aldehydes                                               0                        0
Ketones                                                 5                        2
Radioactive                                             1                        0
Asbestos                                                0                        0
Others                                                  5                        2

Total                                                 337                      100
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and
     3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.4-17
                                      Table B.4-8
                                     USEPA REGION IV
                                  HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                             DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                                             (1)
                    CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED BY MEDIA
Most
Frequently
Observed
Chemical
Category
Contaminant
                              Contaminant Concentration Range
GroundwaterSurface WaterSoiI
   (mg/1)         (mg/1)     (mg/kg)
               Air
              (mg/1)
VHOs      tncnToroethy1ene
          tetrachloroethy1ene
          1, 1-dichloroethane
VNHOs     benzene
          ethyl benzene
          toluene
Metals    chromium
          lead
          zinc
                   LTO05- 0.156    1.9          1.1
                   LT0.010- 0.065  LTO.005-0.160  LT3
                                     0.012- 1.7   ND
                                       ND
 0.051-22
 0.017- 0.093
 0.099- 820
 0.007-0.425
 0.050- 1.49
 0.034- 39.08   0.040-325
 0.025-2,390    0.013-775
1.2 -100
                                    0.029-   3.5   0.013- 3.1
                                    0.210-GT1     0.013-1.3
                                    0.018-220
                ND
                ND
                ND
                ND
                ND
                ND
 0.17-6,512     ND
 0.112-190,000  ND
11.9-17,480     ND
NOTES:
     ND = no data available
     LT = less than
     GT = greater than
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.4-18
                                 Table B.4-9

                               USEPA REGION IV
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES     ,,,
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESU;
                         TABULATION OF SITES DAMAGED
Category
Description
Total Number of
Sites (Described
by Category)
Percent of
  Total
          Sites indicating documented
          damage (to at least
          one affected area)

          Sites indicating suspected
          damage (to at least one
          affected area) and  not
          identified by Category 1
          above.

          Sites indicating
          documented or suspected
          absence of damage and not
          identified by Categories
          1  and 2 above

          Sites for which there was
          an absence of sufficient
          information in the  file to
          make a determination of
          damage and not identified
          by Categories 1,2 and 3
          above
                              31
                              50
                           21
                           33
                              62
                           41
     TOTAL SITES
                            151
                          100
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.4-19
     B.4.7.1   Tabulation  of  Number,  Type and Severity of Damage Incidents.
Table B.4-10 summarizes the total number of DISF responses indicating damage
to  the  above affected areas.  Site files  not containing sufficient inform-
ation to determine damage were also recorded  and noted under the appropriate
heading in Table B.4-10.

     Table  B.4-10 indicates  that  30  percent  of  the documented  damage in-
cidents occurred  to  flora, with the remaining incidents occurring to drink-
ing water  (28 percent), fauna (23 percent) and property (11 percent).  Docu-
mented  damage  to human  health and food  chain represented  the remaining 8
percent of the  incidents recorded.

     Table  B.4-10 indicates  that  of  the 151 sites  evaluated,  18  sites (12
percent)  indicated   high  environmental  damage,  15  sites  (10  percent)  in-
dicated medium  environmental  damage and 61 sites (40 percent) indicated low
environmental  damage.   The  remaining 57  site  files indicated  no  apparent
damage (5 percent) or did not have enough information available (33 percent)
to make an evaluation.   Of note, are the files associated with the 34 sites
(23 percent) which  suggested that the actual damage may  be higher than the
response described in the DISF, but the file contained insufficient analyti-
cal data available to support  a higher  damage rating.

     The analysis also indicated  that  out of the 151  sites  evaluated,  one
site  indicated high  human  health  damage, 6 sites  (4 percent)  indicated
medium  human health  damage  and  6 sites  (4  percent)  indicated  low  human
health damage.   The  remaining 138 sites indicated no apparent damage (i.e.,
there was  no data available  on public  health damages)  (9  percent) or while
there was  some  data, there was not enough  information  available to make an
evaluation  (83  percent).   Of  note,  are the  files associated with  15  sites
(10  percent)  which  suggested that the  actual human  health  damage may be
higher than  the  severity  response described  in the  DISF,  but the file con-
tained  insufficient  analytical  data  available to  support a higher  damage
rating.

     B.4.7.2   Tabulation  of  Number  and  Severity   of  Damage  Incidents  by
Facility Type.   Table B.4-11  summarizes the DISF responses  indicating damage
to each affected  area  by associated facility type.   This analysis  indicates
that approximately 73  percent of the  damage  incidents were  associated with
storage facilities (38 percent),  landfills (17 percent) or surface impound-
ments (18  percent).  The  remaining  27 percent of the damage  incidents  were
associated with open dumps, incinerators,  recycling/reclamation, and 2 other
categories.

     Table B.4-11 also indicates  that 75 percent of the incidents  involving
damage  to  drinking  water involved landfills  (19  percent),  containers  and
tanks (34 percent) and surface impoundments (22 percent).   Table B.4-11 also
identifies the severity of damage to environment and/or human health.   Land-
fills, storage  facilities and surface  impoundments  resulted in 73 percent of
the cases  involving  high  or  medium environmental  damage and 71 percent of
the cases  involving high or medium human  health damage.

     B.4.8  Status of Response.   Table B.4-12 summarizes the  status  of each
site  evaluated  from the  standpoint of  enforcement, investigative and  re-
medial activites.  This table indicates that only 22 percent of the files

-------
                                                      B.4-20

                                                   Table B.4-10

                                                   USEPA REGION IV
                                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                                          DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                               TABULATION OF NUMBER & SEVERITY OF DAMAGE INCIDENTS
Affected Area
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
                    Insufficient
                    Information
                     Available
                      in File
                     Total
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
13
3
14
11
1
5
32
7
19
16
29
5
12
0
0
0
0
0
15
18
14
16
18
17
79
123
108
108
103
124
151
151
151
151
151
151
Environmental
Human Health
                                   Severity of  Damage
                                                            Insufficient
                                                            Information
Affected Area
High
Medium
Low
Available
in File
No Apparent
Damage
Total Number
of Responses
     18
      1
15
 6
61
 6
 50
125
 7
13
151
151
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and  the  implications  of these
     criteria are discussed in detail  in  Section 3.1.1  and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.4-21
                                        Table B.4-11
                                       USEPA REGION IV
                                   HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                                         (1)
             TABULATION OF NUMBER & SEVERITY DAMAGE INCIDENTS BY FACILITY TYPE
                                         Landfill
                                                  No Damage
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Documented Suspected     Documented Suspected
     7
     1
     6
     3
     0
     3
 9
 2
 6
 5
 9
 2
        6
        0
        0
        0
        0
        0
             4
             8
             6
             8
             7
             7
         Insufficient
         Information
          Available
           in File      Total

              24         50
              39         50
              32         50
              34         50
              34         50
              38         50
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
High
7
1
Dama
Documented
0
1
2
2
0
1
Medium
4
3
fle
Suspected
3
1
0
2
2
0
Insufficient
Information
Available No Apparent Total Number
Low in File Damage of Responses
23 16
0 44
Open Dump
No
0
2
Damage
Documented Suspected
1 4
0 4
0 5
0 5
0 4
0 5
50
50
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
12
14
13
11
14
14

Total
20
20
20
20
20
20
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
     1
     0
2
0
6
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   10
   18
No Apparent
  Damage

    1
    2
Total Number
of Responses

     20
     20
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selections criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.4-22
                                     Table B.4-11 (cont'd)
                                                          (1)
                                   Surface Impoundments
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
                No Damage

           Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     5
     1
     6
     6
     0
     1
     7
     1
14              32
 3              03
 5              03
 5              02
 7              04
 3              03

  Severity of Damage
                             Insufficient
                             Information
                              Available
                               in File      Total

                                  20        44
                                  37        44
                                  30        44
                                  31        44
                                  33        44
                                  37        44
     High   Medium   Low
 9
 1
13
 2
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   15
   40
              No  Apparent
               Damage

                  0
                  0
              Total  Number
              of Responses

                   44
                   44
                                        Incinerator
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
                No Damage

           Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     2
     0
     2
     0
     0
     2
     1
     1
 3              03
 0              03
 1              03
 1              03
 9              03
 2              03

  Severity of Damage
                             Insufficient
                             Information
                              Available
                               in File      Total

                                   7        15
                                  12        15
                                   9        15
                                  11        15
                                   3        15
                                   8        15
     High   Medium   Low
 1
 1
 9
 2
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

    1
    8
No Apparent
  Damage

    3
    3
                            Total Number
                            of Responses

                                 15
                                 15
 (1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.4-23
                                     Table B.4-11 (cont'd)

                                      Injection Well
                                                          (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     1
     0
0              10
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 1           2
                                 2           2
                                 2           2
                                 2           2
                                 2           2
                                 2           2
     High   Medium   Low
0
0
1
1
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in_File

   0
   1
No Apparent
  Dajnage

    0
    0
Total Number
of Responses

     2
     2
                                      Land Treatment
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     1
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
1              00
0              00
1              00
1              00
0              00
0              00

 Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
2
0
3
0
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 4           5
                                 5           5
                                 3           5
                                 4           5
                                 5           5
                                 5           5
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   0
   5
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    0
Total Number
of Responses

     5
     5
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.4-24
                                     Table  B.4-11 (cont'd)(1)
                                 Transportation  Spill  Site^-  '
*
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
Damage
Documented Suspected
Severity
High Medium Low

No Damage
Documented Suspected
of Damage
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available No Apparent Total Number
in File Damage of Responses

0
0
Storage Treatment Containers
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
Damage
Documented Suspected
7 12
1 4
6 7
4 6
1 21
3 4
Severity
High Medium Low
10 4 31
0 45
No Damage
Documented Suspected
3 9
0 8
0 6
0 5
0 7
0 7
of Damage
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File Total
43 74
61 74
55 74
59 74
45 74
60 74
Insufficient
Information
Available No Apparent Total Number
in File Damage of Responses
25 4
56 9
74
74
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files  evaluated.

-------
                                            B.4-25
                                     Table B.4-11 (cont'd)

                                  Storage Treatment Tanks
                                                          (1)
                                                  No Damage
                                             Insufficient
                                             Information
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Documented Suspected
2 8
0 1
4 4
0 4
0 10
0 2
Documented Suspected
1 0
0 I
0 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
Available
in File
23
32
25
29
24
32
Total
34
34
34
34
34
34
                                    Severity of Damage
Insufficient
Information

Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health



Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage

High
4
0

Dama

Documented
2
0
2
0
0
1

Medium
3
0
Storage

3§

Suspected
0
0
1
2
1
0
Avai
Low i n
13 13
3 30
Treatment

No

Table No Apparent Total Number
File Damage
1
1
Piles

Damage

Documented Suspected
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
of Responses
34
34
Insufficient
Information
Available






in File Total
3
6
4
6
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
High   Medium   Low
1
0
0
0
5
1
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in_File

   0
   5
No Apparent
  Dajnage

    0
    0
Total Number
of Responses

     6
     6
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.4-26
Affected Area
                                     Table B.4-11 (cont'd)(1)
                                Boilers Using Waste as  Fuel
                                                           (2)
       Damage

Documented Suspected
     No Damage

Documented Suspected
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File
Total
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage



Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health




Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Severity of Damage



High




Dama

Documented
1
0
1
1
1
0



Medium


Recycl

3§

Suspected
3
2
3
2
5
3
Insufficient
Information
Available
Low in File


ing/Reclamation

No Damage





No Apparent Total Number
Damage of Responses



Insufficient
Information
Available
Documented Suspected in File
1
0
0
0
0
0
2 7
1 11
1 9
1 10
2 6
1 10






Tota
14
14
14
14
14
14
Severity of Damage



Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health



High
2
0



Medium
2
2
Insufficient
Information
Available
Low in File
7 1
0 9




No Apparent Total Number
Damage of Responses
2 14
3 14


(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria and the  implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail  in  Section 3.1.1 and  3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                            B.4-27
                                     Table B.4-11 (cont'd)

                                       Midnight Dump
                                                          (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     2
     I
     I
     1
     0
     1
     2
     0
4              02
1              02
3              02
1              03
4              04
1              03

 Severity of Damage
     High   Medi urn   Low
3
0
4
2
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 7          15
                                11          15
                                 9          15
                                10          15
                                 7          15
                                10          15
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   5
  12
No Apparent
  Damage

    1
    1
Total Number
of Responses

     15
     15
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                       B.4-28
                                    Table B.4-12

                                 USEPA REGION IV
                              HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                         DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES

                               STATUS OF RESPONSE
                            Total Number of Sites.
   evaluated
...with legal/
enforcement
action under-
way/completed
       ...with investi-
       gative actions
       underway/com-
       pleted
...with remedial
actions under-
way/completed
     151
     33                  55

  DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
                                54
Damage
Incident
Facility
  type
Location    Remedial  Activity
          Costs ($)
1.  Leaking drums

2.  Suspected
   leaking drums

3.  Leaks and surface
   runoff; emission
   of toxic gases

4.  Possible leaking
   materials from
   drums

5.  Leaking and
   leaching of
   materials from
   transformers
   and surface
   impoundments
   ST     Columbia, SC        NA

   STC    Rock Hill, SC       NA
   STC    Columbia, SC
   STC    Well ford, SC
   SI     Jacksonville,
          FL
                 NA
            In August 1980,  EPA
            funded removal  of 98
            of the drums
          300,000

           50,000*


          975,000*



           45,000
            A comprehensive cleanup  319,000
            plan is being developed
            for the site by EPA and
            the Florida Department
            of Environmental  Regula-
            tion.   In addition,
            remedial activities
            included the development
            of intercepter ditches
            and oil separators
    (1)  Sampled sites were  not  randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
         the implications of  these  criteria are discussed in  detail  in Section
         3.1.1 and  3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.4-29



                          Table B.4-12 (cont'd)(1)


                      DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
Damage              Facility
Incident              type    Location       Remedial Activity        Costs ($)


6. Apparent rupture    SI     White House,   City of Jacksonville     100,000
   of levels from             FL             treated and dewatered
   rainfall; leaching                        the oil pits.   Pits
                                             were filled and packed
                                             with clays

7. Contents of 200-    MD     Charlotte      Drums were removed        10,000
   300 drums spilled          NC
   in a residential
   neighborhood

8. Leachate caused     LF     Wilmington,    Abandon existing wells   3007
   contamination              NC             and distribute water     house-
   to nearby private                         from a new public        hold
   drinking water                            water supply well
   wells                                     to local residents
NOTES:     NA = Not Available
          *  = Estimate
(1)  Sampled sites were  not  randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of  these  criteria are discussed  in  detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.4-30
evaluated indicated that  the  sites  identified were involved  in  either past
or  present  legal  or  enforcement  actions.   However,  55  (36  percent)  site
files  indicated  that  additional  environmental investigations  were  in prog-
ress or  completed.   Fifty-four (36  percent)  sites were reported to  be in-
volved with  past or present remedial  activities.

     Table B.4-12 also  compares  the damage incident type with the  remedial
activities  and  related  costs  for  sites having  cost  data  available.   These
activities included removal of wastes,  lining of impoundments with  clay and
the development of  cleanup  plans.   Expenditures  for remedial  activities for
the sites ranged from $10,000 to $975,000.

-------
Section B.5

-------

-------
B.5  Region V Summary

     B.5.1  Region V Overview.   The study team evaluated and completed DISFs
for 117 sites  in  Region V.Many of these  sites  contained multiple facili-
ties.   A  total  of 212  facility  types  were used in describing  the  sites in
this  region.   Of  the  212  facility  types  evaluated,  29 percent were  con-
tainers,  19  percent were tanks,  14 percent  were landfills  and  11 percent
were  surface  impoundments.   The  remaining 27 percent  of  the  facility types
were  described  by various  other categories.   As discussed  in  Sections 3.1
and 3.2,  the  reader should  note for the  following  discussion that the data
bases and the selection criteria utilized on this  study limit the applicabil-
ity of the conclusion reached herein to other populations of hazardous waste
sites.

     Contamination,  either  documented  or  suspected,  was identified  in at
least 76  sites, or 65  percent of the  sites evaluated.  At 13 of the sites,
or  11 percent,  contamination  was  documented.  Thirty-three  percent of the
contamination  incidents  occurred  to  soil,  with  the  remaining  incidents
occurring  to  surface water  (30  percent),  groundwater  (27  percent)  and air
(10  percent).   Of  the  181  responses  originally indicating  contamination,
only  23  (13  percent)   could  be documented  using  the  evaluation  criteria
developed  in Section 3.1.4.   Each site was evaluated for damage occurring to
life, property  and various  natural  resources.   This  evaluation  focused on
six potentially affected areas, including drinking water, food chain, flora,
fauna,  human health and property.  Damage, (either documented or suspected),
was identified  in  at least  39 sites,  or  33 percent of the sites evaluated.
Of  the  79 affected areas  originally indicating damage only  20  (25 percent)
could be  documented using the evaluation criteria.  Approximately 30 percent
of  the  documented  damage  incidents  occurred to  drinking water,  with the
remaining  incidents  occurring  to flora (30 percent),  human  health  (20  per-
cent),  property damage  (15  percent)  and fauna (5 percent).  There were four
incidents  involving  documented damage to  human  health.   Sixty-four percent
of  the  incidents  causing the  damage or  contamination described  above  were
due to  spills  (26  percent),  leachate (21  percent)  or  leaks  (17 percent).
These  incidents  involved  contamination  caused  by  volatile  halogenated
organics,  volatile  nonhalogenated  organics,  base neutral  extracables,  acid
compounds or metals in 67 percent of the incidents tabulated.

     B.5.2  Sources.  The study  team preliminarily  identified 145 potential
files in  Region V for  review.   File  sources  included 133 FIT  Files,  4 S&A
Files,  and 8 enforcement files.   Five files were not reviewed because the
FIT team  had negotiated  a  confidentiality agreement  with  the  site owners.
Based upon a  review of  the  remaining 140 sites,  13 were eliminated from the
study because they  did  not  conform to the  Selection  Criteria summarized in
Section 3.1,  Table  3-1.

     B.5.3  Tabulation of Site Descriptions by Facility Type.   Each site was
evaluated  and categorized  by one or  more of  the  following fourteen  site
descriptions as  listed in Section IIA of the  DISFs.

          Landfill Facility              .     Storage/Treatment Containers
          Open Dump                     .     Storage/Treatment Tanks
          Surface Impoundment           .     Storage/Treatment Piles
          Incinerator                   .     Boilers Using Waste as Fuel

-------
                                   B.5-2
          Injection Well                .     Recycling/Reclamation
          Land Treatment                .     Midnight Dump
          Transportation Spill  Site     .     Other


     For the  117  sites  evaluated in the region,  10 of these categories were
identified at  least  once,  along with an additional 3 "other" categories not
listed in the  DISF.  These  other categories included wastewater discharges,
a creek  and an auto parts  removal shop.   Table B.5-1  summarizes  the  total
number of facility  types  used  in describing the  117  sites  evaluated.   Many
of these sites contained multiple facilities.  A total of 212 facility  types
were used in describing the sites in this region.  Of the 212 facility  types
evaluated, approximately 77 percent  of the sites were  identified  as  either
containers (29 percent), tanks  (19 percent), landfills (14 percent),  surface
impoundments  (11  percent)  or  midnight dumps  (4  percent).   A  total   of  48
sites were  described by 2 or more facility types and 24 sites by three  or
more facility types.

     B.5.4  Contamination Incidents.   Four  media,  i.e.  groundwater,  surface
water, air and  soil, were  evaluated for site-related contamination  in Sec-
tion V of the DISF.  In the remainder of this section, contamination  will  be
interpreted to  mean both documented and suspected  incidents/events,  unless
otherwise  noted.   Sites  indicating the  absence  of contamination,  and/or
files  not containing  sufficient information to  determine  the presence  of
contamination, were  also identified.   Table B.5-2 summarizes the  number  of
sites identified.

     Contamination incidents were  identified at 76 of  the  sites  evaluated.
A total  of  181 incidents  involving  various media  were recorded at  these
sites of which  23  (13  percent) could be documented by sampling and analyti-
cal   data.   Fifty-three  sites  were  identified  with contamination  in two  or
more media.   For example, of the 59 sites  indicating soil contamination,  34
sites also indicated groundwater contamination.   File data indicated  that 74
sites were  contaminated from  incident(s)  occurring  at  the  site  evaluated.
File data for  the  two  remaining sites  indicated that contamination may have
originated off-site.

     B.5.4.1   Tabulation  of Media Exposed  to  Contamination.  Table  B.5-3
summarizes the  total number of  DISF responses  indicating  contamination  or
the  absence  of contamination  found  by media.   Site files  not  containing
sufficient  information  to  determine  contamination  were also  recorded  for
each of the media  evaluated and noted under the appropriate heading in  Table
B.5-3.  This table indicates that  33  percent of the contamination incidents
occurred to soil.   The  remaining incidents occurred to either surface  water
(30  percent),  groundwater  (27  percent)  or  air (10 percent).  In many cases,
contamination to more than one media occurred at any particular site.

     B.5.4.2   Tabulation of  Media  Exposed to  Contamination  Incidents  by
Facility  Type.  Table  B.5-4 summarizes the total number of DISF responses
indicating  media  contamination  associated with  each  facility  type.   This
analysis suggests  that approximately 81 percent of the sites associated with
contamination incidents were identified as either containers  (26 percent),

-------
                                   B.5-3
                                 Table B.5-1
                                USEPA REGION V
                             HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                          DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                    TABULATION OF SITE DESCRIPTION BY TYPE
Total Number of
Facilty Responses Described as
Type Given Facility Type
Landfill Facility
Open Dump
Surface Impoundment
Incinerator
Injection Well
Land Treatment
Transportation Spill Site
Storage/Treatment Containers
Storage/Treatment Tanks
Storage/Treatment Piles
Boilers Using Waste Fuel
Recycling/Reclamation
Midnight Dump
Other
30
12
23
8
0
2
0
63
40
8
0
15
8
3
Percent of
Total
14
6
11
4
0
1
0
29
19
4
0
7
4
1
Total                              212                   100
(1)  Sampled sites were  not  randomly  selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of  these  criteria are discussed in detail  in  Section
     3.3.1 and  3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.5-4
                                 Table B.5-2

                               USEPA REGION V
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED   SITES
           TABULATION OF SITES EXPOSED TO  CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
Category
1
Description
Sites indicatin*
3 documented
Total Number of
Sites (Described
by Category)
13
Percent of
Total
11
          contamination (to at least
          one medium)

          Sites indicating suspected         63                  54
          contamination (to at least
          one medium) and not identified
          by Category 1 above

          Sites indicating documented        30                  26
          or suspected absence of con-
          tamination and not identified
          by Categories 1 and 2 above

          Sites for which there was          11                  10
          an absence of sufficient
          information in the file to
          make a determination of
          contamination, and not iden-
          tified by Categories 1, 2 or
          3 above
TOTAL SITES                                  117                   100
(1)  Sampled sites were  not  randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of  these  criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.5-5
                                       Table B.5-3

                                      USEPA REGION V
                                  HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                                           (1)
Media Exposed
TABULATION OF MEDIA EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENT

                                               Insufficient
   Responses Indicating  Responses Indicating  Information
       Contamination       No Contamination     Available
                                                 in File
   Documented Suspected  Documented Suspected
  Total
Responses
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
6
10
0
7
43
45
18
52
2
2
1
0
55
49
88
47
11
11
10
11
117
117
117
117
         (1)  Sampled sites were  not  randomly  selected.   Site selection criteria and
              the implications of these  criteria  are discussed in detail  in  Section
              3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                                      B.5-6

                                                    Table B.5-4

                                                   USEPA REGION V
                                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                                          DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                          TABULATION OF MEDIA EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENT BY FACILITY TYPE
Responses
Facility
Type


Landfill



Open Dump



Surface
Impoundment


Incinerator



Indicating
Media Exposed


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Contamination

Doc.
3
5
0
3
0
3
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

Susp.
18
10
4
10
7
7
1
7
13
14
5
12
0
0
3
0
Responses
Indicating
No

Doc
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Contamination

Susp.
6
12
13
15
2
0
9
1
7
5
16
9
8
8
5
8
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0

Total
Responses


30
30
30
30
12
12
12
12
23
23
23
23
8
8
8
8
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and  the  implications  of  these  criteria
     are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1  and  3.2.1.

-------
       Table B.5-4 (cont'd)(1)
Responses
Responses
Insufficient
Facility
Type

Injection
Well(2)


Land
Treatment


Transportation
Spill Site(2)


Storage Treat-
ment Containers


Storage Treat-
ment Tanks


(1) Sampled sites
are discussed
(2) Facility type
Media Exposed

Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
were not randomly
Indicating
Contamination
Doc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
4
3
2
0
1
selected.
Indicating
No Contamination
Information
Available
in File
Total
Responses
Susp. Doc. Susp.
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
20
18
5
24
9
14
5
18
Site
in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2
not identified in
files eval
uated.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
selection
.1.

0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
33
32
50
27
21
17
28
14
criteria and the


0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
8
8
7
7
7
7
implications


0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
63
63
63
63
40
40
40
40
of these criteria



-------
             B.5-8
       Table 3.6-4 (cont'd)
        (1)
Responses
Responses
Insufficient
Facility
Type

Storage Treat-
ment Piles


Boilers Using>-?x
Waste as Fuer '


Recycling
Reclamation


Midnight
Dump


(1) Sampled sites
are discussed
(2) Facility type
Media Exposed

Groundwater
Surface Water
Mr
CU<1
roundwater
.rface Water
Air
>il
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
were not randomly
Indicating Indicating
Contamination No Contamination
Doc.
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
selected.
Information
Available
in File
Total
Responses
Susp. Doc. Susp.
3
4
2
2
0
0
0
0
3
1
2
2
5
3
2
5
Site
in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2
not identified in
files eval
uated.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
selection
.1.

3
2
5
3
0
0
0
0
8
10
12
9
1
0
0
0
criteria and the


0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
1
4
2
4
5
3
implications


7
7
7
7
0
0
0
0
15
15
15
15
8
8
8
8
of these criteria



-------
                                   B.5-9
landfills  (18  percent),  tanks  (17  percent),  surface  impoundments  (15 per-
cent)  or  midnight  dumps  (5 percent).  Table B.5-4  indicates  that,  for most
of the incidents tabulated, in decreasing order of occurrence, contamination
to:

     0    groundwater  was   associated with  containers,  landfills,
          surface impoundment, tanks,  and open dumps;
     0    surface  water  was  associated  with  tanks,  containers,
          surface impoundments, and  landfills;
     0    soil   was  associated with  containers,  tanks,  landfills,
          surface impoundments, and  open dumps; and
     0    air was  associated  with  containers,  surface impoundments,
          tanks, landfills  and incinerators.


     B.5.5  Events  Causing  Contamination.   Contaminated sites were associated
with one or more of the following events,  as outlined in Section VIII of the
DISF.

          Fire/Explosion                .     Seismic Activity
          Spill                         .     Erosion
          Leak                          .     Leachate
          Flood                         .     Emission of  Toxic Gases/Mists

     In the  remainder of  this section,  events tabulated will  include both
documented and  suspected events, unless otherwise noted.

     Seven of  these  events  were identified at  least once,  along with three
other  types  not listed in  the DISF.   The  other events were described as  a
surface runoff, wastewater discharge and fugitive dust.  A total of 45 sites
(38 percent) were  involved  in two events  and 19 sites  (16 percent)  in three
or more events.

     B.5.5.1  Tabulation of Events Causing  Contamination Incidents.   Table
B.5-5 summarizes the total  number of events causing contamination incidents.
In  total,  142  contamination  events  involving  various facility  types were
recorded  in  the DISFs.   For  this  region,  this  tabulation indicates that
approximately 64 percent of the contamination events were related to spills
(26  percent),  leachate  (21  percent)  or   leaks  (17 percent).   Of  the  142
contamination  events  tabulated, 29 (20  percent)  could  be  documented from
information available in the file.

     B.5.5.2  Tabulation  of Events  Causing  Contamination  Incidents By Facil-
ity Type.   Table B.5-6 summarizes  the events causing contamination incidents
at  various  facility types.   Since  a  number of  sites  contained  a  multiple
number of  facilities,  there  were  a number  of cases  where there  was  insuffi-
cient information available in the  file to  identify the damage incident with
the  specific facility unit in question.   These represented  approximately  3
percent of the  total and are identified in Table B.5-6.

-------
                                  B.5-10
                                Table B.5-5

                               USEPA REGION V
                           HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES      ,,x
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESUJ

            TABULATION  OF  EVENTS CAUSING CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic Gases/Mists
Other
Total
Documented
5
5
3
0
0
5
6
0
5
29
Suspected
8
32
21
3
0
10
24
6
9
113
Total
13
37
24
3
0
15
30
6
14
142
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly  selected.   Site  selection criteria  and
     the implications of these criteria  are  discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                              B.5-11
                                       Table B.5-6

                                      USEPA REGION I
                                  HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES

              TABULATION OF EVENTS CAUSING CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS BY FACILITY TYPE
                                                                 Insufficient
                                                                 Information
Facility
Type
Landfill









Open
Dump








Surface
Impound-
ments








Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other

Documented
0
0
0
0
0
2
2

0
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
0

0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1

0
2

Suspected
3
2
2
3
0
4
14

0
2
1
2
1
0
0
1
4

1
1
0
3
4
1
0
2
3

0
1
Available
in File
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

Total
3
2
2
3
0
6
16

0
2
2
4
2
0
0
2
4

1
1
0
3
5
1
0
2
4

0
3
(1)  Sampled sites  were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and the  implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in  detail  in  Section 3.1.1 and  3.2.1.

-------
                                              B.5-12
                                    Table  B.5-6  (cont'd)
                                                        (1)


Facility
Type
Incinerator









Injection
Well (2)








Land
Treatment








Transporta-
tion Spill
Site (2)










Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fl re/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other



Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0



Suspected
0
1
1
1
0
0
1

1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0



Total
0
1
1
1
0
0
1

1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and the  implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in  detail  in  Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in  files evaluated.

-------
                                              B.5-13
                                    Table B.5-6 (cont'd)
                                                        (1)
                                                              Insufficient
                                                               Information
Facility
Type
Storage
Treatment
Containers







Storage
Treatment
Tanks







Storage
Treatment
Piles







Boilers
Using Waste
as Fuel (2)








Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other

Documented
2
1
0
0
0
0
0

0
2
1
1
0
0
0
1
0

0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

Suspected
4
20
17
0
0
4
2

4
1
4
15
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
Available
in File
1
1
1
1
0
1
1

1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

Total
7
22
18
1
0
5
3

5
4
5
16
0
0
0
1
0

0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                              B.5-14
                                    Table B.5-6 (cont'd)(1)


Facility
Type
Recycling
Reclamation








Midnight
Dump











Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other



Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1

0
0



Suspected
2
1
2
1
0
0
0

1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
3
3
3
1
1
2
2

1
1



Total
2
1
2
1
0
0
0

1
2
3
3
3
2
1
3
4

1
1
(1)  Sampled sites  were not randomly selected.   Site  selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.5-15
     This  analysis  indicates  that approximately 79 percent  of the leachate
events were  associated  with  landfills (53 percent), open dumps (13 percent)
or  surface impoundments (13  percent).  Leaks were  found  to  occur primarily
at  container storage  facilities.   Approximately  79  percent  of  the spill
events were  associated  with  storage or treatment facilities (all types) (64
percent) and surface impoundments (15 percent).  Air pollution events, i.e.,
emissions  of toxic  gases and  mists, were  most  commonly  associated  with
containers  (50  percent) and  incinerators  (13 percent).   Facilities  having
the  highest  frequency  of fires and explosions were containers (35 percent)
and tanks (29 percent) and recycling/reclamation facilities (12  percent).

     B.5.6  Chemicals Documented in  Contamination Incidents.  For this analy-
sis, chemical compounds  were organized into the following general categories:

          Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHOs)         .    Inorganics
          Volatile Non-halogenated Organics (VNHOs)    .    Cyanide
          Base Neutral  Extractables  (BNEs)             .    Acids
          Pesticides                                   .    Acid Compounds
          PCBs                                         .    Alkalies
          Metals                                       .    Alcohols
          Oil                                          .    Aldehydes
          Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds                     .    Ketones
          Asbestos                                     .    Radioactive

Table B.5-7  summarizes  the total  number of times that a chemical in a given
category was positively identified  by sampling and analytical  techniques as
occurring as contaminants  in the various media.

     Thirteen of  these  chemical  categories  were  identified at  least once.
This  tabulation  indicates that approximately  75  percent  of the  chemical
categories  were  identified  as  either  VHOs   (19  percent),  metals  (17  per-
cent), acid  compounds (12  percent),  VNHOs (9 percent)  and  BNEs  (9 percent)
and  inorganics  (9  percent).   Table  B.5-8 lists the most  commonly occurring
chemicals found in each  of these categories,  and the range of concentrations
observed in the affected media.

     B.5.7  Damage Incidents.   The following  six affected areas  were evalu-
ated for site related damage on the DISF.

          Drinking Water                .     Fauna
          Food Chain                    .     Human Health
          Flora                         .     Property  Damage

     In  the  remainder  of this  section damage will  be interpreted  to  mean
both documented and suspected incidents/events unless otherwise  noted.

     Damage  was  identified for  at  least 39  sites, or  33  percent,  of  the
sites evaluated.   As noted in Section  B.5.4,  higher percentages of the sites
indicated contamination (65 percent).   Damage was indicated in  approximately
51 percent  of  the contaminated  sites evaluated.  Of the 79 affected areas
indicating damage,  only  20 (25 percent) could be  documented using the evalu-
ation criteria.

-------
                                       B.5-16
                                      Table B.5-7

                                   USEPA REGION V
                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                          DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
              TABULATION OF CHEMICALS DOCUMENTED IN CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
Chemical Category
Total Positive
Identifications
Percent
of Total
Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHOs)
Volatile Non-halogenated Organics (VNHOs)
Base Neutral Extractables (BNEs)
Pesticides
PCBs
Metals
Oil
Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds
Inorganics
Cyanide
Acids
Acid Compounds
Alkalies
Alcohols
Aldehydes
Ketones
Radioactive
Asbestos
Others
     8
     4
     4
     2
     2
     7
     2
     1
     4
     1
     1
     5
     1
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
   19
    9
    9
    5
    5
   17
    5
    2
    9
    2
    2
   12
    2
    0
    0
    0
    0
    0
    0
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1
     and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.5-17
                                        Table B.5-8

                                      USEPA REGION I
                                   HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
(1)
                     CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED BY MEDIA
Most Frequently
Observed
Chemical Category

VHOs

VNHOs

Metals



Acid Compounds
PCBs





Contaminant Concentration Range
Contaminant

1,1,1 trichloroethane
dichloromethane
benzene
toluene
lead
manganese
chromium
arsenic
phenol

Groundwater
(mg/1)
ND
0.230-19.0
23-80
ND
ND
ND-1.20
ND
0.021
ND
9
Surface Water
(mg/1)
0.030
210-250
Trace
6.572
trace-40
64-8900
ND-10
ND
0.011-
0.038
Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
0.034
Trace
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.018-0.070
6.920
ND
Air
(mg/1)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NOTES:

     ND = no data available

(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1
     and 3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.5-18
     Sites  indicating  the  absence  of damage,  and/or files  not  containing
sufficient information to determine damage, were also identified.   A tabula-
tion of  sites identified with  damage for  at least  one  of  the  above cat-
egories is outlined  in  Table B.5-9.   Of note, are the 20 sites (17 percent)
identified as having damage to  two or more affected areas.  Of the 59 sites
indicating soil  contamination,  13 sites  also indicated  damage to drinking
water.    Also, of the 66 sites indicating soil and/or surface water contami-
nation, 18 sites also indicated damage to  flora, fauna or the food chain.

     B.5.7.1   Tabulation of  Number,  Type  and Severity of Damage  Incidents.
Table B.5-10 summarizes the total  number of DISF responses indicating damage
to  the  above  affected  areas.  Site files not  containing  sufficient inform-
ation to determine damage were also recorded and noted under the  appropriate
heading in Table B.5-10.

     Table B.5-10  indicates  that  30  percent  of  the documented  damage  in-
cidents occurred  to  drinking water,  with the  remaining  incidents occurring
to  flora  (30  percent),  human health  (20 percent),  property damage (15 per-
cent)  and  fauna   (5  percent).   Documented  damage  to  food  chain was  not
observed.

     Table B.5-10 indicates that of the 117 sites evaluated, 5 sites (4 per-
cent)  indicated  high  environmental  damage,  15 sites  (13  percent) indicated
medium environmental  damage and 46 sites (39 percent) indicated low environ-
mental  damage.  The remaining 51 site files indicated no apparent  damage (37
percent) or did not have enough information available (7 percent)  to make an
evaluation.  Of  note,  are  the  files  associated with the  15  sites  (13 per-
cent) which suggested that the actual  damage may be higher than the response
described  in  the  DISF,  but the file contained  insufficient analytical data
available to support a higher damage rating.

     The analysis also indicated that out of the 117 sites evaluated, 2 sites
indicated high human health damage (2 percent), 6 sites (5 percent) indicated
medium  human  health  damage  and  8  sites  (7  percent)  indicated  low  human
health damage.  The remaining 101  sites  indicated no apparent damage (i.e.,
there was  no  data available on public health damages) (79 percent) or while
there was  some  data,  there was not enough  information  available  to make an
evaluation (8 percent).  Of note,  are the files associated with 30 sites (26
Dercent) which suggested  that the actual human  health damage may be higher
than the  severity response  described in the  DISF, but  the  file contained
insufficient analytical  data available to support a higher  damage rating.

     B.5.7.2   Tabulation  of Number  and  Severity of  Damage Incidents  by
:acility Type.  Table B.5-11 summarizes the DISF responses indicating damage
;o  each affected  area  by associated facility type.  This analysis indicates
:hat approximately 88  percent of  the damage  incidents were associated with
itorage facilities (52  percent),  landfills (22 percent) or surface impound-
lents  (14  percent).  The  remaining 12 percent of  the  damage  incidents were
issociated with open dumps,  incinerators, recycling/reclamation,  and 4 other
:ategories.

     Table B.5-11  also  indicates  that 79 percent of the  incidents involving
 amage  to  drinking  water   involved,   containers  and  tanks  (41 percent),
 andfills (25 percent)  and surface impoundments (12 percent).   Landfills,

-------
                                   B.5-19
                                 Table B.5-9

                               USEPA REGION I
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES     ,,x
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESu;
                         TABULATION OF SITES DAMAGED
Category
Description
Total Number of
Sites (Described
by Category)
Percent of
  Total
          Sites indicating documented
          damage (to at least
          one affected area)

          Sites indicating suspected
          damage (to at least one
          affected area) and not
          identified by Category 1
          above

          Sites indicating
          documented or suspected
          absence of damage and not
          identified by Categories
          1  and 2 above

          Sites for which there was
          an absence of sufficient
          information in the file to
          make a determination of
          damage and not identified
          by Categories 1,2 and 3
          above
                             31
                         27
                             64
                         54
                             14
                         12
     TOTAL SITES
                            117
                        100
(1)  Sampled sites were not  randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria and
     the implications of these criteria  are  discussed in detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                                       B.5-20

                                                  Table B.5-10

                                                 USEPA REGION V
                                             HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                                        DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                                                   (1)
                             TABULATION OF NUMBER & SEVERITY OF DAMAGE INCIDENTS
Affected Area
       Damage

Documented Suspected
             No Damage

        Documented Suspected
                   Insufficient
                   Information
                    Available
                     in File
                    Total
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
6
0
6
1
4
3
17
3
15
9
13
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
79
100
82
92
83
98
14
14
14
14
14
14
117
117
117
117
117
117
Environmental
Human Health
                            Severity of Damage
                                                            Insufficient
                                                            Information
Affected Area
High
Medium
Low
Available
in File
No Apparent
Damage
Total Number
of Responses
      5
      2
15
 6
46
 8
8
9
47
92
117
117
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.
     these criteria are discussed in detail  in
                            Site  selection  criteria  and  the  implications  of
                           Section  3.1.1  and  3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.5-21
                                          Table B.5-11

                                       USEPA REGION V
                                   HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                                         (1)
             TABULATION OF NUMBER & SEVERITY DAMAGE INCIDENTS BY FACILITY TYPE
                                         Landfill
                                                  No Damage
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Documented Suspected     Documented Suspected
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
7              0         17
1              0         24
1              0         24
1              0         24
4              0         21
1              0         25

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                            _in File      Total

                                 6          30
                                 5          30
                                 5          30
                                 5          30
                                 5          30
                                 4          30


Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health


High
3
0


Medium
5
2


Low
10
2
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
2
3

No Apparent
Damage
10
23

Total Number
of Responses
30
30
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
                     Open Dump

       Damage                 No Damage

Documented Suspected     Documented Suspected
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
4              0
0              0
0              0
0              0
2              0
0              0

 Severity of Damage

            Insufficient
            Information
             Available
              in File
                   6
                  11
                  10
                  10
                   8
                  10
                    Insufficient
                    Information
                     Available
                      in File      Total

                         2          12
                         1          12
                         2          12
                         2          12
                         2          12
                         2          12
      0
      0
5
1
5
0
1
1
No Apparent
  Damage

    1
   10
Total Number
of Responses

     12
     12
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.5-22
                                     Table B.5-11 (cont'd)
                                                          (1)
                                   Surface Impoundments
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     1
     0
     1
     0
     0
     0
      2
      0
3              0         15
1              0         18
4              0         14
4              1         14
2              0         17
1              0         18

 Severity of Damage
                             Insufficient
                             Information
                              Available
                               in File      Total

                                  4          23
                                  4          23
                                  4          23
                                  4          23
                                  4          23
                                  4          23
     High   Medium   Low
4
2
11
 3
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   1
   2
No Apparent
  Damage

     5
    16
Total Number
of Responses

     23
     23
                                        Incinerator
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     0
     0
     1
     0
0              05
0              05
0              05
0              05
0              04
0              05

 Severity of Damage
                             Insufficient
                             Information
                              Available
                               in File      Total

                                  3           8
                                  3           8
                                  3           8
                                  3           8
                                  3           8
                                  3           8
     High   Medium   Low
      0
      0
I
1
 3
 0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  i_n_ F i 1 e

   3
   3
No Apparent
  Damage

    1
    4
Total Number
of Responses

     8
     8
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.5-23
                                     Table B.5-11 (cont'd)
                                                          (1)
                                      Injection Well
                                                    (2)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 0           0
                                 0           0
                                 0           0
                                 0           0
                                 0           0
                                 0           0
Insufficient
Information

Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health



Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage

High
0
0

Dama

Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0

Avai
Medium Low in
0
0
Land

fle

Suspected
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
Treatment

No

lable No Apparent Total Number
File Damage
0
0

Damage

Documented Suspected
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
of Responses
0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available






in File Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     Hi gh   Medi urn   Low
      0
      0
1
0
0
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in_File

   0
   0
No Apparent
  Damage

    1
    2
Total Number
of Responses

     2
     2
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                            B.5-24
                                     Table B.5-11 (cont'd)

                                 Transportation Spill  Site
                                      (1)

                                      (2)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00

 Severity of Damage

            Insufficient
            Information
                             Insufficient
                             Information
                              Available
                               in File      Total

                                  0           0
                                  0           0
                                  0           0
                                  0           0
                                  0           0
                                  0           0

Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health

High
0
0

Medium
0
0

Low
0
0
Available
in File
0
0
No Apparent
Damage
0
0
Total Number
of Responses
0
0
                               Storage Treatment Containers
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
     1
     0
     1
     0
     0
     0
6              0         48
0              0         55
3              0         51
1              1         53
6              0         49
0              0         55

 Severity of Damage
                             Insufficient
                             Information
                              Available
                               in File      Total

                                  8          63
                                  8          63
                                  8          63
                                  8          63
                                  8          63
                                  8          63
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
      1
      0
4
1
25
 4
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   4
   7
No Apparent
  Damage

    29
    51
Total Number
of Responses

     63
     63
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                            B.5-25
                                     Table B.5-11 (cont'd)

                                  Storage Treatment Tanks
                                                          (1)
Affected Area
                      Damage

               Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
                             Insufficient
                             Information
                              Available
                               in File
                                      Total
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
                    2
                    0
                    3
                    1
                    2
                    0
                     2
                     2
4              1         27
1              0         33
3              0         22
2              0         31
3              1         28
0              0         34

 Severity of Damage
                    High   Medium   Low
4
1
10
 4
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   3
   3
No Apparent
  Damage  .

    21
    30
                                  6
                                  6
                                  6
                                  6
                                  6
                                  6
                                       40
                                       40
                                       40
                                       40
                                       40
                                       40
Total Number
of Responses

     40
     40
                                  Storage Treatment Piles
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
                      Damage

               Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human HeaTth
                    1
                    0
                    1
                    0
                    1
                    0
                     1
                     0
1              06
0              08
1              06
1              07
2              05
0              08

 Severity of Damage
                             Insufficient
                             Information
                              Available
                               in File      Total

                                  0           8
                                  0           8
                                  0           8
                                  0           8
                                  0           8
                                  0           8
                    High   Medi urn   Low
3
2
 3
 1
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   0
   0
No Apparent
  Damage

    1
    5
Total Number
of Responses

     8
     8
(1)
Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.5-26
                                     Table B.5-11 (cont'd)(1)
                                Boilers Using Waste as Fuel
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Tota

                                 0           0
                                 0           0
                                 0           0
                                 0           0
                                 0           0
                                 0           0


Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health




Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage


High
0
0


Dama

Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0


Medium
0
0
Recycl

3§

Suspected
0
0
1
0
0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
Low in File
0 0
0 0
ing/Reclamation

No Damage




No Apparent Total Number
Damage
0
0




Documented Suspected
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
12
11
12
12
13
of Responses
0
0

Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
3
3
3
3
3
2






Total
15
15
15
15
15
15
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
      2
      0
0
0
3
2
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   1
   1
No Apparent
  Damage

    9
   12
Total Number
of Responses

     15
     15
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                            B.5-27
                                     Table B.5-11 (cont'd)

                                       Midnight Dump
                                                          (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     1
     0
     0
     0
     2
     0
      0
      2
0              15
0              17
1              07
1              07
1              04
0              1         7

 Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
4
2
2
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   0
   0
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 1           8
                                 0           8
                                 0           8
                                 0           8
                                 1           8
                                 0           8
No Apparent
  Damage

    2
    4
Total Number
of Responses

     8
     8
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.5-28
storage facilities  and surface  impoundments  resulted in 69  percent  of the
cases  involving  high or medium  environmental  damage and 63  percent  of the
cases involving high  or medium human health  damage.

     B.5.8  Status of Response.   Table B.5-12 summarizes  the  status  of each
site  evaluated from  the  standpoint of  enforcement,  investigative and re-
medial activites.  This  table indicates that  only 10 percent  of  the files
evaluated indicated  that the  sites identified  were involved  in either past
or  present  legal  or enforcement  actions.  However,  90 (77 percent)  site
files  indicated  that additional  environmental  investigations were  in prog-
ress or completed.   Fifteen (13  percent)  sites  were reported to be involved
with past or present  remedial activities.

-------
                                   B.5-29
                                  Table B.5-12

                               USEPA REGION  V
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE  SITES      m
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESUJ
                             STATUS OF RESPONSE
                            Total  Number of Sites...

   evaluated        ...with legal/      ...with  investi-     ...with  remedial
                    enforcement         gative actions       actions  under-
                    action under-        underway/com-        way/completed
                    way/completed        pleted
     117                 12                  90                   15
(1)  Sampled sites  were  not randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria
     and the implications  of these  criteria  are  discussed  in  detail  in
     Section 3.1.1  and 3.2.1.

-------
Section B.6

-------
B.6  Region VI Summary

     B.6   Region VI Overview.  The  study  team evaluated and completed DISFs
for  97 sites  in  Region VI.  Many of  these  sites contained multiple facil-
ities.  A  total  of 210 facility  types  were  used in describing the  sites  in
this  region.   Of  the  210 facility types  evaluated,  28 percent were surface
impoundments,  16  percent were containers, 15 percent were tanks, 12 percent
were  landfills,  8 percent were  recycling/reclamation  facilities  and 8 per-
cent  were  piles.  The  remaining 13 percent of  the  facility types were de-
scribed by various other categories.  As discussed  in  Sections  3.1 and 3.2
the  reader should note for the  following discussion that the data bases and
the selection  criteria utilized  on this study limit the applicability of the
conclusions reached herein to  other populations of hazardous waste  sites.

     Contamination,  either documented  or  suspected,  was identified  in  96
percent of the sites  evaluated.   At  78 of the sites, or 81 percent, contami-
nation was documented.   Thirty-three percent of the contamination incidents
occurred to surface  water,  with the  remaining  incidents  occurring to soil
(31  percent), groundwater  (29  percent)  and air  (7 percent).   Of  the  269
responses  originally  indicating  contamination,  only  135  (50 percent) could
be  documented using  the  evaluation  criteria  developed in Section 3.1.4.
Each site  was evaluated for damage  occurring to life,  property  and various
natural  resources.   This  evaluation  focused on  six  potentially  affected
areas, including  drinking  water, food chain, flora, fauna,  human health and
property.    Damage,  (either documented  or suspected), was  identified  in  at
least  61 sites,  or 63 percent of the  sites  evaluated.   Of  the 127 affected
areas originally indicating damage,   only 27 (21 percent) could be documented
using  the  evaluation criteria.  Approximately 60 percent of the documented
damage incidents  occurred to  drinking water, with  the remaining incidents
occurring  to  fauna (18 percent), and food chain and human health (7 percent
each)  and  property and  flora (4 percent each).  There were  two incidents
involving  documented  damage  to human health.  One  incident  involved a  tank
car  facility  which killed  three workers.  Eighty-six  percent of the  inci-
dents  causing  the  damage or contamination described above were due to leaks
(25  percent), leachate  (24  percent),  spills (21  percent), or  floods  and
explosions  (8  percent each).   These  incidents involved contamination caused
by metals,  acid compounds, base neutral extractables, pesticides  or volatile
halogenated organics  in 70 percent of the incidents tabulated.

     B.6.2  Sources.    The  study team preliminarily  identified 120  files  in
Region VI   for review.  File  sources included 120 FIT  Files.  One  file  was
not reviewed because the FIT team had negotiated a confidentiality agreement
with the  site owners.  Based  upon  a review of the  remaining  119 sites,  22
were eliminated from the study because they did not conform  to the Selection
Criteria summarized in Section 3.1, Table 3.-1.

     B.6.3   Tabulation of Site Descriptions by Facility Type.  Each site  was
evaluated   and categorized  by one  or  more of  the  following  fourteen  site
descriptions as listed in Section IIA of the DISFs.
          Landfill Facility             .     Storage/Treatment Containers
          Open Dump                     .     Storage/Treatment Tanks
          Surface Impoundment           .     Storage/Treatment Piles
          Incinerator                   .     Boilers Using Waste  as Fuel
          Injection Well                 .     Recycling/Reclamation
          Land Treatment                .     Midnight Dump
          Transportation Spill Site      .     Other

-------
                                  B.6-2
     For the 97  sites  evaluated in the region,  12  of these categories were
identified at least  once,  along with an additional  2 "other" categories not
listed in the DISF.  These  other categories included waste transporters and
abandoned mines.   Table B.6-1  summarizes  the  total  number of facility types
in describing the 97 sites  evaluated.   Many of the  sites contained multiple
facilities.   A total  of 210 facility types were used in describing the sites
in  this  region.  Of the  210  facility  types  evaluated,  approximately  87
percent of the facility types were identified  as either surface impoundments
(28  percent),  containers  (16  percent),  tanks  (15  percent),  landfills  (12
percent), reclamation/recycling facilities (8  percent) or piles (8 percent).
A total  of 62  sites  were described by 2 or more facility types and 32 sites
by three  or more facility types.

     B.6.4  Contamination Incidents.  Four media, i.e.  groundwater,  surface
water, air and soil, were  evaluated for site-related  contamination  in Sec-
tion V of the DISF.   In the remainder of this  section, contamination will  be
interpreted to mean  both documented and  suspected  incidents/events,  unless
otherwise  noted.   Sites  indicating the  absence of  contamination,  and/or
files  not  containing  sufficient information  to  determine the presence  of
contamination,  were  also  identified.   Table B.6-2 summarizes  the  number  of
sites identified  with contamination in at least one of the above media.

     Contamination incidents were identified at 94 (96 percent) of the sites
evaluated.   A total  of  269  incidents involving various  media  were recorded
at these sites of which 135 (50 percent) could be documented by sampling and
analytical  data.  Eighty-nine  sites were  identified with contamination  in
two  or  more  media.   For example,  of the 83 sites  indicating  soil  contami-
nation,  69  sites  also  indicated  groundwater  contamination.   File  data
indicated that 91 sites  were contaminated from incident(s) occurring at the
site evaluated.   File data for the remaining sites indicated that contamina-
tion may  have originated off-site.

     B.6.4.1  Tabulation  of Media  Exposed to  Contamination.  Table  B.6-3
summarizes the total number of DISF responses  indicating contamination  or
the  absence  of  contamination   found  by  media.   Site files  not  containing
sufficient information  to  determine contamination  were also  recorded  for
each of the media evaluated and noted under the appropriate heading in Table
B.6-3.  This  table indicates that  33 percent  of the contamination incidents
occurred to surface  water.   The remaining incidents occurred to either soil
(31 percent),  groundwater  (29  percent)  or air  (7 percent).   In  many cases,
contamination  to  more than one media occurred at  any particular site.

     B.6.4.2    Tabulation of Media  Exposed to  Contamination  Incidents  by
Facility Type.   Table  B.6-4 summarizes  the total number  of DISF responses
indicating media contamination  associated with  each facility  type.   This
analysis suggests that approximately 80 percent of the sites associated with
contamination  incidents  were identified as either  surface impoundments  (29
percent) containers  (15 percent), tanks (14 percent), landfills (13 contain-
ers  (8 percent),  or  piles  (7 percent).  Leaks were  found to occur primarily
at surface impoundments.  Approximately  68 percent  of the spill events were
associated with  surface  impoundments  (30 percent),  containers (20 percent),
and tanks (18 percent).  Air pollution events,  i.e. , emissions of toxic

-------
                                  B.6-3
                                 Table B.6-1

                                USEPA REGION VI
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                    DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                   TABULATION OF SITE DESCRIPTIONS BY TYPE
Facility
Type
Landf i 1 1
Open Dump
Surface Impoundment
Incinerator
Injection Well
Land Treatment
Transportation Spill Site
Total Number of
Responses Described as
Given Facility Type
26
9
58
2
5
I
2
Storage/Treatment Containers 35
Storage/Treatment Tanks
Storage/Treatment Piles
Recycl i ng/Recl amati on
Midnight Dump
Other
Total
32
17
16
5
2
210
Percent of
Total
12
4
28
1
2
1
1
16
15
8
8
2
1
100
(1)  Sampled sites were not  randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and
     the implications of these  criteria  are  discussed in detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  B.6-4
                                 Table B.6-2

                               USEPA REGION VI
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
           TABULATION OF SITES EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
Category
Description
Total Number of
Sites (Described
by Category)
Percent of
  Total
               Sites indicating
               documented contamination
               (to at least one medium)

               Sites indicating suspected
               contamination (to at least
               one medium) and not
               identified by Category
               1 above

               Sites indicating
               absence of contamination
               and not identified by
               Categories 1 and 2 above

               Sites for which there was
               an absence of sufficient
               information in the file to
               make a determination of
               contamination, and not iden-
               tified by Categories 1, 2  or
               3 above
               TOTAL SITES
                                   78


                                   16
                         81


                         16
                                   96
                           100
(1)  Sampled sites were not  randomly  selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these  criteria  are discussed in detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                             B.6-5
                                         Table B.6-3

                                        USEPA REGION VI
                                    HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                                DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                    TABULATION OF MEDIA EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENT
Media Exposed
Responses Indicating
    Contamination
Responses Indicating
  No Contamination
                     Documented Suspected  Documented  Suspected
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File
  Total
Responses
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
38
34
2
61
39
54
19
22
0
1
0
1
12
6
59
12
8
2
17
1
97
97
97
97
           (1)  Sampled sites were  not  randomly  selected.   Site selection criteria and
                the implications of these  criteria  are discussed in detail  in  Section
                3.1.1 and  3.2.1.

-------
                                                        B.6-6
                                                    Table B.6-4
                                                   USEPA REGION VI
                                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                                        DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES

                          TABULATION OF MEDIA EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENT BY FACILITY TYPE
Facility
Type

Landfill



Open Dump



Surface
Impoundment


Incinerator



Media Exposed

Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Responses
Indicating
Contamination
Doc.
7
9
0
12
2
4
0
4
22
23
0
30
2
1
0
1
Susp.
16
16
4
12
5
5
2
4
30
35
12
25
0
1
2
1
Responses
Indicating
No Contamination
Doc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Susp.
2
1
18
1
1
0
6
1
4
0
35
2
0
0
0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File

1
0
4
1
1
0
1
0
2
0
11
1
0
0
0
0
Total
Responses

26
26
26
26
9
9
9
9
58
58
58
58
2
2
2
2
(1J  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.Site  selection  criteria  and  the  implications  of these  criteria
     are discussed in detail  in Section  3.1.1  and  3.2.1.

-------
                                                      B.6-7
                                                Table  B.6-4  (cont'd)
        (1)
                                         Responses
Responses
Insufficient
Facility
Type

Injection
Well


Land
Treatment


Transportation
Spill Site


Storage Treat-
ment Containers


Storage Treat-
ment Tanks


Media Exposed

Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Indicating
Contamination
Doc.
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
2
9
6
0
13
9
10
0
13
Susp.
2
0 •
3
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
18
23
10
13
14
18
10
12
Indicating
No Contamination
Doc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Susp.
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
4
4
20
7
6
1
19
4
Information
Available
in File

1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
5
2
3
3
3
3
Total
Responses

5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
35
35
35
35
32
32
32
32
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.Site  selection  criteria and the implications of these criteria
     are discussed in detail  in Section  3.1.1  and  3.2.1.

-------
                                                       B.6-8

                                                Table B.6-4 (cont'd)(1)
Facility
Type
Boilers Using
Waste as Fuel
Media Exposed
 Responses
Indicating
Contamination
Responses
Indicating
No Contamination
                                        Doc.
                              Susp
                    Doc.
          Susp.
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File
  Total
Responses
Storage Treat-
ment Piles


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
3
4
0
10
8
12
8
6
0
0
0
0
2
0
6
0
4
1
3
1
17
17
17
17
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Recycling
Reclamation


Midnight
Dump


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
1
1
0
4
1
0
0
3
12
14
6
11
4
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
9
1
1
1
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
I
2
0
16
16
16
16
5
5
5
5
(T)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.Site  selection criteria  and the  implications of these
     criteria are discussed in detail  in  Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files  evaluated.

-------
                                  B.6-9
gases and mists, were most commonly associated with containers  (21 percent),
surface  impoundments (21  percent),  and tanks  (21  percent),  or  piles  (8
percent).  Table B.6-4  indicates  that,  for most of the incidents tabulated,
in decreasing order of occurrence, contamination to:

     0    groundwater was  associated  with surface impoundments, containers,
          landfills, tanks and recycling/reclamation facilities;
     0    surface  water was  associated  with  surface  impoundments,  contain-
          ers, tanks, landfills and  piles;
     0    soil was  associated with  surface impoundments, containers, tanks,
          landfills, and piles; and
     0    air  was  associated  with  surface  impoundments,  containers, tanks,
          piles and recycling/reclamation facilities.

     B.6.5   Events Causing Contamination.   Contaminated   sites were  asso-
ciated with one or more of the following events, as outlined in Section VIII
of the DISF.

          Fire/Explosion                 .    Seismic Activity
          Spill                          .    Erosion
          Leak                           .    Leachate
          Flood                          .    Emission of Toxic Gases/Mists

     In  the  remainder  of  this section,  events  tabulated  will  include both
documented and suspected events, unless otherwise noted.

     All of these events were  identified at least once, along with two other
types  not  listed  in  the DISF.  These  events  were described  as wastewater
discharge and  surface  runoff.  A  total   of  20  sites  (21  percent)  were in-
volved in two events and 60 sites (62 percent) in three or more events.

     B.6.5.1   Tabulation  of Events Causing  Contamination  Incidents.   Table
B.6-5 summarizes the total number of events causing contamination incidents.
In  total,  249  contamination events  involving  various facility  types  were
recorded in the  DISFs.   For this  region, this tabulation  indicates  that 86
percent  of  the  contamination  events  were related  to leaks  (25  percent),
leachate  (24   percent),  spills (21  percent),  floods  (8  percent)  or  fire/
explosions (8  percent).   Of the 259 contamination events  tabulated,  55 (22
percent) could be documented  from information available in the file.

     B.6.5.2  Tabulation of Events Causing Contamination Incidents By Facil-
ity Type.  Table B.6-6 summarizes the events causing contamination incidents
at various facility types.

     This analysis  indicates that approximately 84 percent  of  the  leachate
events were  associated with surface impoundments (30 percent),  landfills (21
percent), tanks  (9 percent)  recycling/reclamation facilities  (9  percent),
percent).  Facilities  having the  highest frequency of  fires and explosions
were  surface   impoundments  (24 percent),  landfills  (18  percent)  and  con-
tainers (18 percent).

     B.6.6  Chemicals Documented in Contamination Incidents.   For this anal-
ysis,  chemicalcompounds  were organizedinto  the following general  cate-
gories:

-------
                                  B.6-10
                                 Table B.6-5

                                USEPA REGION VI
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                    DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES

            TABULATION OF EVENTS CAUSING CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic Gases/Mists
Documented
7
10
6
8
0
6
15
3
Suspected
12
42
57
13
2
9
45
14
Total
19
52
63
21
2
15
60
17
Total                              55            194        249
(1)  Sampled sites were  not  randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these  criteria  are discussed in detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and  3.2.1.

-------
                                    B.6-11
                                Table B.6-6

                              USEPA REGION VI
                          HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES      m
                      DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESu;

TABULATION OF EVENTS CAUSING CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS BY FACILITY TYPE


Facility
Type
Landfill









Open
Dump








Surface
Impound-
ments










Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other



Documented
2
0
0
3
0
2
7

0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
1
5
3
5
0
3
8

1
0



Suspected
5
4
11
2
1
2
16

4
0
3
7
8
1
1
3
5

1
0
8
27
37
8
2
8
25

5
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0



Total
7
4
11
5
1
4
23

4
0
4
7
8
1
I
3
6

1
0
9
32
40
13
2
11
33

6
0
  (1)  Sampled sites were not  randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and
       the implications of these criteria  are  discussed in detail in  Section
       3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                             B.6-12
                                   Table B.6-6  (cont'd)
                                                        (1)


Facility
Type
Incinerator









Injection
Well








Land
Treatment








Transporta-
tion Spill
Site










Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other



Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1

0
0



Suspected
0
0
1
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
3

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2

0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1

0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0



Total
0
0
1
0
0
0
1

1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
3

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2

0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
2

0
0
(I)Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection  criteria  and
     the implications of these criteria are  discussed in  detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                             B.6-13
                                    Table  B.6-6 (cont'd)(1)


Facility
Type
Storage
Treatment
Containers







Storage
Treatment
Tanks







Storage
Treatment
Piles







Boilers
Using Waste
as Fuelu;










Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other



Documented
2
3
2
1
0
0
1

1
1
1
3
5
1
0
0
1

1
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
I

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0



Suspected
5
19
22
2
0
3
8

5
5
3
17
17
1
0
0
9

5
3
3
5
6
0
1
2
7

1
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
1 .- ... --.-, — IT - — - — .— — .11.



Total
7
22
24
3
0
3
9

6
6
4
20
22
2
0
0
10

6
5
3
6
7
0
1
2
8

1
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
     Sampled sites were not randomly selected.Site
     the implications of these criteria are discussed >n detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not evaluated in files evaluated.

-------
                                  B.6-14
                         Table  B.6-6 (cont'd)
                                             (1)


Facility
Type
Recycling
Reclamation








Midnight
Dump











Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other



Documented
0
1
1
0
0
0
0

0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1

0
0



Suspected
2
11
10
4
0
3
10

3
5
1
2
2
0
0
1
3

1
1
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0



Total
2
12
11
4
0
3
10

3
5
2
3
2
0
0
1
4

1
1
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  B.6-15
          Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHOs)         .     Inorganics
          Volatile Non-halogenated Organics (VNHOs)    .     Cyanide
          Base Neutral Extractables (BNEs)             .     Acids
          Pesticides                                   .     Acid Compounds
          PCBs                                         .     Alkalies
          Metals                                       .     Alcohols
          Oil                                          .     Aldehydes
          Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds                    .     Ketones
          Asbestos                                     .     Radioactive

Table  B.6-7  summarizes  the  total number of times that a chemical in a given
category was  positively  identified by sampling and analytical techniques as
occurring as contaminants in the various media.

     Twelve  of these  chemical  categories  were  identified  at  least once.
This  tabulation  indicates  that  approximately  70  percent of  the  chemical
categories were identified as either metals (29 percent), acid compounds (13
percent), base  neutral  extractables  (11 percent), pesticides (9 percent) or
VHOs  (8  percent).   Table B.6-8 lists the most  commonly  occurring chemicals
found  in each of  these categories, and the range of concentrations observed
in the affected media.

     B.6.7  Damage Incidents.   The following six  affected  areas were evalu-
ated for site related damage on the DISF.
          Drinking Water           .     Fauna
          Food Chain               .     Human Health
          Flora                    .     Property Damage

In  the remainder  of  this  section damage  will  be  interpreted  to  mean both
documented and suspected  incidents/events unless otherwise noted.

     Damage was identified for at least 61 sites,  or 63 percent of the sites
evaluated.    As noted  in Section  B.6.4,   higher  percentages  of the  sites
indicated contamination  (96 percent).   Damage was  indicated in approximately
66  percent of the contaminated sites  evaluated.  Of the 127  affected areas
indicating damage, only 27 (21 percent) could be documented using the evalu-
ation criteria.

     Sites  indicating  the absence  of damage,  and/or  files  not containing
sufficient information to determine damage, were also identified.  A tabula-
tion of  sites identified with  damage for  at  least one  of  the  above cat-
egories is outlined  in  Table  B.6-9.   Of note,  are the  40 sites (41 percent)
identified as  having damage  to two or more affected areas.  Of the 83 sites
indicating soil contamination,  31 sites  also   indicated damage  to  drinking
water.    Also, of  the 93 sites indicating  soil  and/or surface water contami-
nation, 33 sites also indicated damage  to flora,  fauna or the food chain.

     B.6.7.1   Tabulation of  Number,  Type  and  Severity of  Damage Incidents.
Table B.6-10 summarizes the  total number of DISF responses  indicating damage
to  the above  affected  areas.   Site files  not containing sufficient inform-
ation to determine damage were also recorded and noted  under the appropriate
heading in Table B.6-10.

-------
                                      B.6-16
                                      Table B.6-7

                                   USEPA REGION VI
                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                         DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES

              TABULATION OF CHEMICALS DOCUMENTED IN CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS


                                                  Total Positive           Percent
Chemical Category	Identifications	of Total

Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHOs)                   16                        8
Volatile Non-halogenated Organics (VNHOs)              11                        5
Base Neutral Extractables (BNEs)                       22                       11
Pesticides                                             19                        9
PCBs                                                   10                        5
Metals                                                 59                       29
Oil                                                    11                        5
Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds                               4                        2
Inorganics                                             13                        6
Cyanide                                                 3                        1
Acids                                                   9                        4
Acid Compounds                                         26                       13
Alkalies                                                0                        0
Alcohols                                                0                        0
Aldehydes                                               0                        0
Ketones                                                 0                        0
Radioactive                                             0                        0
Asbestos                                                0                        0
Others                                                  0                        0

Total                                                 203                      100

    (1)  Sampled sites were  not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria and
         the implications  of  these  criteria are discussed  in  detail  in Section
         3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.6-17
                                       Table B.6-8

                                   USEPA REGION VI
                                HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                           DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                                       (1)
             CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED BY MEDIA
Most Frequently
Observed
                           Contaminant Concentration Range
Chemical Category Contaminant
Metals


Acid compounds


BNEs

arsenic
lead
chromium
phenols
pentachlorophenol
2,4 dinitrophenol
anthracene
bis (2 ethyl hexyl)
Groundwater
(mg/1)
0.01- 10.
0.028- 40.
0.005- 10.
ND- 0.05
0.00003-0.03
0.00005-0.015
ND
0.01- .06
Surface Water Soil Air
(mg/1) (mg/kg) (mg/1)
0.01
0.04-12.
0.08- 2.5
0.03- 0.8
0.1-124.
ND
0.1
0.009
4.5- 3,000
2.2-35,000
3.9- 33.4
0.05- 42.
0.03-2,000
0.03-2,000
0.4- 124
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*T»
u
         Note:
         (1)
                     phthalate

                   naphthalene
                   0.03-
.13  0.09
31
ND
ND = no data available
Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria
and the implications  of  these criteria are discussed in detail  in
Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  B.6-18
                                 Table B.6-9

                               USEPA REGION VI
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                    DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                         TABULATION OF SITES DAMAGED
Category
Description
Total Number of
Sites (Described
by Category)
Percent of
  Total
          Sites indicating documented
          damage (to at least
          one affected area)

          Sites indicating suspected
          damage (to at least one
          affected area) and not
          identified by Category 1
          above

          Sites indicating
          documented or suspected
          absence of damage and not
          identified by Categories
          1  and 2 above

          Sites for which there was
          an absence of sufficient
          information in the file to
          make a determination of
          damage and not identified
          by Categories 1,2 and 3
          above
                              20
                              41
                           20
                           44
                              34
                           34
     TOTAL SITES
                             97
                          100
(1)  Sampled sites were not  randomly  selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these  criteria  are discussed in detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                                        B.6-19

                                                      Table  B.6-10

                                                   USEPA REGION  VI
                                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                                        DISF  SUMMARY OF  EVALUATED SITES

                               TABULATION OF  NUMBER & SEVERITY OF DAMAGE  INCIDENTS
Affected Area
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
                    Insufficient
                    Information
                     Available
                      in File
                    Total
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
16
2
1
5
2
1
28
17
15
12
34
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
47
54
61
59
47
68
12
21
20
20
13
23
97
97
97
97
97
97
Environmental
Human Health
                                   Severity of Damage
                                                            Insufficient
                                                            Information
Affected Area
High
Medium
Low
Available
in File
No Apparent
Damage
Total Number
of Responses
     12
      1
34
 9
43
26
 2
14
 6
47
97
97
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implications of these
     criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  B.6-20
     Table B.6-10  indicates  that  60  percent of  the documented  damage  in-
cidents occurred  to  drinking water, with the remaining  incidents occurring
to  fauna  (18  percent),  food  chain (7 percent),  flora  (4  percent),  human
health (7  percent) and property damage (4 percent).

     Table B.6-10  indicates  that  of  the 97  sites evaluated,  12 sites  (12
percent)  indicated  high  environmental  damage,  34 sites  (3  Spercent)  indi-
cated  medium  environmental  damage  and  43 sites  (44  percent)  indicated  low
environmental   damage.   The  remaining  8  site files  indicated  no  apparent
damage (6 percent) or  did  not have enough information available (2 percent)
to make an evaluation.  Of  note,  are the files associated with the 5  sites
(5 percent) which suggested that  the  actual  damage may be  higher  than  the
response described in  the  DISF,  but the file contained  insufficient analy-
tical data available to support a higher  damage rating.

     The  analysis  also indicated  that  out  of  the 97 sites  evaluated,  one
site  indicated high  human   health  damage,  9  sites  (9  percent)  indicated
medium human  health  damage  and  26 sites (27 percent)  indicated low  human
health  damage.   The  remaining  61  sites indicated  no apparent  damage  (i.e
there was  no  data available on public health damages) (49 percent) or,  while
there was some  data,  there  was not enough  information available to make an
evaluation (15  percent).   Of  note,  are the files associated  with  14  sites
(15  percent)  which  suggested  that the  actual  human  health damage may  be
higher than the  severity response  described in the  DISF, but the file con-
tained  insufficient  analytical data  available  to  support  a  higher damage
rating.

     B.6.7.2    Tabulation  of  Number  and Severity of Damage  Incidents  by
Facility Type.  Table B.6-11 summarizes the  DISF responses indicating damage
to each affected  area  by  associated facility type.  This analysis indicates
that approximately 80  percent  of  the damage  incidents were  associated with
surface impoundments  (30  percent),  landfills  (14 percent),  containers  (12
percent),  recycling/reclamation  facilities  (12 percent)  or  tanks  (11 per-
cent).  The  remaining 20 percent  of the damage   incidents   were associated
with open dumps, incinerators,  injection wells,  transportation spills,  piles
and midnight dumps.

     Table B.6-11 also  indicates  that 77 percent of the  incidents involving
damage  to drinking  water  involved surface  impoundments  (33  percent)  and
landfills,  containers,  tanks  and recycling/  reclamation  facilities  (11
percent  each).   Table  B.6-11  also identifies  the  severity  of damage  to
environment  and/or  human  health.   Surface  impoundments,   landfills,  con-
tainers,  tanks  and recycling/reclamation facilities  resulted  in 78 percent
of the cases  involving high or medium environmental damage and 84 percent of
the cases  involving high or medium human  health damage.

     B.6.8 Status of Response.  Table  B.6-12 summarizes the  status of each
site  evaluaTeclfrom  the  standpoint of  enforcement, investigative  and  re-
medial activities.  This table indicates  that only 28 percent  of the  files
evaluated indicated that the sites identified were  involved  in either past
or  present  legal  or  enforcement  actions.    However,  44 (46  percent)  site
files  indicated  that additional environmental investigations  were  in  prog-
ress  or  completed.   Sixty-five (68 percent)  sites were reported to be  in-
volved with past or present remedial activities.

-------
                                           B.6-21
                                        Table B.6-11
                                       USEPA REGION VI
                                   HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES     m
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESu;

             TABULATION OF NUMBER & SEVERITY DAMAGE INCIDENTS BY FACILITY TYPE
                                         Landfi11
                                                  No Damage
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Documented Suspected
     3          5
     0          7
     0          6
     1          5
     0          9
     0          1
Documented Suspected
     1        13
     0        14
     0        14
     0        15
     0        13
     0        19
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File      Total
     3          26
     5          26
     6          26
     5          26
     4          26
     6          26
                                    Severity of Damage
                                               Insufficient
                                               Information
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health

High Medium
1 1

Available
Low in File
9 2
6 5
Open Dump
No Apparent
Damage
1
13

Total Number
of Responses
26
26

Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Documented Suspected
     2         1
     0         3
     0         1
     0         2
     0         2
     0         0
     No Damage

Documented Suspected
     0         5
     0         5
     0         7
     0         6
     0         6
     0         9
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File      Total
     I          9
     1          9
     1          9
     1          9
     1          9
     0          9
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
Medi urn   Low
         T
   1      1
                           Insufficient
                           Information
                            Available
                             in File
                No Apparent
                  Damage
                      *^
     Total  Number
     of Responses
         10
         10
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.6-22
                                     Table B.6-11 (cont'd)(1)

                                   Surface Impoundments
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
                No Damage

           Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     7
     0
     1
     2
     0
     0
     7
     0
16              2        29
12              0        37
 7              0        41
 8              0        38
24              0        27
 3              0        43

  Severity of Damage
                             Insufficient
                             Information
                              Available
                               in File      Tote

                                  4         58
                                  9         58
                                  9         58
                                 10         58
                                  7         58
                                 12         58
     High   Medium   Low
17
 4
28
19
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   5
   9
No Apparent
  Damage

    1
   26
Total Number
of Responses

     58
     58
                                        Incinerator
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
                No Damage

           Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
 1              01
 0              01
 0              0         1
 0              01
 1              01
 0              01

  Severity of Damage
                             Insufficient
                             Information
                              Available
                               in File      Total

                                  0          2
                                  0          2
                                  0          2
                                  0          2
                                  0          2
                                  0          2
     High   Medium   Low
     1
     0
 1
 0
 0
 1
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   0
   0
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    1
Total Number
of Responses

     2
     2
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.6-23
                                     Table B.6-11 (cont'd)

                                      Injection Well
                                                          (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
2              02
1              02
0              03
0              03
0              03
1              02

 Severity of Damage

            Insufficient
            Information
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 1           5
                                 2           5
                                 2           5
                                 2           5
                                 2           5
                                 2           5

Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health

High
0
0

Medium
1
0
Avai
Low i n
2
0
Table No Apparent Total Number
File Damage
2 0
2 3
of Responses
5
5



Land Treatment



Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage

Dama

Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0

2§

Suspected
0
0
0
0
0
0

No


Damage

Documented Suspected
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Insufficient
Information
Available



in File Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
      0
      0
0
0
1
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

     0
     0
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    1
Total Number
of Responses

     1
     I
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.6-24
                                     Table B.6-11 (cont'd)

                                 Transportation Spill Site
                                                          (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     2
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
      1
      0
0              00
0              02
1              01
0              02
2              00
0              02

 Severity of Damage
                             Insufficient
                             Information
                              Available
                               in File      Tota

                                  0           2
                                  0           2
                                  0           2
                                  0           2
                                  0           2
                                  0           2
     High   Medium   Low
1
0
 0
 2
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

    0
    0
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    0
Total Number
of Responses

     2
     2
                               Storage Treatment Containers
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     3
     1
     1
     1
     0
     0
 5
 6
 3
 3
 9
 1
         0
         0
         0
         0
         0
         0
            22
            22
            25
            26
            21
            28
         Insufficient
         Information
          Available
           in File      Total

              5          35
              6          35
              6          35
              5          35
              5          35
              6          35
                                    Severity of Damage
     Hi gh   Medium   Low
     5
     0
8
2
12
 7
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

    7
    7
No Apparent
  Damage

    3
   19
Total Number
of Responses

     35
     35
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.6-25
                                     Table B.6-11 (cont'd)

                                  Storage Treatment Tanks
                                                          (1)
Affected Area
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
                             Insufficient
                             Information
                              Available
                               in File
                                      Total
Dri-nking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     1
     1
     0
     1
     1
     0
     3
     0
7              0        19
3              0        22
2              0        26
4              0        21
9              0        17
1              0        25

 Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
9
4
14
 5
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   5
   6
No Apparent
  Damage

    1
   17
                                  5
                                  6
                                  4
                                  6
                                  5
                                  6
                                       32
                                       32
                                       32
                                       32
                                       32
                                       32
Total Number
of Responses

     32
     32
                                  Storage Treatment Piles
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
4              09
4              07
3              0        10
5              06
6              06
1              0        11

 Severity of Damage
                             Insufficient
                             Information
                              Available
                               in File      Total

                                  4          17
                                  6          17
                                  4          17
                                  6          17
                                  5          17
                                  5          17
     High   Medium   Low
      0
      0
6
1
 7
 6
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  i n _Fi1e

     4
     5
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    5
Total Number
of Responses

     17
     17
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.6-26
                                     Table B.6-11 (cont'd)
                                                          (1)
Affected Area
                                Boilers Using Waste as Fuer '
       Damage

Documented Suspected
     No Damage

Documented Suspected
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File
Total
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health

High

Severity
Medium Low

of Damage
Insufficient
Information
Available No Apparent
in File Damage


Total Number
of Responses

Recycl i ng/Recl amati on
Damage
Insufficient
No Damage Information
Available
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage




Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
Documented
1
1
0
2
0
0




High
5
0
Suspected
7
5
2
4
11
0
Severity



Medium Low
6 4
4 6
Documented Suspected in
0 8
0 8
0 13
0 8
0 5
0 14
of Damage
Insufficient
Information
Available No Apparent
in File Damage
1 0
1 5
File Total
0 16
2 16
1 16
2 16
0 16
2 16



Total Number
of Responses
16
16
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                           B.6-27
                                     Table B.6-11 (cont'd)

                                       Midnight Dump
                                                          (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     1
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
2              02
1              02
1              02
1              02
3              02
1              02

 Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
3
1
2
2
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in_File

   0
   I
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 0          5
                                 2          5
                                 2          5
                                 2          5
                                 0          5
                                 2          5
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    1
Total Number
of Responses

     5
     5
         (1)  Sampled sites were  not  randomly  selected.   Site selection criteria and
              the implications of these  criteria  are discussed in detail  in  Section
              3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  B.6-28
                                 Table B.6-12

                               USEPA REGION VI
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                             STATUS OF RESPONSE
                            Total  Number of Sites...
   evaluated
                ...with legal/
                enforcement
                action under-
                way/completed
                       ...with investi-
                       gative actions
                       underway/com-
                       pleted
                                                            ...with  remedial
                                                            actions  under-
                                                            way/completed
     97
                     27
                            44
                                                            65
                      DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
Damage Facility
Incident type
1. Spill, Leak, STC,
Leachate R/R
Location
Ft.
AK
Smith
Remedial Activity
Install monitoring wells
land surveys, contain
Costs ($)
, 1,000,00
2.
Leachate,
 Runoff
LF.SI,  Mena,
STT     AK
                                         pollutants;  ultimate
                                         removal  to  bulk  disposal
                                         facility

                                        Health  study,  containment   50,000  -
                                        and  treatment of  dis-       7,900,000
                                        charge.   Alternate  public
                                        water supply.   Cleanup  of
                                        soil.   Containment  of
                                        groundwater  contamination

(1)  Sampled sites were not  randomly  selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  B.6-29
     Table B.6-12 also  compares  the damage incident  type  with the remedial
activities and  related costs  for  sites  having  cost  data available.  These
activities included  removal  of wastes and groundwater withdrawal and treat-
ment.    Expenditures  for  remedial  activities  for the   sites  ranged  from
$50,000 to $7,900,000.

-------
Section B.7

-------
B.7  Region VII Summary

     B.7.1   Region VII Overview.   The  study team  evaluated  and completed
DISFs  for 24  sites  in Region VII.  Many of  these  sites contained multiple
facilities.  A  total  of 43 facility types were used in describing the sites
in this  region.   Of  the 43 facility types  evaluated,  37 percent were land-
fills, 14 percent were containers, 12 percent were surface impoundments and
9 percent were tanks.   The remaining 28 percent  of  the facility types were
described  by various other categories.  As discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2
the  reader should note for the following discussion that the data bases and
the  selection criteria utilized on this study limit the applicability of the
conclusion reached herein to other populations of hazardous waste sites.

     Contamination,  either documented  or  suspected,  was  identified  in  at
least 21 of the sites evaluated.  At 18 of the sites,  or 75 percent, contami-
nation was documented.  Thirty-five percent  of  the  contamination incidents
occurred to surface water, with the remaining incidents occurring to ground-
water  (29 percent),  soil  (27  percent)  and air (9 percent).   Of  the  52 re-
sponses  originally indicating  contamination,  only 34  (65 percent)  could  be
documented  using  the  evaluation criteria  developed  in Section 3.1.4.  Each
site was  evaluated for damage occurring to life, property  and various nat-
ural  resources.   The evaluation focused on six  potentially  affected  areas,
including  drinking water,  food chain,  flora, fauna, human  health and prop-
erty.  Damage,   (either  documented  or  suspected),  was identified in at least
15 sites,  or 63  percent  of  the sites evaluated.  Of  the 34  affected areas
originally indicating damage, only 10 (29 percent) could be documented using
the  evaluation  criteria.  Approximately  40  percent  of the documented damage
incidents  occurred to property, with  the  remaining  incidents occurring  to
drinking  water  (30 percent),  human  health (20 percent) and  flora  (10 per-
cent).  Both of the  incidents  involving documented damage to human  health
involved workers.

     Seventy-seven percent of  the  incidents causing the damage  or  contami-
nation described  above  were  identified as leachate (35  percent),  leaks  (17
percent)  erosion  (15 percent)  or spills (10  percent).   These incidents  in-
volved  contamination  caused  by volatile  halogenated  organics,  acid  com-
pounds, or metals  in 51 percent of the incidents tabulated.

     B.7.2  Sources.    The  study team  preliminarily  identified 42  files  in
Region VII for  review.  File sources  included 33 FIT Files,  8 S&A Files and
1 Enforcement  file.   Seven files  were not reviewed because  either the  FIT
team or  EPA subcontractor had  negotiated a  confidentiality  agreement with
the  site  owners.   Based upon  a review  of  the remaining 35  sites, 11 were
eliminated  from the  study because they  did not conform  to  the  Selection
Criteria summarized in  Section 3.1,  Table 3-1.

     B.7.3  Tabulation of Site Descriptions by Facility Type.   Each  site was
evaluated  and  categorized by  one or  more of  the  following  fourteen  site
descriptions as listed  in Section IIA of the DISFs.

          Landfill Facility             .     Storage/Treatment Containers
          Open  Dump                     .     Storage/Treatment Tanks
          Surface  Impoundment           .     Storage/Treatment Piles
          Incinerator                   .     Boilers  Using Waste as  Fuel
          Injection Well                .     Recycling/Reclamation
          Land  Treatment                .     Midnight  Dump
          Transportation Spill  Site     .     Other

-------
                                  B.7-2
     For the  24 sites evaluated  in  the region, 9 of these  categories  were
identified  at least  once,  along  with an  additional  "other"  category  not
listed in the  DISF.   This  other category was a  chemical  repackaging facil-
ity.  Table B.7-1 summarizes the total  number of categories used in describ-
ing the 24  sites  evaluated.   Many of these sites contained multiple facili-
ties.   A total  of 43  facility types  were  used in describing  the  sites  in
this region.   Of  the 43  facility types evaluated approximately  72 percent
were identified  as  either  landfills  (37 percent), containers  (14 percent)
surface impoundments (12 percent) or tanks (9 percent).   A total of 11 sites
were described by 2 or more facility types and 6 sites by three or more.

     B.7.4  Contamination Incidents.   Four media,  i.e. groundwater, surface
water,  air  and  soil,  were  evaluated  for site-related contamination in  Sec-
tion V of the DISF.   In the remainder of this section,  contamination will  be
interpreted to  mean  both documented and suspected incidents/events,  unless
otherwise  noted.   Sites  indicating  the  absence  of  contamination,  and/or
files  not  containing  sufficient  information to  determine the presence  of
contamination, were  also identified.   Table B.7-2 summarizes the  number  of
sites identified with contamination in at least one of the  above media.

     Contamination incidents  were  identified at 21 of the sites  evaluated.
A total of 52 incidents involving various media  were  recorded at these sites
of  which  34  (65  percent)  could  be  documented  by sampling and  analytical
data.   Seventeen  sites  were  identified with contamination  in  two  or  more
media.   For example,  of the 14 sites  indicating  soil  contamination, 10 sites
also indicated groundwater contamination.  File  data  indicated that 20 sites
were contaminated from incident(s) occurring  at the site evaluated.   File
data for the remaining site indicated that  contamination  may have  originated
off-site.

     B.7.4.1  Tabulation  of  Media  Exposed  to  Contamination.  Table  B.7-3
summarizes   the  total  number  of DISF  responses  indicating contamination  or
the absence of  contamination  found by  media. There were six site files  not
containing  sufficient  information to  determine contamination  recorded  for
each of the media evaluated and noted under the  appropriate heading in Table
B.7-3.   This table indicates  that  35  percent of the  contamination incidents
occurred  to  surface  water.   The remaining  incidents   occurred  to  either
groundwater (29  percent),  soil  (27  percent) or  air  (9   percent).   In  many
cases,  contamination to more than one  media occurred at any particular site.

     B.7.4.2   Tabulation  of  Media  Exposed to  Contamination  Incidents  by
Facility Type.  Table  B.7-4  summarizes  the total number  of  DISF responses
indicating  media  contamination  associated  with  each  facility type.   This
analysis suggests that approximately  69 percent  of the  sites associated with
contamination  incidents  were  identified as  either landfills  (46 percent),
surface impoundments  (12 percent), or midnight dumps (11 percent).   Table
B.7-4  indicates  that,  for  most of the  incidents  tabulated, in  decreasing
order of occurence, contamination to:

          0    groundwater was  associated  with  landfills,  surface impound-
               ment,  land treatments and midnight dumps;
          0    surface  water  was associated  with  landfills,   containers,
               surface impoundments,  land treatments and midnight dumps;
          0    soil   was  associated  with  landfills,  containers,   open  and
               midnight dumps; and

-------
                                  B.7-3
                                 Table B.7-1

                                USEPA REGION VII
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES    m
                      DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESUJ
                   TABULATION OF SITE DESCRIPTIONS BY TYPE
Total Number of
Facility Responses Described as
Type Given Facility Type
Landfill
Open Dump
Surface Impoundment
(2}
Incinerator^ '
Injection Well(2)
Land Treatment
Transportation Spill Site
Storage/Treatment Containers
Storage/Treatment Tanks
( 2}
Storage/Treatment Piles^ '
Boilers Using Waste ^ '
Recy 1 c i ng/Recl amati on
Midnight Dump
Other
Total
16
2
5
0
0
3
1
6
4
0
0
2
3
1
43
Percent of
Total
37
5
12
0
0
7
2
14
9
0
0
5
7
2
100
^ '  Sampled sites were not  randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria and
     the implications of these criteria  are  discussed in detail in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

     Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                  B.7-4
                                 Table  B.7-2

                               USEPA  REGION VII
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES      ,,x
                       DISF  SUMMARY OF  EVALUATED SITESu;
           TABULATION OF  SITES  EXPOSED  TO  CONTAMINATION  INCIDENTS
Category
1
Description
Sites indicatin<
Total Number of
Sites (Described
by Category)
3 documented 18
Percent of
Total
75
               contamination  (to  at  least
               one  medium)

               Sites  indicating suspected           3                     13
               contamination  (to  at  least
               one  medium)  and not identified
               by Category  1  above

               Sites  indicating                     2                      8
               documented or  suspected
               absence  of contamination
               and  not  identified by
               Categories 1 and 2 above

               Sites  for which there was            1                      4
               an absence of  sufficient
               information  in the file to
               make a determination  of
               contamination, and not iden-
               tified by Categories  1, 2 or
               3 above
               TOTAL SITES                             24                    100
*• '  Sampled sites were not  randomly  selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these  criteria  are discussed in detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.7-5
Media Exposed
                                       Table B.7-3

                                      USEPA REGION VII
                                  HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
TABULATION OF MEDIA EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENT

                                               Insufficient
   Responses Indicating  Responses Indicating  Information
       Contamination       No Contamination     Available
                                                 in File
   Documented Suspected  Documented Suspected
  Total
Responses
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
10
12
4
8
5
6
1
6
1
1
0
0
2
3
13
4
6
2
6
6
24
24
24
24
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                                      B.7-6

                                                    Table B.7-4

                                                 USEPA REGION VII
                                               HAZARDOUS  WASTE SITES
                                          DISF  SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                                                     (1)
                          TABULATION OF MEDIA EXPOSED TO DAMAGE INCIDENT BY FACILITY TYPE
                                         Responses
                                        Responses
Insufficient
Facility
Type
Landfill
Open Dump
Surface
Impoundment
Media Exposed
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Indicating
Contamination
Doc. Susp.
7 4
5 6
1
5 2
1
1
1 1
1 2
2
2
1
Indicating
No Contamination
Doc. Susp.
1 I
1 2
12
3
1
1
1
1
Information
Available
in File
3
2
3
6
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
Total
Responses
16
16
16
16
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
Incinerator
           (2)
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and  the  implications  of  these  criteria
     are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1  and  3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files  evaluated.

-------
Storage Treat-
ment Pilesu;
                                                       B.7-7

                                              Table B.7-4  (cont'd)
                                               (1)
                                        Responses
                                        Responses
Insufficient
Facility
Type
Injection^ '
Well
Land
Treatment
Transportation
Spill Site
Storage Treat-
ment Containers
Storage Treat-
ment Tanks
Media Exposed
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Indicating
Contamination
Doc. Susp.

1
-
1
1
2
0
0
0
0

1
2
1
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
Indicating
No Contamination
Doc. Susp.

1
1
-
-
0
0
0
0

1
-
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
Information
Available
in File

1
1
1
1
1
2
I
2
1
2
2
2
2
Total
Responses

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implications of these criteria are
     discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                                        B.7-8

                                                Table B.7-4 (cont'd)
                                                       (1)
Facility
Type
       Media Exposed
                     Responses
                    Indicating
                    Contamination
Responses
Indicating
No Contamination
                                        Doc.
                                     Susp.
                                        Doc.
          Susp.
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File
  Total
Responses
Boilers Using
Waste as Fuel
(2)
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Recycling
Reclamation


Midnight
Dump


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
_
-
-
"
2
1
1
2
_
1
-
1
_
1
-
••
1
1
1
1
_ _
-
1
— *.
1
-
1
"™
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implications of these criteria
     are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files  evaluated.

-------
                                  B.7-9
          0    air was associated with surface impoundments, landfills, land
               treatments and containers.

     B.7.5   Events  Causing  Contamination.   Contaminated sites  were associ-
ated with  one  or more of the  following  events,  as outlined in Section VIII
of the DISF.
          Fire/Explosion                .    Seismic Activity
          Spill                         .    Erosion
          Leak                          .    Leachate
          Flood                         .    Emission of Toxic Gases/Mists

     In  the  remainder of  this section, events tabulated  will  include both
documented and suspected  events, unless otherwise noted.

     Seven of  these events  were  identified at  least once, along with one
other  type  not  listed  in  the DISF.   This  other  event  was described  as  a
wastewater discharge.  A total of 15 sites (62 percent) were involved in two
events and 8  sites (33 percent) in  three or more events.

     B.7.5.1  Tabulation of Events Causing  Contamination  Incidents.   Table
B.7-5 summarizes the total  number of events causing contamination incidents.
In  total,  48  contamination  events  involving various  facility  types  were
recorded  in  the  DISFs.   For  this region,  this  tabulation indicates  that
approximately  77  percent  of  the  contamination  events  were  related  to
leachate (35 percent), leaks (17 percent) erosion (15 percent)  or spills (10
percent).  Of  the  48 contamination events tabulated,  23  (48 percent)  could
be documented from  information  available in the  file.

     B.7.5.2  Tabulation of Events Causing Contamination Incidents By Facil-
ity Type.  Table B.7-6 summarizes  the events causing contamination incidents
at  various  facility types.   Since  a number of  sites contained  a multiple
number of  facilities,  there were  a number of cases where there was insuffi-
cient information available in the file to identify the damage  incident with
the specific  facility unit in question.  These  represented  approximately  8
percent of the total and are identified in Table B.7-6.

     This  analysis  indicates  that approximately 72 percent  of  the leachate
events were  associated with landfills (53 percent)  or  surface  impoundments
(19 percent).   Air  pollution events,  i.e.,  emissions  of toxic  gases  and
mists, were  most  commonly  associated with  landfills and  surface impound-
ments.  Facilities having the  highest frequency of fires and explosions were
containers and recyclers.

     B.7.6  Chemicals Documented in Contamination Incidents.   For this  anal-
ysis,   chemicalcompounds were organized into  the following general  cate-
gories:
     'Volatile Halogenated  Organics (VHOs)             'Inorganics
     'Volatile Non-halogenated Organics (VNHOs)        'Cyanide
     'Base Neutral  Extractables (BNEs)                 'Acids
     'Pesticides                                       'Acid Compounds
     'PCBs                                             'Alkalies
     'Metals                                            'Alcohols
     'Oil                                              'Aldehydes
     'Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds                        'Ketones
     'Asbestos                                         'Radioactive

-------
                                  B.7-10
                                 Table B.7-5
                                USEPA REGION VII
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                    DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
            TABULATION OF EVENTS CAUSING CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic Gases/Mists
Other
Total

     Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
Documented
3
2
3
1
0
3
5
2
4
23
Suspected
0
3
5
0
0
4
12
1
0
25
Total
3
5
8
1
0
7
17
3
4
48

-------
                                             B.7-11
                                       Table B.7-6

                                      USEPA REGION VII
                                  HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
        TABULATION OF EVENTS CAUSING CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS BY FACILITY TYPE
Facility
  Type
Event
Documented
Suspected
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File
Total
Landfi11
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
                                        1
                                        1
                    1

                    1
                                 1
                                 1
                                 2

Open
Dump
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
3
4
1
2
-
10 1
1
1
1
2
3
15
1
2
1
1
1
2
SurfaceFire/Explosion
Impound-  Spills
ments     Leaks
          Flood
          Seismic Activity
          Erosion
          Leachate
          Emission of Toxic
            Gases/Mists
          Other
                              1

                              1
                    5
                    1
                                 5
                                 2
(1)
     Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                             B.7-12
Facility
  Type
                                    Table B.7-6 (cont'd)
                                                        (1)
               Event
Documented
Suspected
Insufficient
Information
 Available
 in File
Total
Incineratorv
               Fire/Explosion
               Spills
               Leaks
               Flood
               Seismic Activity
               Erosion
               Leachate
               Emission of Toxic
                 Gases/Mists
               Other
Injection
WellCZ;
               Fire/Explosion
               Spills
               Leaks
               Flood
               Seismic Activity
               Erosion
               Leachate
               Emission of Toxic
                 Gases/Mists
               Other
Land
Treatment
               Fire/Explosion
               Spills
               Leaks
               Flood
               Seismic Activity
               Erosion
               Leachate
               Emission of Toxic
                 Gases/Mists
               Other
                                                       3
                                                       1
                                                  3
                                                  1
Transporta-
tion Spill
Site
               Fire/Explosion
               Spills
               Leaks
               Flood
               Seismic Activity
               Erosion
               Leachate
               Emission of Toxic
                 Gases/Mists
               Other
                                                  1

                                                  1
     Sampled sites were not randomly selected.Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
     Facility type not identified in files evaluated.
 (2)

-------
                                             B.7-13
Storage
Treatment
Containers
                                    Table B.7-6 (cont'd)(1)
Facility
Type Event
Documented Suspected
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
Total
               Fire/Explosion
               Spills
               Leaks
               Flood
               Seismic Activity
               Erosion
               Leachate
               Emission of Toxic
                 Gases/Mists
               Other
                                   2

                                   1
1
2
2
1
3
Storage
Treatment
Tanks
               Fire/Explosion
               Spills
               Leaks
               Flood
               Seismic Activity
               Erosion
               Leachate
               Emission of Toxic
                 Gases/Mists
               Other
                                                  1
                                                  2
                              1
                              3
Storage
Treatment
PileslZ;
               Fire/Explosion
               Spills
               Leaks
               Flood
               Seismic Activity
               Erosion
               Leachate
               Emission of Toxic
                 Gases/Mists
               Other
Boilers
Using Waste
- FuelUJ
as
          Fire/Explosion
          Spills
          Leaks
          Flood
          Seismic Activity
          Erosion
          Leachate
          Emission of Toxic
            Gases/Mists
          Other

Sampled sites were not randomly selected.Site selection criteria and
the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section
3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                             B.7-14
Facility
  Type
Event
                                    Table B.7-6 (cont'd)(1)
Documented	Suspected
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
Total
Recycling
Reclamation
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
  Gases/Mists
Other
                    I
                    1
                    1
                    1
                    1
Midnight
Dump
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
  Gases/Mists
Other
     1
     1
                                        1
                                        1
                                                  1
                                                  2
(1)
     Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  B.7-15
Table  B.7-7  summarizes the total number of times that a chemical  in a given
category was  positively identified by sampling and analytical techniques as
occurring as contaminants in the  various media.

     Eleven  of  these  chemical  categories  were  identified  at  least once.
This  tabulation  indicates  that  approximately 51  percent  of  the chemical
categories were  identified as either metals  (19 percent), VHOs (17 percent)
or  acid  compounds (15 percent).  Table B.7-8  lists  the most  commonly occur-
ring chemicals found in each of these categories.

     B.7.7  Damage  Incidents.   The  following  six  affected areas were evalu-
ated for site related damage on the DISF.
                     Drinking Water            .    Fauna
                     Food Chain                .    Human Health
                     Flora                     .    Property Damage

     In  the  remainder  of  this  section  damage will be  interpreted to mean
both documented and suspected  incidents/events  unless otherwise noted.

     Damage  was  identified for  at least  15   sites, or  63  percent,  of  the
sites  evaluated.  As  noted  in  Section B.7.4,  21  of the  sites indicated
contamination  (88 percent).  Damage was indicated  in  approximately 71 per-
cent  of the  contaminated  sites evaluated.   Of  the  34 affected  areas  in-
dicating damage,  only  10 (29  percent) could  be  documented using the evalu-
ation criteria.

     Sites  indicating   the  absence  of damage,  and/or files  not  containing
sufficient information  to determine damage, were also  identified.  A tabula-
tion  of  sites  identified  with damage for  at least  one  of  the  above cat-
egories  is outlined in Table  B.7-9.  Of note, are the 12 sites (50 percent)
identified as  having damage to two or more affected areas.  Of the 14 sites
indicating  soil   contamination,  7  sites also indicated damage  to drinking
water.   Also, of the  18  sites indicating  soil and/or surface water contam-
ination, 7 sites also indicated damage to  flora, fauna or the food chain.

     B.7.7.1   Tabulation of  Number,  Type  and Severity of Damage Incidents.
Table B.7-10 summarizes the total number of DISF responses indicating damage
to  the  above  affected areas.   Site files not containing  sufficient inform-
ation to determine damage were also recorded and noted under the appropriate
heading in Table B.7-10.

     Table B.7-10 indicates that 40  percent  of  the  documented  damage  in-
cidents  occurred to  property,  with  the remaining incidents  occurring  to
drinking  water  (30 percent),   human  health  (20  percent)   and  flora  (10
percent).

     Table B.7-10 indicates that of the 24  sites  evaluated, 8 sites (33 per-
cent)  indicated  high environmental damage,  5 sites (21  percent) indicated
medium environmental damage and  2  sites  (8 percent) indicated  low environ-
mental  damage.   The  remaining 9  site files  indicated  no  apparent  damage
(i.e.  there was  no  data available on public health damages) (5 percent)  or,
while  there  was  some  data, there  was not enough  information available  (33
percent) to make an evaluation.   Of note,  are the files  associated with  the
8 sites  (33  percent) which suggested that  the actual  damage may be  higher
than the response described in the DISF,  but the  file contained insufficient
analytical  data available to support a higher damage  rating.

-------
                                      B.7-16
                                      Table B.7-7

                                   USEPA REGION VII
                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES    ,,,
                         DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESUJ

              TABULATION OF CHEMICALS DOCUMENTED IN CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS


                                                  Total Positive           Percent
Chemical Category	Identifications	of Total

Volatile Halogenated Orgam'cs (VHOs)                   8                        17
Volatile Non-halogenated Orgam'cs (VNHOs)              3                        6
Base Neutral Extractables (BNEs)                       5                        11
Pesticides                                             5                        11
PCBs                                                   2                        4
Metals                                                 9                        19
Oil                                                    2                        4
Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds                              0                        0
Inorganics                                             2                        4
Cyanide                                                3                        6
Acids                                                  0                        0
Acid Compounds                                         7                        15
Alkalies                                               0                        0
Alcohols                                               0                        0
Aldehydes                                              1                        3
Ketones                                                0                        0
Radioactive                                            0                        0
Asbestos                                               0                        0
Others                                                 0                        0


*• '  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.7-17
                                       Table B.7-8

                                   USEPA REGION VII
                                HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
             CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED BY MEDIA
Most Frequently
Observed
Contaminant Concentration Range
Chemical Category
VHOs

Acid Compound
Metals
NOTES:
Contaminant
1,1,1 trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
phenols (NOS)
trichlorophenol
bis-phenol
manganese
arsenic
chromium

X = information is confidential and
ND = no data available
Groundwater
(mg/1)
X
X
X
X
ND
X
X
X
therefore not avai
Surface Water
(mg/1)
X
X
X
X
ND
X
X
X
Table
Soil
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
X
X
X
X
X
ND

Air
(mg/1)
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
ND


-------
                                           B.7-18
                                     Table B.7-9

                                   USEPA REGION VII
                                HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                        DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES


                             TABULATION OF SITES DAMAGED


                                            Total Number of Sites       Percent of
Category  Description	(Described by Category)	Total

   1      Sites indicating documented                  6                   25
          damage (to at least
          one affected area)

   2      Sites indicating suspected                   9                   37.5
          damage (to at least
          one affected area) and not
          identified by Category 1
          above

   3      Sites indicating                             3                   12.5
          documented (or suspected)
          absence of damage and not
          identified by Categories 1
          and 2 above

   4      Sites for which there was                    6                   25
          an absence of sufficient
          information in the file to
          make a determination of
          damage and not identified by
          Categories 1, 2 and 3 above
          TOTAL SITES                                  24                 100

^ '       Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
          the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
          3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                         B.7-19
                                       Table  B.7-10

                                         USEPA REGION VII
                                     HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY  OF EVALUATED SITES
                     TABULATION OF NUMBER & SEVERITY OF DAMAGE INCIDENTS
Affected Area
       Damage

Documented Suspected
     No Damage

Documented Suspected
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File
Total
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
3
-
1
-
2
4
8
1
6
7
1
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
4
-
8
8
8
8
8
23
9
9
13
11
24
24
24
24
24
24
                                   Severity of Damage


Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health


High Medium
8 5
1
Insufficient
Information
Available
Low in File
2 8
17


No Apparent
Damage
1
6


Total Number
of Responses
24
24
*• '  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implications of these
     criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  B.7-20
     The analysis  also indicated  that  out of  the  24  sites  evaluated,  one
site indicated  high human  health  damage,  and no sites  indicated  medium or
low  human  health  damage.   The  remaining  23  sites  indicated no  apparent
damage (25 percent)  or did not have enough information available to make an
evaluation (71  percent).   Of note,  are the files associated  with  17 sites
(71  percent)  which  suggested that  the actual  human  health  damage  may be
higher  than   the  severity  response described  in the  DISF,   but  the  file
contained insufficient analytical  data  available  to support a higher damage
rating.

     B.7.7.2    Tabulation  of Number  and  Severity  of  Damage Incidents  by
Facility Type.  Table B.7-11 summarizes the DISF responses indicating damage
to each  affected  area  by associated facility type.   This analysis  indicates
that approximately  84  percent of the damage incidents  were associated  with
landfills (66 percent) or containers (18 percent).  The remaining 16 percent
of the  damage incidents were associated with  land  treatments and  surface
impoundments.

     Table B.7-11 also  indicates  that  79 percent of the incidents  involving
damage to  drinking water  involved landfills (53 percent)  ,  land  treatment
(13 percent),  and  surface impoundments (13 percent).

Table B.7-11  also  identifies  the  severity of damage to  environment and/or
human  health.   Landfills,  storage  facilities  and  surface  impoundments
resulted in 66  percent of  the cases involving  high  or  medium environmental
damage and  the case  involving high human health damage.

     B.7.8  Status of Response.  Table  B.7-12 summarizes  the  status  of each
site  evaluated  from  the  standpoint of enforcement,  investigative  and  re-
medial activites.   This  table indicates  that only 29  percent of  the files
evaluated indicated  that the  sites identified were involved  in  either  past
or  present legal  or  enforcement  actions.  However,  17 (71  percent)  site
files indicated  that additional  environmental investigations  were  in prog-
ress or  completed.   Five  (20 percent) sites were  reported  to  be involved
with past or present remedial activities.

     Table B.7-12 also compares  the damage incident type with the remedial
activities and  related costs  for  sites  having  cost data  available.  These
activities  included  drum  excavation,  containment  recovery  systems  and
cut-off  trenches.  Expenditures for remedial activities for the sites ranged
from $50,000 to  $10,000,000.

-------
                                           B.7-21
                                        Table B.7-11

                                       USEPA REGION VII
                                   HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              OISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                                         (1)
             TABULATION OF NUMBER & SEVERITY DAMAGE INCIDENTS BY FACILITY TYPE
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
                                         Landfill
                                                  No Damage
Documented Suspected     Documented Suspected
     1
     0
     0
     0
     1
     3
7
0
3
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
7
5
5
6
5
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File      Total
     516
     9          16
     8          16
     9          16
     9          16
     8          16
                                    Severity of Damage
                                               Insufficient
                                               Information
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
^ ' Comn "Jo/-! C-T+QC
High
4
1
Dama
Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0
High
0
Medium Low
1 0
Open
fl6.
Suspected
0
0
1
1
0
0
Severity
Medium Low
0 ~~0~
0 0
Available
in File
5
9
Dump
No Damage
No


Apparent Total Number
Damage of Responses
3 16
5 16
Insufficient
Information


Available
Documented Suspected in File Tota
0
0
0
0
0
0
of Damage
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
No

2 2
2 2
1 2
1 2
2 2
2 2
Apparent Total Number
Damage of Responses
0 2
0 2

     the implications  of these criteria are  discussed  in  detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.7-22
                                     Table B.7-11 (cont'd)

                                   Surface Impoundments
                                                          (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
                      Damage

               Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
                    0
                    0
                    0
                    0
                    0
                    0
2              10
1              02
0              02
1              02
1              02
0              02

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 2          5
                                 2          5
                                 3          5
                                 2          5
                                 2          5
                                 3          5
Insufficient
Information
Available No Apparent Total Number
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health



Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
High
2
0

Dama

Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0
Medium Low in File Damage of Responses
0 0
0 0
Inci

g_e

Suspected
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
nerator^1"

No

0
2

Damage

Documented Suspected
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
0
0
0
0
0





Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
                    High   Medium   Low
                    0
                    0
0
0
0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
0
No Apparent
Damage
0
0
Total Number
of Responses

     0
     0
(1)
(2)
Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                           B.7-23
                                     Table B.7-11 (cont'd)
                                                          (1)
                                      Injection Well
                                                    (2)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
                      Damage

               Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
                    0
                    0
                    0
                    0
                    0
                    0
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 0           0
                                 0           0
                                 0           0
                                 0           0
                                 0           0
                                 0           0
Insufficient
Information

Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health

High
0
0

Medium
0
0
Avai
Low i n
0 0
0 0
lable No Apparent Total Number
File Damage
0
0
of Responses
0
0



Land Treatment



Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage

Dama

Documented
1
0
0
0
0
1

2§

Suspected
1
0
0
0
0
0

No


Damage

Documented Suspected
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
2
1
1
Insufficient
Information
Available



in File Total
0
0
1
1
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
                    High   Medium   Low
                    1
                    0
0
0
0
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   1
   3
No Apparent
  Damage

    1
    0
Total Number
of Responses

     3
     3
(1)
(2)
Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section
3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                           B.7-24
                                     Table B.7-11 (cont'd)

                                 Transportation Spill  Site
                                                          (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in  File       Tota

                                 1           I
                                 1           1
                                 1           1
                                 1           1
                                 1           1
                                 1           1


Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health



Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage


High
0
0

Dama

Documented
0
0
0
0
0
1


Medium
0
0
Storage T

g_e

Suspected
1
0
2
2
0
1
Insufficient
Information
Available
Low in File
0 1
0 1
reatment Containers

No Damage




No Apparent Total Number
Damage
0
0



Documented Suspected
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
3
5
3
of Responses
1
1
Insufficient
Information
Available






in File Total
2
3
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
     1
     0
1
0
0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
1
2
No Apparent
Damage
3
4
Total Number
of Responses
6
6
 '  '  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.7-25
                                     Table B.7-11 (cont'd)(1)

                                  Storage Treatment Tanks


                                                  No Damage
                                                                 Insufficient
                                                                 Information
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Documented Suspected
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Documented Suspected
0 2
0 2
0 1
0 1
0 2
0 2
Available
in File
2
2
3
3
2
2
Total
4
4
4
4
4
4
                                    Severity of Damage
Insufficient
Information
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health

Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
High
0
0

Dama
Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0
Avai
Medium Low in
0
0
Storage

g_e
Suspected
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 3
0 2
Treatment

No
Table No Apparent Total Number
File Damage of Responses
1
2
/0\
Pilesu;

Damage
Documented Suspected
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
                    High   Medium   Low
                    0
                    0
0
0
0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
0
No Apparent
Damage
0
0
Total Number
of Responses

     0
     0
(1)
(2)
Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                           B.7-26
                                Table B.7-11 (cont'd)(1)

                                Boilers Using Waste as Fuel
                                                      (2)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
                      Damage

               Documented Suspected
                    0
                    0
                    0
                    0
                    0
                    0
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00

 Severity of Damage
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
Tota
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
High
0
0
Available No Apparent Total Number
Medium Low in File Damage of Responses
000
000
0
0
0
0

Recycl ing/Reclamation
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Dama
Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0
c[e
Suspected
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Damage
Documented Suspected
0 2
0 2
0 1
0 1
0 2
0 2
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
0
1
1
0
0
Total
2
2
2
2
2
2
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
High
0
0
Medium
1
0
Low
0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
0
No Apparent
Damage
1
2
Total Number
of Responses
2
2
(1)
(2)
Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                           B.7-27
                                     Table B.7-11 (cont'd)

                                       Midnight Dump
                                                          (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     2
2              01
0              02
1              01
2              01
0              02
0              01

 Severity of Damage

            Insufficient
            Information
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 0          3
                                 1          3
                                 1          3
                                 0          3
                                 1          3
                                 0          3
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property
High
0
0
Dama
Documented
1
0
0
0
0
1
Medium
2
0
Chemical

-------
                                  B.7-28
                                  Table B.7-12

                               USEPA REGION VII
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                             STATUS OF RESPONSE
24 evaluated
                            Total Number of Sites...
               7 with legal/
               enforcement
               action under-
               way/completed
                         17 with investi-
                         gative actions
                         underway/com-
                         pleted
                                 5 with remedial
                                 actions under-
                                 way/completed
                      DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
Damage    Facility
Incident    type
                    Location
                         Remedial Activity
                                      Costs ($)
1.
2.
Fire,
Leaks
Spills,
Landf i 1 1
Storage
Landfill
10
MO
Drum removal , soil
excavation
Installation of con-
50,00-500,000
10,000,000
3.
4.
5.
(1)
     Leaks,    Surface
     Leachate  Impoundment
               Treatment
Leachate  Midnight
          Dump
            MO
Spills,
Leaks,
Leachate,
Erosion
Midnight
Dump
MO
Leachate, Landfill
Erosion
contaminant recovery
pump, spill clean-up
(other site clean-up
activities not specified)

Drum and contaminated    2,500,000
soil excavation, proposed
waste treatment (ultra-
violet phytolysis)

Drum excavation storage  Not available
and final disposal
                         Construction of earthen  Not available
                         drums, leachate cut-off
                         trenches
     Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
Section B.8

-------

-------
B.8  Region VIII Summary

     B.8.1   Region  VIIIOverview.   The  study  team evaluated  and completed
DISFs for  40 sites  in Region VIII.  Many  of  these sites contained multiple
facilities.  A  total  of  50 facility types were used in describing the sites
in this  region.   Of the 50 facility types  evaluated,  24 percent were land-
fills,  24  percent   were surface  impoundments,  12  percent were radiation
sites, 8 percent were containers, and 8 percent were  piles.   The remaining
24 percent of the facility types were described by various other categories.
As discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 the reader should note for the follow-
ing  discussion  that  the  data bases and the  selection  criteria utilized on
this  study  limit  the  applicability  of the  conclusions reached  herein to
other populations of hazardous waste sites.

     Contamination,   either documented  or   suspected,  was identified  in 34
sites, or  85 percent  of  sites evaluated.  At 27 of the sites, or 68 percent,
contamination  was  documented.    Thirty-one  percent  of  the  contamination
incidents  occurred  to surface water,  with the remaining incidents occurring
to soil  (29  percent), grpundwater (28 percent) and air (12 percent).  Of the
85 responses originally indicating contamination,  only 40 (47 percent) could
be  documented  using the  evaluation  criteria  developed in  Section 3.1.4.
Each site  was  evaluated for damage occurring to life,  property, and various
natural   resources.  This evaluation focused on six potential  affected areas,
including  drinking  water,  food  chain,  flora,  fauna, human health and prop-
erty.  Damage,  (either  documented  or  suspected),  was identified in at least
24 sites,  or 60  percent  of the sites evaluated.   Of the 46  affected areas
originally indicating damage, only 19 (41 percent)  could be  documented using
the  evaluation  criteria.  Approximately  58 percent of the documented damage
incidents  occurred  to property,  with  the   remaining incidents  occurring to
human health (16  percent),  drinking water  (11 percent),  fauna  (11 percent)
and  food chain  (5 percent).   Non-workers were involved  in all  of the three
incidents  involving documented  damage  to  human  health.   Sixty-six percent
of the  incidents causing  the  damage or contamination described  above were
due  to  leachate (32  percent),  others  (18  percent)  or  leaks  (16 percent).
These incidents involved contamination caused  by volatile halogenated organ-
ics,  volatile nonhalogenated  organics  or metals  in 82 percent  of the inci-
dents tabulated.

     B.8.2   Sources.  The  study team preliminarily  identified 94  files in
Region VIII  for review.  File sources included 32  FIT Files,  52 uncontrolled
site  files,  and 10  S&A  Files.   Based upon  a review of  the 94 sites, 54 were
eliminated  from the  study because  they did  not  conform to the Selection
Criteria summarized  in Section 3.1, Table 3-1.

     B.8.3  Tabulation of Site Descriptions by Facility Type.   Each site was
evaluated  and   categorized  by one  or  more of the following thirteen  site
descriptions as  listed in Section IIA of  the DISFs.

          Landfill Facility             .    Storage/Treatment Containers
          Open Dump                      .    Storage/Treatment Tanks
          Surface Impoundment           .    Storage/Treatment Piles
          Incinerator                   .    Boilers  Using Waste as Fuel
          Injection  Well                .    Recycling/Reclamation
          Land Treatment                .   Midnight Dump
          Transportation Spill  Site     .   Other

-------
                                  B.8-2
     For the 40  sites  evaluated in the region,  11  of these categories were
identified at least  once,  along with an additional  4 "other" categories not
listed in the DISF.  These other categories included radiation sites, lumber
treatment (abandoned facility),  septic system overflow and  re-use  of empty
pesticide drums  by a private individual.   Table B.8-1  summarizes  the total
number of  categories used  in  describing   the  40 sites evaluated.   Many of
these  sites  contained multiple  facilities.   A  total  of  50  facility types
were used in describing  the sites in this region.   Of the 50 facility types
evaluated, approximately 76  percent  of the sites were  identified  as either
surface  impoundments  (24 percent), landfills  (24 percent),  radiation sites
(12 percent),  containers (8 percent)  or   piles  (8  percent).  A total  of 7
facility types were  described  by 2 or more  facility  types  categories and 2
sites by three or more facility types.

     B.8.4  Contamination Incidents.   Four media, i.e.  groundwater,  surface
water, air and soil, were evaluated  for site-related  contamination  in Sec-
tion V of the DISF.  In the remainder of this section, contamination will be
interpreted to mean both documented and suspected  incidents/events, unless
otherwise  noted.   Sites  indicating  the  absence of  contamination,  and/or
files  not containing  sufficient information  to determine  the presence of
contamination,  were  also identified.   Table B.8-2 summarizes  the  number of
sites identified  with contamination in at least one of the above media.

     Contamination incidents were identified  in at  least  34 sites,  or 85
percent  of the sites evaluated.   A total  of 85  incidents  involving various
media were recorded  at  these sites of which  40  (47 percent) could be docu-
mented by  sampling and analytical data.   Twenty-nine  sites  were  identified
with contamination in two or more media.  For example, of the 25 sites indi-
cating soil  contamination,  17  sites  also indicated  groundwater  contamina-
tion.   File data  indicated  that 33 sites  were contaminated from incident(s)
occurring  at  the  site  evaluated.   File   data for  the remaining  one site
indicated that  contamination may  have originated off-site.

     B.8.4.1  Tabulation  of Media Exposed  to  Contamination.  Table B.8-3
summarizes the total number of DISF  responses  indicating  contamination or
the  absence  of  contamination   found  by media.  Site  files  not  containing
sufficient  information  to  determine   contamination  were  also  recorded for
each of the media evaluated and noted under the appropriate heading  in Table
B.8-3.  This table indicates that 31  percent of the contamination incidents
occurred to surface  water.   The remaining  incidents occurred to either soil
(29 percent), groundwater  (28  percent) or air (12 percent).  In many cases,
contamination to  more than one media occurred at any particular site.

     B.8.4.2   Tabulation  of Media  Exposed  to  Contamination  Incidents by
Facility  Type.   Table  B.8-4 summarizes the total   number of DISF  responses
indicating  media  contamination  associated with  each  facility  type.  This
analysis suggests that approximately 68 percent of the sites associated with
contamination  incidents  were identified as either  surface  impoundments (29
percent), landfills  (24  percent), containers  (11 percent),  or tanks  (4 per-
cent).  Table B.8-4  indicates  that,  for most of the incidents tabulated, in
decreasing order  of occurrence, contamination to:

-------
                             B.8-3
                            Table B.8-1

                           USEPA REGION VIII
                       HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
               DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
              TABULATION OF SITE DESCRIPTIONS BY TYPE
Facility
Type
Landf i 1 1
Open Dump
Surface Impoundment
Land Treatment
Total Number of
Responses Described as
Given Facility Type
12
1
12
1
Storage/Treatment Containers 4
Storage/Treatment Tanks
Storage/Treatment Piles
Recycl i ng/Recl amati on
Midnight Dump
Radiation Sites
Other
Total
\> ' C a mr\ TQ/H er-i+ae i JA v* o
3
4
3
1
6
3
50
nrvt" v»ai"\/"Jrtmlv/ cAla/*+a*"i CT^Q
Percent of
Total
24
2
24
2
8
6
8
6
2
12
6
100
ff\TQ/™+T/~\r\ /"*v»'i't'«v*-ra a i
                                                                    and
the implications of  these  criteria  are discussed in detail  in  Section
3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  B.8-4
                                 Table B.8-2

                               USEPA REGION VIII
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES  ,,,
                    DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESU;
           TABULATION OF SITES EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
Category
          Description
Total Number of
Sites (Described
  by Category)
Percent of
  Total
     Sites indicating documented
     contamination (to at least
     one medium)

     Sites indicating suspected
     contamination (to at least
     one medium) and not identified
     by Category 1 above

     Sites indicating
     documented or suspected
     absence of contamination
     and not identified by
     Categories 1 and 2 above

     Sites for which there was
     an absence of sufficient
     information in the file to
     make a determination of
     contamination, and not iden-
     tified by Categories 1, 2 or
     3 above
     27
   67.5
                         17.5
                          7.5
                          7.5
TOTAL SITES
     40
    100
(1)
     Sampled sites were  not  randomly  selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these  criteria  are discussed in detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and  3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.8-5
                                       Table B.8-3

                                      USEPA REGION VIII
                                  HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                                           (1)
Media Exposed
TABULATION OF MEDIA EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENT

                                               Insufficient
   Responses Indicating  Responses Indicating  Information
       Contamination       No Contamination     Available
                                                 in File
   Documented Suspected  Documented Suspected
  Total
Responses
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
9
12
6
13
15
14
4
12
0
2
0
0
7
5
14
5
9
7
16
10
40
40
40
40
         (1)
              Sampled sites were not  randomly  selected.   Site selection criteria and
              the implications of these  criteria  are discussed in detail  in  Section
              3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
Incinerator
                                                      B.8-6

                                                    Table  B.8-4

                                                   USEPA REGION  VIII
                                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                                             DISF  SUMMARY  OF  EVALUATED  SITES
                                                        (1)
                          TABULATION OF  MEDIA  EXPOSED  TO  CONTAMINATION  INCIDENT  BY  FACILITY  TYPE

Facility
Type


Landfill



Open Dump



Surface
Impoundment

/ OA


Media Exposed


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Responses
Indicating
Contamination

Doc. Susp.
5 3
2 6
5 0
2 4
0 0
1 0
0 0
1 0
3 7
7 2
1 1
1 4
Responses
Indicating
No Contamination

Doc. Susp.
0 4
1 2
0 4
0 3
0 3
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
1 I
0 4
0 2
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File

0
1
3
3
1
0
0
0
2
1
6
5

Total
Responses


12
12
12
12
1
1
1
1
12
12
12
12
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
     Sampled sites were not randomly  selected.Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these  criteria are discussed  in detail in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
     Facility type not identified  in  files evaluated.

-------
                                                      B.8-7

                                                Table B.8-4 (cont'd)(1)
Facility
Type
                    Media Exposed
Responses
Indicating
Contamination
Responses
Indicating
No Contamination
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File
  Total
Responses
                                        Doc.
                                                  Susp.
                    Doc.
          Susp.
Injection Weir
                    Groundwater
                    Surface Water
                    Air
                    Soil
Land
Treatment

.. , 	 	 , , . t
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
Transportation'
Spill Site
                    Groundwater
                    Surface Water
                    Air
                    Soil
Storage Treat-
ment Containers
Storage Treat-
ment Tanks
£4i - «. -
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
(2)
     Sampled sites were not randomly  selected.   Site  selection criteria and
     the implications of these  criteria  are  discussed in  detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

     Facility type not identified  in  files evaluated.

-------
Facility
Type
                                                       B.8-8
                                                Table B.8-4 (cont'd)^1^
           Media Exposed
Responses
Indicating
Contamination
Responses
Indicating
No Contamination
                                        Doc.
                                         Susp.
                    Doc.
          Susp.
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File
  Total
Responses
Boilers Using
 Waste as Fuel
           Groundwater
           Surface Water
           Air
           Soil
Storage Treat-
ment Piles


Recycling
Reclamation


Midnight
Dump


Radiation



Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
1
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
3
2
2
0
2
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
I
6
6
6
6
    (1)
    (2)
Sampled sites were  not  randomly  selected.   Site selection  criteria and
the implications of  these  criteria  are  discussed in detail  in  Section
3.1.1 and  3.2.1.

Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                  B.8-9
          0    groundwater  was   associated  with  landfills,  surface
               impoundment, containers, and piles;
          0    surface  water  was associated  with  landfills,  surface
               impoundments, containers, piles,  and other types;
          0    soil  was  associated  with  landfills,  surface impound-
               ments,  containers, piles,   radiation  sites,  and  other
               sites*; and
          0    air was associated with  landfills,  surface impoundments,
               containers, recycling/reclamation, and radiation sites.

     B.8.5  Events Causing Contamination.   Contaminated sites were associ-
ated with  one or more of the  following events, as outlined  in Section VIII
of the DISF.

               Fire/Explosion      .     Seismic Activity
               Spill               .     Erosion
               Leak                .     Leachate
               Flood               .     Emission of Toxic Gases/Mists

     In  the  remainder of  this section, events  tabulated will  include both
documented and suspected  events, unless  otherwise noted.

     Seven of these events were  identified  at least  once,  along  with one
other  type not listed in the DISF.  This other event was described as radia-
tion exposure.  A total of 11 sites (28 percent) were involved in two events
and 8 sites (20 percent) in three or more events.

     B.8.5.1  Tabulation  of Events Causing  Contamination Incidents.  Table
B.8-5  summarizes the total number of events causing contamination incidents.
In  total,   68  contamination  events  involving  various facility  types  were
recorded  in   the  DISFs.   For  this  region,  this  tabulation  indicates  that
approximately 66 percent  of the contamination events were related to leach-
ate  (32 percent),  others  (18 percent) or leaks  (16 percent).   Of  the  68
contamination  events tabulated,  43  (63 percent)  could be  documented  from
information available in  the file.

     B.8.5.2  Tabulation of Events Causing Contamination Incidents By Facil-
ity Type.  Table B.8-6 summarizes  the events causing contamination incidents
at  various  facility types.  Since a  number  of sites  contained  a  multiple
number of  facilities,  there were  a number of cases where there was  insuffi-
cient  information available in the file to identify the damage incident with
the specific  facility unit, in question.   These  represented  approximately 5
percent of the total  and are identified  in Table B.8-6.

     This  analysis  indicates  that approximately 86 percent  of the  leachate
events were associated  with landfills   (50 percent)  or  surface  impoundments
(36 percent).   Leaks were found to occur at approximately one quarter of the
facilities while 50 percent  were  associated  with surface impoundments.
Approximately 60 percent  of the fire/explosion  events  were  associated  with
storage or treatment facilities (all  types) (40 percent) and landfills (20
percent).  Air pollution events,  i.e.,  emissions  of toxic  gases and mists,
were  associated  with  containers  (60  percent)  and landfills (40 percent).
Facilities having  the highest  frequency  of fires and  explosions were  con-
tainers (29 percent), and landfills (29 percent).

-------
                                  B.8-10
                                Table  B.8-5

                                USEPA REGION VIII
                              HAZARDOUS WASTE  SITES
                        DISF  SUMMARY OF EVALUATED  SITES

            TABULATION  OF  EVENTS CAUSING  CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic Gases/Mists
Other
Total
Documented
5
2
7
1
0
2
10
5
11
43
Suspected
1
1
4
0
0
4
12
2
1
25
Total
6
3
11
1
0
6
22
7
12
68
*• '  Sampled sites were not  randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria and
     the implications of these criteria  are  discussed in detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                     B.8-11
                               Table B.8-6

                              USEPA REGION VIII
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES    ,,.
                      DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESUJ

TABULATION OF EVENTS CAUSING CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS BY FACILITY TYPE


Facility
Type
Landfill









Open
Dump








Surface
Impound-
ments










Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other



Documented
1
0
0
0
0
1
5

2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
4

0
0



Suspected
1
0
0
0
0
0
6

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1

0
0
0
1
3
0
0
1
4

2
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0



Total
2
0
0
0
0
1
11

2
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
I

0
0
0
2
7
0
0
2
8

2
0
   (1)
        Sampled  sites  were not randomly  selected.  Site  selection criteria  and
        the  implications  of these criteria are  discussed in detail  in  Section
        3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                             B.8-12
                                    Table B.8-6  (cont'd)
                                                         (1)
Facility
  Type
               Event
                    Documented	Suspected
Insufficient
Information
 Available
 in File
Total
           ( 2)
Incinerator^ J Fire/Explosion
               Spills
               Leaks
               Flood
               Seismic Activity
               Erosion
               Leachate
               Emission of Toxic
                 Gases/Mists
               Other
       onFire/Explosion
                    Spills
               Leaks
               Flood
               Seismic Activity
               Erosion
               Leachate
               Emission of Toxic
                 Gases/Mists
               Other
Inject!
Wellu;
Land
Treatment
         (2)
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
  Gases/Mists
Other
Transporta-
tion, Soil 1
Siteu;
               Fire/Explosion
               Spills
               Leaks
               Flood
               Seismic Activity
               Erosion
               Leachate
               Emission of Toxic
                 Gases/Mists
               Other
     Sampled sites were not randomly selected.
     •^l^r% •*rnr^ll^-^-^-4r%l"*^' s\ -f 4-V^rtr-rt ^»v^l4-<^v»T1  -^ v»/\ f4 1 t
                                                 Site  selection  criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in  detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)
     Facility type not identified  in files evaluated.

-------
                                             B.8-13
                                    Table B.8-6 (cont'd)(1)
                                                              Insufficient
                                                               Information
Facility
Type
Storage
Treatment
Containers







Storage
Treatment
Tanks







Storage
Treatment
Piles







Boilers
Using Waste
as Fuelez;








Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other

Documented
2
1
2
1
0
0
0

1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1

0
0










Suspected
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

2
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2

1
1









Available
in File
0
1
1
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0










Total
2
2
3
1
0
0
0

3
I
0
0
3
1
0
0
0

2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3

1
I









(1)
     Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section |
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
C2")
v '  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                             B.8-14
                                    Table B.8-6  (cont'd)(1)

Facility
Type
Recycling
Reclamation








Midnight
Dump








Radiation
Site










Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other


Documented
1
1
1
1
0
0
0

1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
6


Suspected
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
1
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
1
I
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0


Total
1
2
2
1
0
0
1

2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
7
(1)
     Sampled sites were not  randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and
     the implications  of these criteria  are  discussed in  detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  B.8-15
     B.8.6  Chemicals Documented in Contamination Incidents.  For this anal-
ysis,  chemicalcompounds  were organized  into  thefollowing  general  cate-
gories:

     'Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHOs)             'Inorganics
     'Volatile Non-halogenated Organics (VNHOs)        'Cyanide
     'Base Neutral Extractables (BNEs)                 'Acids
     'Pesticides                                       'Acid Compounds
     'PCBs                                             'Alkalies
     'Metals                                           'Alcohols
     'Oil                                              'Aldehydes
     'Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds                        'Ketones
     'Asbestos                                         'Radioactive

Table  B.8-7  summarizes  the total  number of times that a chemical in a given
category was  positively identified  by sampling and analytical  techniques as
occurring as contaminants in the various media.

     Eleven  of   these  chemical categories  were  identified at  least  once,
along with one additional "other" category not listed above. This tabulation
indicates  that   approximately  52 percent  of  the chemical  categories  were
identified  as either metals  (25  percent),  VHOs  (14 percent),  or  VNHOs  (13
percent).  Table B.8-8  lists  the  most commonly occurring chemicals found in
each of  these categories,  and the  range of concentrations  observed  in  the
affected media.

     B.8.7  Damage Incidents.   The following six  affected  areas were evalu-
ated for site  related damage on the DISF.

               .  Drinking Water              .  Fauna
               .  Food Chain                  .  Human Health
               .  Flora                       .  Property Damage

     In  the  remainder  of  this section damage  will  be  interpreted  to  mean
both documented and suspected incidents/events unless otherwise noted.

     Damage was  identified for  at  least  24  sites,  or  60 percent, of  the
sites  evaluated.   As noted  in  Section B.8.4,  higher percentage of the  sites
indicated contamination  (85 percent).   Damage was indicated in  approximately
70 percent  of the contaminated  sites evaluated.  Of the  46 affected  areas
indicating damage, only 19 (41 percent) could be documented using the evalu-
ation criteria.

     Sites  indicating   the  absence  of damage,  and/or  files not containing
sufficient information  to determine damage, were also identified.  A tabula-
tion of  sites identified  with damage for  at  least one  of the  above  cat-
egories is outlined  in  Table  B.8-9.   Of note,  are the  12 sites  (30 percent)
identified as having damage to two  or more affected areas.  Of the 25  sites
indicating  soil  contamination, 6  sites also  indicated  damage  to  drinking
water.    Also, of the 30 sites indicating soil  and/or surface water contami-
nation, 10 sites  also indicated damage  to flora, fauna or the food chain.

-------
                                      B.8-16
                                      Table B.8-7

                                   USEPA REGION VIII
                                HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES     n>
                           DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESu;

              TABULATION OF CHEMICALS DOCUMENTED IN CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS


                                                  Total Positive           Percent
Chemical Category	Identifications	of Total

Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHOs)                   8                       14
Volatile Non-halogenated Organics (VNHOs)              7                       13
Base Neutral Extractables (BNEs)                       1                        2
Pesticides                                             5                        9
PCBs                                                   2                        4
Metals                                                14                       25
Oil                                                    24
Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds                              0                        0
Inorganics                                             3                        5
Cyanide                                                0                        0
Acids                                                  3                        5
Acid Compounds                                         4                        7
Alkalies                                               0                        0
Alcohols                                               0                        0
Aldehydes                                              0                        0
Ketones                                                0                        0
Radioactive                                            6                       11
Asbestos                                               0                        0
Others                                                 1                        2

Total                                                 56                      100

    *• '  Sampled sites  were  not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria and
         the  implications  of these criteria are discussed  in  detail  in Section
         3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.8-17
                                            Table B.8-8

                                        USEPA REGION VIII
                                     HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                                DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
(1)
                  CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED BY MEDIA
fy)st Frequently
Dbserved Chemi-
cal Category Contaminant
VHOs

VNHOs

Metals



1,1,1 trichloroethane
chlorobenzene
benzene
toluene
lead
mercury
chromium
arsenic
Contaminant Concentration Range
Groundwater
(mg/1)
ND
0.177
3.5 -65.7
7.4 -64.8
ND
ND
63.5
ND
Surface Water
(mg/1)
ND
0.02
0.041
0.05
0.11- 0.18
trace-0.001
0.22
trace-7.9
Soil
(rag/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
trace-1
trace-
522
trace-
Air
(mg/1)
1062.8
ND
ND
719
,300 ND
734 ND
ND
510 ND
NOTES:
     ND = no data available

     ^ '  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
          tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  B.8-18
                                 Table B.8-9

                               USEPA REGION VIII
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES    ,..,
                      DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESUJ
                         TABULATION OF SITES DAMAGED
Category
Description
Total Number of
Sites (Described
by Category)
Percent of
  Total
          Sites indicating documented
          damage (to at least
          one affected area)

          Sites indicating suspected
          damage (to at least one
          affected area) and not
          identified by Category 1
          above

          Sites indicating
          documented or suspected
          absence of damage and not
          identified by Categories
          1  and 2 above

          Sites for which there was
          an absence of sufficient
          information in the file to
          make a determination of
          damage and not identified
          by Categories 1,2 and 3
          above
                              14
                              10
                           35
                           25
                               8
                           20
                              8
                           20
(1)
     TOTAL SITES
                             40
                          100
     Sampled sites were not  randomly  selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these  criteria  are discussed in detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  B.8-19
     B.8.7.1   Tabulation of Number,  Type  and Severity of Damage Incidents.
Table B.8-10 summarizes the total number of DISF responses indicating damage
to  the  above  affected areas.   Site files  not  containing  sufficient inform-
ation to determine damage were also recorded and noted under the appropriate
heading in Table B.8-10.

     Table  B.8-10  indicates that  58  percent  of  the documented  damage  in-
cidents occurred to property with the remaining incidents occurring to human
health  (16  percent),  fauna  (11  percent),  drinking  water  (11  percent),  and
food chain (5 percent).

     Table  B.8-10  indicates that  of  the  40  sites  evaluated,  11 sites  (28
percent) indicated high environmental  damage, 4 sites (10 percent) indicated
medium  environmental  damage  and  8 sites (20 percent) indicated low environ-
mental  damage.  The remaining 17 site files indicated no apparent damage (20
percent) or did not have enough information available  (23  percent) to make
an  evaluation.  Of  note,  are  the files associated with the 9 sites (23 per-
cent) which suggested that the actual  damage may be higher than the response
described in the  DISF,  but the file  contained  insufficient  analytical  data
available to support a higher damage rating.

     The analysis  also indicated  that  out of  the 40  sites  evaluated,  one
site  (3 percent)  indicated high  human health damage,  1 site  (3  percent)
indicated medium  human  health  damage  and no site indicated low human health
damage.   The remaining 38 sites indicated no apparent damage (i.e. there was
no  data available  on  public health damages) (48 percent) or while there was
some data,  there  was  not enough information available to make an evaluation
(48 percent).   Of  note,  are  the  files associated with 19 sites (48 percent)
which suggested that  the  actual  human  health  damage  may  be  higher than the
severity response  described in the DISF, but the file contained insufficient
analytical data available  to support a higher damage rating.

     B.8.7.2   Tabulation  of Number  and  Severity  of  Damage   Incidents  by
Facility Type.  Table B.8-11 summarizes the DISF responses indicating damage
to  each affected  area by associated facility type.  This analysis indicates
that approximately  63 percent  of the damage incidents  were  associated  with
surface impoundments  (48  percent),  storage facilities  (8 percent)  or  land-
fills (7  percent).   The  remaining  37 percent of the damage  incidents  were
associated  with   piles,   radiation  sites,   recycling/reclamation,  and  land
treatment.

     Table 8.8-11  also  indicates  that 80 percent of the incidents involving
damage  to  drinking  water involved  surface  impoundments  (60  percent)  and
landfills (20 percent).

     Table  B.8-11 also  identifies  the  severity  of damage to environment
and/or  human health.  Landfills,  storage facilities and surface impoundments
resulted in 80 percent  of the cases  involving  high  or  medium environmental
damage  and  100 percent of  the  cases  involving high  or medium  human health
damage.

     B.8.8  Status of Response.   Table B.8-12  summarizes  the  status of each
site  evaluated from  the  standpoint of  enforcement, investigative  and  re-
medial activites.   This table indicates that only 20 percent of the files

-------
                                                      B.8-20

                                                   Table B.8-10

                                                  USEPA REGION VIII
                                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                                        DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES

                               TABULATION OF NUMBER & SEVERITY OF DAMAGE INCIDENTS


                                                                      Insufficient
                           Damage                 No Damage           Information
                                                                       Available
Affected Area       Documented Suspected     Documented Suspected       in File      Total


Drinking Water            24              3        19              12         40
Food Chain                15              0        19              15         40
Flora                     05              1        14              20         40
Fauna                     25              0        13              20         40
Human Health              32              0        23              12         40
Property Damage          11        6              1        12              10         40
                                   Severity of Damage
                                                            Insufficient
                                                            Information
Affected Area
High
Medium
Low
Available
in File
No Apparent
Damage
Total Number
of Responses
Environmental             11          4            8            9                8              40
Human Health               1          1            0           19               19              40

*• '  Sampled sites were  not  randomly  selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of  these  criteria  are discussed in detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.8-21
                                        Table B.8-11

                                     USEPA REGION VIII
                                   HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES     ,,,
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESUJ

             TABULATION OF NUMBER & SEVERITY DAMAGE INCIDENTS BY FACILITY TYPE
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Affected Area
Drinking"Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
                                         Landfill
Documented Suspected
     1         0
     0         0
     0         0
     0         0
     1         0
     1         1
     No Damage

Documented Suspected
     1         7
     0         8
     1         5
     0         6
     0         7
     1         6
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File      Total
     312
     4           12
     6           12
     6           12
     4           12
     3           12
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
High
4
0
Medium Low
— r~ ~r
0 0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
3
4
No Apparent
Damage
3
8
Total Number
of Responses
12
12
                                         OpenDump
Documented Suspected
     0         0
     0         0
     0         0
     0         0
     0         0
     1         0
     No Damage

Documented Suspected
     0         0
     0         0
     0         0
     0         0
     0         0
     0         0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File      Total
     I           1
     1           1
     1           1
     1           1
     1           1
     0           1
                                    Severity of Damage
                           Insufficient
                           Information
                            Available
                             i n F i 1 e
                               0
                               I
                No Apparent
                  Damage
                    0
                    0
     Total  Number
     of Responses
          1
          1
(1)
     Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.8-22
                                     Table B.8-11 (cont'd)

                                   Surface Impoundments
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
                      Damage

               Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
                    1
                    0
                    0
                    0
                    0
                    2
                     3
                     0
2              17
5              05
5              04
4              04
1              09
3              04

 Severity of Damage
                    High   Medium   Low
1
0
4
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

    3
    3
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Tota

                                  1         12
                                  2         12
                                  3         12
                                  4         12
                                  2         12
                                  3         12
No Apparent
  Damage

     1
     9
Total Number
of Responses

     12
     12
                                        Incinerator^  '
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
                      Damage

               Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File
                                      Total
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
                    High   Medium   Low
            Insufficient
            Information
             Available
              in File
                   No Apparent
                     Damage
                            Total  Number
                            of Responses
(1)
(2)
Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                           B.8-23
                                     Table B.8-11 (cont'd)
                                                          (1)
                                      Injection Well
                                                    (2)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
                      Damage

               Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File
                                      Total
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
                    High   Medium   Low
            Insufficient
            Information
             Available
              in File
                   No Apparent
                     Damage
                            Total Number
                            of Responses
                                      Land Treatment
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
                      Damage

               Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
                    0
                    0
                    0
                    0
                    0
                    0
0              01
0              01
0              01
0              01
0              01
0              01

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              _i_n._Fi'je_     Total

                                 0           1
                                 0           1
                                 0           1
                                 0           1
                                 0           1
                                 0           1
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
                    High   Medium   Low
                     0
                     0
0
0
0
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

     0
     0
No Apparent
  Damage

    1
    1
Total Number
of Responses

     1
     1
(1)
(2)
Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section
3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                           B.8-24
                                     Table B.8-11 (cont'd)

                                 Transportation Spill  Site
                                                          (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
                      Damage

               Documented  Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
                           Insufficient
                           Information
                            Available
                             in File
                                      Total
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
                    High   Medium    Low
            Insufficient
            Information
             Available
              in File
                  No Apparent
                    Damage
                            Total  Number
                            of Responses
                               Storage Treatment Containers
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
                      Damage

               Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
                    0
                    0
                    0
                    0
                    1
                    2
0              03
0              03
0              01
0              01
0              02
0              00

 Severity of Damage
                           Insufficient
                           Information
                            Available
                             in File      Total

                                 1          4
                                 1          4
                                 3          4
                                 3          4
                                 I          4
                                 2          4
Affected Area

Environmental
'Human Health
                    High   Medium   Low
                     1
                     0
1
1
1
1
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

     1
     1
No Apparent
  Damage

     0
     2
Total Number
of Responses

      4
      4
(1)
 (2)
Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                           B.8-25
                                     Table B.8-11 (cont'd)

                                  Storage Treatment Tanks
                                                          (1)
                                                  No Damage
                                             Insufficient
                                             Information
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Documented Suspected
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
Documented Suspected
0 2
0 2
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
Available
in File
1
1
3
3
2
2
Total
3
3
3
3
3
3
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
High
0
0
Dama
Documented
0
0
0
0
0
3
Medium
0
0
Storage
ge
Suspected
0
2
1
2
1
0
Insufficient
Information
Available No Apparent Total Number
Low in File Damage . of Responses
03 0
02 1
Treatment Piles
No Damage
Documented Suspected
2 0
0 1
0 1
0 2
0 0
0 0
3
3

Insufficient
Information
Available
in File Total
2
1
2
1
I
I
4
4
4
4
4
4
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
High   Medium   Low
 1
 0
1
0
1
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

     1
     3
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    1
Total Number
of Responses

     4
     4
(1)
     Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.8-26
                                    Table B.8-11 (cont'd)
                                                         (1)
                                Boilers Using Waste as Fuel
                                                           (2)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
                      Damage

               Documented  Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File
                                      Total
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
                    High    Medium    Low
            Insufficient
            Information
             Available
              in File
                   No Apparent
                     Damage
                            Total  Number
                            of Responses
                                   Recycling/Reclamation
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
                      Damage

               Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
                    0
                    0
                    0
                    0
                    1
                    1
0              02
0              02
0              01
0              01
0              01
0              00

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 1           3
                                 1           3
                                 2           3
                                 2           3
                                 1           3
                                 2           3
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
                    High   Medium   Low
                     0
                     0
1
1
I
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

     1
     1
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    1
Total Number
of Responses

      3
      3
(1)
(2)
Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                           B.8-27
                                     Table B.8-11 (cont'd)

                                       Midnight Dump
                                                          (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
     0
     1
     0
     1
     1
     1
0              0
0              0
0              0
0              0
0              0
0              0

 Severity of Damage
                  0
                  0
                  0
                  0
                  0
                  0
                       Insufficient
                       Information
                        Available
                         in File      Total

                             1          1
                             0          1
                             1          1
                             0          1
                             0          1
                             0          1
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
      0
      1
0
0
1
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

     0
     0
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    0
Total Number
of Responses

      1
      1
                                           Other
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     3
0              03
0              03
0              03
0              03
1              00
3              00

 Severity of Damage
                                 3
                                 3
                                 3
                                 3
                                 5
                                 0
                                        6
                                        6
                                        6
                                        6
                                        6
                                        6
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health

         (1)
     High   Medium   Low
      0
      0
0
0
1
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

     3
     6
No Apparent
  Damage

    2
    0
Total Number
of Responses

     6
     6
              Sampled sites were  not  randomly  selected.   Site selection criteria and
              the implications of these  criteria  are discussed in detail  in  Section
              3.1.1 and  3.2.1.

-------
                                  B.8-28
                                  Table B.8-12

                              USEPA REGION VIII
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                    DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                                       (1)
                             STATUS OF RESPONSE
                            Total  Number of Sites...
   evaluated
        ...with legal/
        enforcement
        action under-
        way/completed
               ...with investi-
               gative actions
               underway/com-
               pleted
                    ...with remedial
                    actions under-
                    way/completed
     40
             8
                    17
                         18
                      DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
Damage
Incident
Facility
  type
Location
Remedial Activity
Costs ($)
I.  Ground-     LF
   water
   contamination
   from leachate.

2.  Property    00,
   damage.     STP
             Lyons,          Installation of run-     300,000
             Colorado.       off diversion drains,
                            sumps,  and clay cap
             Commerce City, Excavation of con-       700,000
             Colorado.       taminated soil,
                            neutralization,  and clay
                            cap (proposed)
     Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                  B.8-29
evaluated indicated that  the  sites  identified were involved  in  either past
or  present  legal  or  enforcement  actions.   However,  17 (43  percent)  site
files  indicated  that  additional environmental investigations  were  in prog-
ress or completed.  Eighteen (45 percent) sites were reported to be involved
with past or present remedial activities.

     Table B.8-12  also  compares the damage incident type with the remedial
activities and  related  costs  for  sites  having  cost  data  available.  These
activities  included  excavation of  contaminated  soil,  leachate  collection,
neutralization,  installation   of  liners,  etc.   Expenditures for  remedial
activities for the sites ranged from $300,000 to $700,000.

-------
Section B.9

-------
B.9  Region IX Summary

     B.9.1   Region IX Overview.   The  study  team  evaluated  and  completed
DISFs  for  44  sites  in Region  IX.   Many of  these  sites  contained multiple
facilities.  A total  of  80 facility types were used in describing the sites
in  this  region.   Of  the  80 facility types evaluated,  26  percent  were con-
tainers, 25  percent  were  surface impoundments, 15 percent were tanks and 12
percent were  landfills.  The remaining 22 percent of the facility types were
described  by  various  other  categories.  As discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2
the  reader should  note for the following discussion that the data bases and
the  selection criteria utilized on this study limit the applicability of the
conclusions reached herein to other populations of hazardous waste sites.

     Contamination,  either documented  or suspected,  was identified  in  40
sites,  or  91  percent  of  the  sites  evaluated.   At 26  of the  sites,  or 59
percent, contamination was documented.  Forty percent  of the contamination
incidents  occurred to soil, with the remaining incidents occurring to ground-
water  (34  percent), surface water (16 percent) and air  (10 percent).  Of the
88  responses  originally  indicating  contamination only 33 (38 percent) could
be  documented using  the  evaluation criteria  developed  in  Section 3.1.4.
Each site  was  evaluated  for damage occurring to life, property, and various
natural  resources.    This  evaluation  focused on  six  potentially  affected
areas, including drinking  water,  food chain, flora, fauna, human health and
property.   Damage,  (either documented or  suspected),  was  identified  in  23
sites,  or  52  percent of  the  sites evaluated.  Of  the 40  affected  areas
originally indicating  damage  only  21 (53 percent) could be documented using
the  evaluation criteria.   Approximately  29  percent of the documented damage
incidents  occurred to drinking water, with the remaining incidents  occurring
to property (24 percent),  fauna (19 percent), food chain (14 percent),  flora
(9 percent)  and  human health  (5 percent).  There was  one incident  involving
documented damage to human  health.   This incident involved a serious illness
attributed  to direct  contact  with  contamination.  Seventy-one  percent  of
the  incidents  causing  the  damage or contamination described  above  were due
to  leachate  (29  percent),  leaks (25 percent) or spills (17 percent).  These
incidents  involved contamination caused by metals,  acid  compounds or volatile
halogenated organics  in 81 percent of the  incidents tabulated.

     B.9.2  Sources.    The  study team  preliminarily  identified 62  types  of
files  in Region  IX for review.   File sources included  32  FIT files,  13 S&A
files, 8 Uncontrolled  Hazardous  Waste Site files, 8 Enforcement files and 1
Waste  Division  Inspection  file.  Fourteen  files were  not reviewed because
EPA  had negotiated a  confidentiality agreement with the site owners.  Based
upon a review of the  remaining  48  sites,  4 were eliminated  from  the  study
because they did not conform to the Selection Criteria summarized in Section
3.1, Table  3-1.

     B.9.3  Tabulation of Site Descriptions by Facility Type.   Each site was
evaluated  and categorized  by one or  more of  the  following  fourteen  site
descriptions as listed in Section IIA of the DISFs.

          Landfill  Facility             .     Storage/Treatment Containers
          Open Dump                     .     Storage/Treatment Tanks
          Surface Impoundment            .     Storage/Treatment Piles
          Incinerator                   .     Boilers Using Waste as Fuel

-------
                                   B.9-2
          Injection Well                 .     Recycling/Reclamation
          Land Treatment                .     Midnight Dump
          Transportation Spill  Site     .     Other

     For the 44  sites  evaluated in the region,  11  of these categories were
identified at least once.  Table B.9-1 summarizes the total  number of facil-
ity types  used in  describing  the  44 sites evaluated.  Many of  these sites
contained multiple  facilities.   A  total  of 80 facility types were  used  in
describing this  region.   Of the 80 facility types  evaluated,  approximately
80 percent of  the  sites  were identified as either  containers  (26 percent),
surface  impoundments   (25   percent),  tanks (15  percent) or  landfills  (12
percent).  A  total  of 24 sites  were  described by 2  or more facility types
and 10 sites by three or more facility types.

     B.9.4  Contamination Incidents.   Four media, i.e.  groundwater,  surface
water, air and soil,  were evaluated for site-related  contamination  in Sec-
tion V of the DISF.  In the remainder of this  section, contamination will  be
interpreted to mean both documented and suspected  incidents/events,  unless
otherwise  noted.    Sites  indicating  the  absence of  contamination,  and/or
files  not  containing  sufficient information   to  determine  the  presence  of
contamination, were  also identified.   Table B.9-2 summarizes the  number  of
sites ident-ified  with contamination in at least  one of the above media.

     Contamination  incidents were  identified  at 40 of the  sites evaluated.
A total of 88 incidents involving various media were recorded at these sites
of  which 33  (38 percent)  could be documented  by  sampling and analytical
data.   Thirty-four  sites  were  identified with  contamination in  two  or more
media.  For example, of the 35  sites indicating soil  contamination, 28 sites
also  indicated groundwater  contamination.  File data indicated  that 37 sites
were  contaminated  from incident(s)  occurring  at the  site  evaluated.  File
data for the remaining 3 sites  indicated that contamination  may  have origin-
ated off-site.

     B.9.4.1  Tabulation  of Media  Exposed  to Contamination.    Table B.9-3
summarizes the  total  number of DISF responses  indicating  contamination  or
the  absence  of  contamination   found  by media.   Site files not containing
sufficient  information  to  determine contamination  were  also  recorded  for
each of the media evaluated and noted under the appropriate  heading in Table
B.9-3.  This table  indicates that  40 percent of the contamination incidents
occurred to  soil.   The  remaining  incidents occurred  to  either groundwater
(34  percent),  surface  water  (16  percent) or air  (10 percent).   In many
cases, contamination to more than one media occurred at any particular site.

     B.9.4.2   Tabulation  of Media  Exposed to  Contamination   Incidents  by
Facility Type.   Table  B.9-4 summarizes  the total number of DISF responses
indicating  media contamination  associated with  each  facility  type.  This
analysis suggests that approximately 85 percent of the sites associated with
contamination  incidents  were identified as either  surface  impoundments  (28
percent), containers  (19 percent),  tanks  (16 percent),  landfills (13 per-
cent)  or open dumps  (9  percent).   Table B.9-4 indicates that,  for  most  of
the  incidents  tabulated, in decreasing order of  occurrence,  contamination
to:

-------
                                   B.9-3
                                 Table B.9-1

                                USEPA REGION IX
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                   TABULATION Of SITE DESCRIPTIONS BY TYPE
Total Number of
Facility Responses Described as
Type Given Facility Type
Landfill
Open Dump
Surface Impoundment
Injection Well
Land Treatment
Transportation Spill Site
Storage/Treatment Containers
Storage/Treatment Tanks
Storage/Treatment Piles
Recycl i ng/Recl amation
Midnight Dump
Total
10
6
20
2
2
1
21
12
3
2
1
80
Percent of
Total
12
8
25
3
3
1
26
15
4
3
1
100
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications  of these criteria are discussed in  detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.9-4
                                 Table B.9-2

                               USEPA REGION IX
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
           TABULATION OF SITES EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
Category
1
Description
Sites indicatim
Total Number of
Sites (Described
by Category)
3 documented 26
Percent of
Total
59
          contamination (to at least
          one medium)

          Sites indicating suspected         14                    32
          contamination (to at least
          one medium) and not identified
          by Category 1 above

          Sites indicating                    1                     2
          documented or suspected
          absence of contamination
          and not identified by
          Categories 1 and 2 above

          Sites for which there was            3                     7
          an absence of sufficient
          information in the file to
          make a determination of
          contamination, and not iden-
          tified by Categories 1, 2  or
          3 above
          TOTAL SITES                        44                   100
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.9-5
Media Exposed
                                       Table B.9-3

                                      USEPA REGION IX
                                  HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
TABULATION OF MEDIA EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENT

                                               Insufficient
   Responses Indicating  Responses Indicating  Information
       Contamination       No Contamination     Available
                                                 in File
   Documented Suspected  Documented  Suspected
  Total
Responses
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
11
4
2
16
19
10
7
19
2
0
0
1
2
2
7
1
10
28
28
7
44
44
44
44
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                                       B.9-6

                                                    Table  B.9-4

                                                   USEPA REGION  IX
                                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                                          DISF  SUMMARY OF  EVALUATED SITES
                          TABULATION  OF  MEDIA  EXPOSED  TO  CONTAMINATION  INCIDENT  BY FACILITY TYPE

Facility
Type


Landfill



Open Dump



Surface
Impoundment


Incinerator





Media Exposed


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Responses
Indicating


Contamination

Doc.
3
1
2
0
1
1
0
3
8
0
0
9
0
0
0
0

Susp.
3
2
2
S
4
2
1
2
9
5
3
9
0
0
0
0
Responses
Indicating


No Contamination

Doc.
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

Susp.
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File

3
7
6
2
0
3
3
1
1
13
14
1
0
0
0
0

Total
Responses


10
10
10
10
6
6
6
6
20
20
20
20
0
0
0
0
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly  selected.  Site selection criteria and the  implications  of  these
     criteria are discussed in  detail  in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                                       B.9-7
                                               Table  B.9-4  (cont'd)
                                                 (1)
                                        Responses
                                         Responses
Insufficient
Facility
Type


Injection
Well


Land
Treatment


Transportation
Spill Site


Storage Treat-
ment Containers


Storage Treat-
ment Tanks


Indicating
Media Exposed


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Contami

Doc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
1
0
0
7
nation

Susp.
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
9
4
4
7
7
3
3
4
Indicating
No

Doc
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Contamination

Susp.
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
4
5
6
3
0
1
2
0
Information
Available
in File

1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
12
10
6
3
8
7
1
Total
Responses


2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
21
21
21
21
12
12
12
12
(1)  Sampled sites
     are discussed
were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implications of these criteria
in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                                        B.9-8
                                                Table B.9-4 (cont'd)
        (1)
                                        Responses
Responses
Insufficient
Facility
Type


Storage Treat-
ment Piles


Boilers Using, ?x
Waste as FuelUJ


Recycling
Reclamation


Midnight
Dump


Indicating
Media Exposed


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Contami

Doc.
0
2
0
2



0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
nation

Susp.
2
1
1
1



1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
Indicating
No

Doc
0
0
0
0



1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Contamination

Susp.
0
0
I
0



0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Information
Available
in File

1
0
1
0



0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Responses


3
3
3
3



2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection criteria and the  implications of these criteria
     are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1  and  3.2.1.

(2)  Facility type not identified in files  evaluated.

-------
                                   B.9-9
          0    groundwater  was  associated  with surface  impoundments,  con-
               tainers and tanks;
          0    surface  water  was  associated  with  surface  impoundments,
               containers, tanks and piles;
          0    soil was  associated with surface  impoundments,  containers,
               tanks and landfills; and
          0    air was associated with containers and landfills.

     B.9.5  Events  Causing  Contamination.   Contaminated sites were  associ-
ated with  one  or  more of the following  events,  as outlined in Section VIII
of the DISF.

               Fire/Explosion      .     Seismic Activity
               Spill               .     Erosion
               Leak                .     Leachate
               Flood               .     Emission of Toxic Gases/Mists

     Seven of  these events  were  identified at  least once,  along with two
other  types  not listed  in  the  DISF.   These other events were described as
wastewater discharges  and  surface  runoff.   A total of 11 sites (25 percent)
were involved in two events and 14  sites (32 percent) three or more events.

     B.9.5.1  Tabulation  of Events Causing  Contamination Incidents.  Table
B.9-5 summarizes the total number of events causing contamination incidents.
In  total,  89  contamination events  involving  various  facility types  were
recorded  in  the  DISFs.   For  this region,  this tabulation  indicates  that
approximately 71 percent  of the  contamination events were related to leach-
ate  (29  percent),  leaks  (25 percent)  or  spills  (17 percent).   Of  the 89
contamination  events  tabulated,   50  (56 percent)  could be  documented  from
information available  in the file.

    • B.9.5.2  Tabulation of Events Causing  Contamination Incidents  By Facil-
ity Type.  Table B.9-6 summarizes  the  events causing contamination  incidents
at  various  facility types.  Since  a  number of  sites contained a  multiple
number of  facilities,  there were  a number  of cases where there was insuffi-
cient information available in the file to  identify the damage incident with
the specific  facility unit in question.  These  represented approximately 3
percent of the total and are identified  in Table B.9-6.

     This  analysis  indicates  that approximately 83  percent  of the  leachate
events were  associated with  surface  impoundments (39  percent),  containers
(16 percent),  tanks  (14 percent)  or   landfills  (14 percent).  Leaks  were
found  to  occur primarily at containers  and  surface  impoundments.   Approxi-
mately 55  percent  of  the  spill  events were associated with containers (29
percent) and surface impoundments (26 percent).  Air pollution events, i.e.,
emissions  of  toxic  gases  and mists,  were  most  commonly   associated  with
containers (50  percent).   Facilities  having the highest  frequency of fires
and explosions  were containers (36 percent),  recycling/reclamation  facili-
ties (18 percent) and tanks (18 percent).

     B.9.6    Chemicals Documented in  Contamination Incidents.     For   this
analysis, chemical  compounds were  organized into the following general cate-
gories:

-------
                                   B.9-10
                                 Table  B.9-5

                                USEPA REGION  IX
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF  SUMMARY  OF  EVALUATED SITES

            TABULATION OF  EVENTS CAUSING  CONTAMINATION  INCIDENTS
Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Other
Total
Documented
5
12
10
1
0
1
9
Gases/Mists 2
10
50
Suspected
1
3
12
1
0
1
17
3
1
39
Total
6
15
22
2
0
2
26
5
11
89
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.9-11
                                        Table  B.9-6

                                       USEPA REGION  IX
                                   HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF  SUMMARY  OF  EVALUATED SITES

              TABULATION OF  EVENTS  CAUSING  CONTAMINATION  INCIDENTS  BY  FACILITY  TYPE
                                                                 Insufficient
                                                                 Information
Facility
Type
Landfill









Open
Dump








Surface
Impound-
ments








Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other

Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2

0
3
0
4
4
1
0
0
6

0
0

Suspected
1
2
3
1
0
1
7

0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
4
10
0
0
0
13

1
1
Available
in File
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

Total
I
2
3
1
0
1
7

1
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
3

0
3
0
8
14
1
0
0
19

1
1
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection  criteria and  the  implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in  Section 3.1.1  and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.9-12
                                    Table  B.9-6  (cont'd)
                                                        (1)


Facility
Type
(2
Incinerator^









Injection
Well








Land
Treatment








Transporta-
tion Spill
Site










Event
' Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other



Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0

0
1



Suspected
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0



Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0

0
1
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and  the  implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed  in  detail  in  Section 3.1.1  and  3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files  evaluated.

-------
                                            B.9-13
                                    Table B.9-6 (cont'd)(1)


Facility
Type
Storage
Treatment
Containers







Storage
Treatment
Tanks







Storage
Treatment
Piles







Boilers
Using Waste
as Fuel (2)










Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other



Documented
3
5
5
0
0
0
2

1
2
1
3
4
0
0
0
2

0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2

0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0



Suspected
1
4
6
0
0
0
6

2
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
4

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0



Total
4
9
11
0
0
0
8

3
2
2
6
6
0
0
0
7

0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2

0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                            B.9-14
                                    Table B.9-6 (cont'd)
                                                        (1)


Facility
Type
Recycling
Reclamation








Midnight
Dump











Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other



Documented
2
1
1
0
0
0
1

0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0

1
1



Suspected
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0



Tota'
2
1
1
0
0
0
1

0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0

1
1
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and  the  implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in  detail  in  Section 3.1.1  and  3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.9-15
     'Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHOs)             'Inorganics
     'Volatile Non-halogenated Organics (VNHOs)        'Cyanide
     'Base Neutral Extractables (BNEs)                 'Acids
     'Pesticides                                       'Acid Compounds
     'PCBs                                             'Alkalies
     'Metals                                           'Alcohols
     'Oil                                              '"Aldehydes
     'Ammonia/Ammonia compounds                        'Ketones
     'Asbestos                                         'Radioactive

Table B.9-7 summarizes the total number of times that a chemical in a given
category was positively identified by sampling and analytical techniques as
occurring as contaminants in the various media.

     Twelve of these chemical categories were identified at least once.
This tabulation indicates that approximately 82 percent of the chemical
categories were identified as either metals (58 percent), acid compounds (13
percent) or VHOs (10 percent).   Table B.9-8 lists the most commonly occur-
ring chemicals found in each of these categories, and the range of concen-
trations observed in the affected media.

     B.9.7  Damage Incidents.  The following six affected areas were evalu-
ated for site related damage on the DISF.

               .  Drinking Water              .  Fauna
               .  Food Chain                  .  Human Health
               .  Flora                       .  Property Damage

     In  the  remainder of  this  section damage  will  be  interpreted  to  mean
both documented and suspected incidents/events unless otherwise noted.

     Damage was  identified  for  at least  23  sites, or  52 percent,  of the
sites evaluated.   As noted in Section B.9.4, higher percentages of the sites
indicated contamination (91  percent).  Damage was indicated in approximately
26 percent  of the contaminated  sites evaluated.  Of the  40  affected areas
indicating damage, only 21 (53 percent) could be documented using the evalu-
ation criteria.

     Sites  indicating  the  absence of damage,  and/or  files  not  containing
sufficient information to determine damage, were also identified.   A tabula-
tion of  sites identified  with  damage for  at  least one of  the  above cate-
gories is  outlined  in Table B.9-9.   Of  note  are the 10 sites  (23  percent)
identified as having  damage  to  two or more affected areas.  Of the  35 sites
indicating soil  contamination,  13 sites also indicated  in damage to  drinking
water.    Also, of the 37  sites  indicating soil  and/or  surface water  con-
tamination, 6  sites also indicated damage to flora, fauna or the food chain.

     B.9.7.1  Tabulation  of  Number,  Type and Severity of  Damage  Incidents.
Table B.9-10 summarizes the total  number of DISF responses  indicating damage
to the above  affected areas.  Site files not  containing sufficient  inform-
ation to determine damage were also recorded and noted  under the appropriate
heading in Table B.9-10.

-------
                                       B.9-16
                                    Table B.9-7

                                   USEPA REGION IX
                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES     m
                          DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESu;

              TABULATION OF CHEMICALS DOCUMENTED IN CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS


                                                  Total  Positive           Percent
Chemical Category	Identifications	of Total

Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHOs)                    4                       10
Volatile Non-halogenated Organics (VNHOs)               0                        0
Base Neutral Extractables (BNEs)                        0                        0
Pesticides                                              1                        3
PCBs                                                    3                        8
Metals                                                 22                       58
Oil                                                     00
Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds                               0                        0
Inorganics                                              3                        8
Cyanide                                                 0                        0
Acids                                                   0                        0
Acid Compounds                                          5                       13
Alkalies                                                0                        0
Alcohols                                                0                        0
Aldehydes                                               0                        0
Ketones                                                 0                        0
Radioactive                                             0                        0
Asbestos                                                0                        0
Others                                                  0                        0

Total                                                  38                      100
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1
     and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.9-17
                                    Table B.9-8
                                   USEPA REGION IX
                                HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                           DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
             CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED BY MEDIA
Most Frequently
Observed
Chemical Category   Contaminant
                                Contaminant Concentration Range
                           GroundwaterSurface WaterSoil      Air
                              (mg/1)         (mg/1)    (mg/kg)  (mg/1)
Metals
VHOs
Acid Compounds
arsenic
cadmi urn
lead
tricholoroethylene
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1 dichloroethylene
phenols
pentachlorophenol
0.001-  0.36
0.02-   0.1
ND
0.077-715.0
0.02-   1.2
0.01-   2.6
0.02-   0.03
0.0003
15 - 16    0.25-   500    ND
 0.15-1.0  4.1            ND
 4.5       9-   12,000    ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.1
1.4
ND
0.7- 2.51
0.002-3100.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
         NOTES:
         ND = no data available
         (1)  Sampled sites were  not  randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
              the implications of these  criteria  are discussed in detail  in Section
              3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.9-18
                                 Table B.9-9

                                USEPA REGION IX
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES     n,
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESUJ
                         TABULATION OF SITES DAMAGED
Category
Description
Total Number of
Sites (Described
by Category)
Percent of
  Total
          Sites indicating documented
          damage (to at least
          one affected area)

          Sites indicating suspected
          damage (to at least one
          affected area) and not
          identified by Category 1
          above

          Sites indicating
          documented or suspected
          absence of damage and not
          identified by Categories
          1  and 2 above

          Sites for which there was
          an absence of sufficient
          information in the file to
          make a determination of
          damage and not identified
          by Categories 1,2 and 3
          above
                              14
                           32
                                                    20
                              16
                           36
                                                    11
     TOTAL SITES
                              44
                          100
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications  of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                                    B.9-19

                                                Table  B.9-10

                                                USEPA  REGION  IX
                                             HAZARDOUS  WASTE SITES
                                         DISF SUMMARY OF  EVALUATED  SITES
                                                    (1)
                             TABULATION  OF  NUMBER &  SEVERITY  OF  DAMAGE  INCIDENTS
Affected Area
       Damage

Documented Suspected
             No Damage

        Documented Suspected
                    Insufficient
                    Information
                     Available
                      in File
                     Total
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
6
3
2
4
1
5
7
2
1
1
8
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
10
26
30
26
13
13
18
13
11
13
22
26
44
44
44
44
44
44
Environmental
Human Health
                           Severity of Damage
                                                            Insufficient
                                                            Information
Affected Area
High
Medium
Low
Available
in File
No Apparent
Damage
Total Number
of Responses
      9
      0
8
3
13
 4
 6
14
 8
23
44
44
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implications of these
     criteria are discussed in detail  in  Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.9-20
     Table B.9-10  indicates  that 29  percent of  the documented  damage  in-
cidents occurred  to  drinking water,  with the remaining  incidents occurring
to property (24 percent)  and fauna  (19 percent).   Documented damage to food
chain, flora  and  human health  represented  the  remaining 28  percent  of  the
incidents recorded.

     Table B.9-10  indicates that of  the 44 sites evaluated,  9 sites (20 per-
cent)  indicated high environmental  damage,  8  sites  (18  percent) indicated
medium environmental  damage and 13 sites (30 percent) indicated low environ-
mental damage.  The remaining 14 site  files  indicated no apparent damage  (18
percent)  or did not  have  enough information available  (14  percent) to make
an evaluation.  Of note,  are the files associated with the  3 sites (7 per-
cent) which suggested that the actual  damage may be higher than the response
described in  the  DISF,  but the file contained  insufficient  analytical  data
available to support  a higher damage  rating.

     The  analysis  also indicated that  out of the 44 sites  evaluated, no site
indicated high  human health  damage,  3 sites (7  percent)  indicated  medium
human  health  damage  and   4  sites (9  percent)   indicated low  human  health
damage.  The  remaining  37 sites  indicated  no  apparent damage  (i.e.,  there
was no data available on public health damages)  (32 percent) or, while there
was some  data, there was not enough  information  available  to make an evalua-
tion  (52 percent).   Of  note,  are the  files associated with  4 sites (9 per-
cent) which suggested that the actual  human  health damage  may be higher than
the severity response described in the DISF, but the file  contained insuffi-
cient analytical data to support a higher damage  rating.

     B.9.7.2   Tabulation   of  Number  and Severity of  Damage  Incidents  by
Facility  Type.  Table B.9-11 summarizes the  DISF responses indicating damage
to each affected  area  by  associated facility type.  This  analysis indicates
that  approximately 82 percent of the  damage incidents were  associated with
surface impoundments  (31  percent),  containers  (19 percent),  piles (12 per-
cent), landfills  (10 percent) or open dumps (10 percent).  The remaining 18
percent of the damage incidents were associated  with injection wells,  trans-
portation spill sites, tanks,  recycling/reclamation, and midnight dumps.

     Table B.9-11  also  indicates that 83 percent of the incidents involving
damage to  drinking water  involved surface  impoundments (40  percent),  land-
fills  (17  percent),  open  dumps (13 percent) and containers  (13 percent).
Table  B.9-11  also identifies  the  severity of  damage  to  environment  and/or
human  health.   Landfills,  surface  impoundments,  tanks and  containers  re-
sulted in  87  percent of  the  cases  involving  high  or medium environmental
damage and  83 percent  of the  cases  involving  high  or medium  human  health
damage.

     B.9.8  Status of Response.  Table B.9-12 summarizes  the status of each
site  evaluated from  the  standpoint of  enforcement,  investigative and  re-
medial activites.   This table  indicates  that only 21 percent  of the files
evaluated indicated  that  the sites  identified  were  involved in either past
or  present legal  or enforcement  actions.   However,  33  (75  percent)  site
files  indicated  that additional environmental  investigations  were in prog-
ress  or completed.   Fifteen  (34 percent)  sites  were reported to be involved
with past or present  remedial activities.

-------
                                           B.9-21
                                       Table B.9-11

                              USEPA REGION IX HAZARDOUS WASTE
                           SITES DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                                            (1)
             TABULATION OF NUMBER & SEVERITY DAMAGE INCIDENTS BY FACILITY TYPE
                                         Landfill
                                                  No Damage
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Documented Suspected     Documented Suspected
     1
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
3              11
0              07
0              07
0              07
2              02
1              02

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 4          10
                                 3          10
                                 3          10
                                 3          10
                                 6          10
                                 7          10
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
High
0
0
Dama
Documented
1
1
0
1
0
0
Medium
2
0
S6.
Suspected
2
0
0
0
1
I
Insufficient
Information
Available No Apparent Total Number
Low in File Damage of Responses
3 3
1 5
Open Dump
No
2
4
Damage
Documented Suspected
1 0
0 2
0 3
0 2
0 1
0 2
10
10
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
2
3
3
3
4
3

Total
6
6
6
6
6
6
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
      2
      0
1
0
1
2
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   2
   1
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    3
Total Number
of Responses

     6
     6
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.9-22
                                     Table B.9-11 (cont'd)
                                                          (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
               Surface Impoundments

       Damage                 No Damage

Documented Suspected     Documented Suspected
     4
     1
     1
     1
     0
     2
5              13
1              0        11
0              0        12
1              0        12
3              06
2              03

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Tota

                                 7          20
                                 7          20
                                 7          20
                                 6          20
                                11          20
                                13          20
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
High
4
0
Medium
3
1
Low
6
1
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
4
7
No Apparent
Damage
3
11
Total Number
of Responses
20
20
                                        Incinerator
                                                   (2)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 0           0
                                 0           0
                                 0           0
                                 0           0
                                 0           0
                                 0           0
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
      0
      0
0
0
0
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   0
   0
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    0
Total Number
of Responses

     0
     0
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                           B.9-23
                                     Table B.9-11 (cont'd)

                                      Injection Well
                                                          (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
1              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00

 Severity of Damage

            Insufficient
            Information
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 1           2
                                 2           2
                                 2           2
                                 2           2
                                 2           2
                                 2           2

Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health

High
0
0

Medium
0
0
Avai
Low i n
0 1
0 1
lable No Apparent Total Number
File Damage
1
1
of Responses
2
2



Land Treatment



Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage

Dama

Documented
0
0
0
0
0
0

9£

Suspected
0
0
0
0
0
0

No


Damage

Documented Suspected
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
Insufficient
Information
Available



in File Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
      0
      0
0
0
0
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   0
   0
No Apparent
  Damage

    2
    2
Total Number
of Responses

     2
     2
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.9-24
                                     Table B.9-11 (cont'd)(1)

                                 Transportation Spill  Site
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     1
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
1              00
0              00

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 1           1
                                 1           1
                                 1           1
                                 1           1
                                 0           1
                                 0           1
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
High
0
0
Medium
0
0
Low
0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
1
1
No Apparent
Damage
0
0
Total Number
of Responses
1
1
                               Storage Treatment Containers
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
     0
     1
     0
     1
     0
     2
3              17
1              0        14
1              0        14
0              0        15
3              09
1              09

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 10         21
                                  5         21
                                  6         21
                                  5         21
                                  9         21
                                  9         21
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
      0
      0
1
0
6
1
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   6
   8
No Apparent
  Damage

    8
   12
Total Number
of Responses

     21
     21
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.9-25
                                     Table B.9-11 (cont'd)

                                  Storage Treatment Tanks
                                                          (1)
Affected Area
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File
                                      Total
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
7
7
7
3
2
8
4
4
4
9
9
12
12
12
12
12
12
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
                                    Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
      0
      0
2
0
2
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in_Fi1e

   6
   6
No Apparent
  Damage

    2
    6
Total Number
of Responses

     12
     12
                                  Storage Treatment Piles
Af fected_ Are_a

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     1
     0
     2
     0
     0
      1
      0
2              00
1              00
0              00
0              00
2              00
0              00

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 1           3
                                 1           3
                                 3           3
                                 1           3
                                 1           3
                                 3           3
     High   Medium   Low
1
0
1
1
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   0
   1
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    1
Total Number
of Responses

     3
     3
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                           B.9-26
                                     Table B.9-11 (cont'd)
                                                          (1)
                                Boilers Using Waste as Fue
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
                              No Damage

                         Documented Suspected
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File
                                      Total
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
                           Insufficient
                           Information
                            Available
                             in File
                   No Apparent
                     Damage
                            Total  Number
                            of Responses
                                   Recycling/Reclamation
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
                              No Damage

                         Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     1
     0
     0
               0              10
               0              02
               0              02
               0              02
               0              01
               0              00

                Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 1          2
                                 0          2
                                 0          2
                                 0          2
                                 1          2
                                 1          2
     High   Medium   Low
               1
               0
0
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   1
   1
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    1
Total Number
of Responses

     2
     2
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                           B.9-27
                                     Table 8:9-11 (cont'd)

                                       Midnight Dump
                                                          (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     1
     0
     1
     0
     1
      0
      0
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00

 Severity of Damage
     High   Medi urn   Low
0
0
0
0
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 1           1
                                 0           1
                                 1           1
                                 0           1
                                 1           1
                                 0           1
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

   1
   1
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    0
Total Number
of Responses

     1
     1
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implica-
     tions of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.9-28
                                Table B.9-12

                               USEPA REGION IX
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                             STATUS OF RESPONSE
                            Total Number of Sites...

  .evaluated        ...with legal/      ...with investi-    ...with remedial
                    enforcement         gative actions      actions under-
                    action under-       underway/com-       way/completed
                    way/completed       pleted


     44                  9                   33             15
                      DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
Damage    Facility
Incident    type         Location       Remedial  Activity        Costs ($)


1.   Spill,     SI        Riverside,  CA  Containment and waste    2-12 mil.
    Leak,                               removal                   (est.)
    Flood,
    Leachate

2.   Spill,     STC,       Santa Fe       Drum removal              1.5 mil.
    Leak,      MD,       Springs, CA
    Fire/      TSS
    Explosion,
    Emission
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.9-29
     Table B.9-12 also  compares  the damage incident type  with  the remedial
activities and  related  costs  for  sites having  cost  data available.   These
activities included  removal  and  proper disposal of wastes and  contaminated
soils and proper  containment.  Expenditures  for remedial activities for the
sites ranged  from  $1.5 million to  $12 million (est.).

-------
Section B.10

-------
B.10 Region X Summary

     B.10.1   Region X Overview.   The  study  team  evaluated  and completed
DISFs  for 37  sites in  Region X,  Many  of these  sites  contained multiple
facilities.  A total  of  62 facility types were used in describing the sites
in  this  region.   Of  the 62 facility types evaluated,  24 percent were con-
tainers,  24  percent were  landfills,  14  percent  were  tanks  and 11 percent
were surface  impoundments.   The  remaining 27 percent of  the facilities were
described  by  various  other categories.   As discussed in  Section 3.1 and 3.2
the reader should  note for the following discussion that the data bases and
the selection criteria utilized on this study limit the applicability of the
conclusions reached herein to other populations of hazardous waste sites.

     Contamination,  either  documented  or  suspected,  was  identified  in  at
least  35  sites,  or 95 percent of the  sites evaluated.   At 24 of the sites,
or  65  percent,  contamination was  documented.   Forty  percent  of  the con-
tamination incidents  occurred to groundwater, with the remaining incidents
occurring  to  soil  (31 percent),  surface water (24  percent) and air (5 per-
cent).   Of the 63 responses originally indicating contamination, only 37 (58
percent)  could  be  documented using  the  evaluation criteria  developed  in
Section 3.1.4.  Each  site  was  evaluated for damage  occurring  to life, pro-
perty  and various  natural  resources.   This evaluation focused on  six  po-
tentially  affected areas,  including  drinking water,   food  chain,  flora,
fauna,  human health and  property.  Damage, (either documented or suspected),
was identified in  at  least 15 sites, or  41 percent of the sites evaluated.
Of  the 28 affected areas originally indicating damage,  only 10 (36 percent)
could  be  documented using the  evaluation criteria.  Approximately 40 percent
of  the documented  damage  incidents  occurred to  drinking water,  with  the
remaining  incidents occurring to property (30  percent),  human  health  (10
percent),  food  chain  (10  percent)  and fauna  (10  percent).  There  was  one
incident  involving  documented  damage  to human health involving workers,  but
was not a result  of waste management practices at  the  site.   Seventy-eight
percent of the incidents causing the damage or contamination described above
were due  to  leachate  (36  percent), leaks  (22 percent)  or spills  (20 per-
cent).   These  incidents  involved contamination  caused  by  metals,  volatile
halogenated  organics,  or  acid compounds,  in 70  percent  of  the incidents
tabulated.

     B.10.2  Sources.  The  study team preliminarily identified  43  files  in
Region  X  for review.   File  sources  included 29 FIT  Files  and  14 S&A Files.
Six sites were eliminated from the study because  they did not conform to  the
Selection Criteria  summarized in Section 3.1, Table 3.1-1.

     B.10.3   Tabulation of Site  Descriptions by  Facility Type.    Each  site
was evaluated and  categorized  by one or more of  the following fourteen site
descriptions  as listed  in Section IIA of  the  DISFs.

          Landfill  Facility             .     Storage/Treatment Containers
          Open Dump                     .     Storage/Treatment Tanks
          Surface Impoundment           .     Storage/Treatment Piles
          Incinerator                   .     Boilers Using Waste as Fuel
          Injection Well                 .     Recycling/Reclamation
          Land Treatment                .     Midnight Dump
          Transportation Spill  Site      .     Other

-------
                                   B.10-2
     For the 37  sites  evaluated  in the region,  11  of these categories were
identified at least  once,  along  with an additional  2 "other" categories not
listed  in  the  DISF.   Table  B.10-1 summarizes the total  number  of facility
types used in describing  the 37  sites evaluated.  Many of  these sites con-
tained  multiple  facilities.  A  total  of 62  facility types  were  used  in
describing the  sites in  this  region.   Of the 62 facility  types evaluated,
approximately 73 percent  of the  sites were identified  as  either containers
(24  percent),  landfills (24 percent),  tanks  (14 percent),  or  surface  im-
poundments (11  percent).   A total of  13  sites  were described by  2  or more
facility types and 8  sites by 3 or more facility types.

     B.10.4  Contamination Incidents.   Four media,  i.e.  groundwater,  surface
water, air and  soil, were evaluated for  site-related contamination  in Sec-
tion V of the DISF.   In the remainder of this  section, contamination  will  be
interpreted  to  mean  both documented and  suspected  incidents/events,  unless
otherwise  noted.   Sites  indicating  the  absence of contamination,  and/or
files  not containing  sufficient  information  to determine  the  presence  of
contamination,  were  also  identified.   Table B.10-2  summarizes the number of
sites identified with contamination in at least one of the above media.

     Contamination incidents were  identified  at  35   sites, or  95 percent  of
the  sites evaluated.  A total  of  63 incidents involving  various media were
recorded  at  these sites  of which  37  (58 percent)  could be  documented  by
sampling and analytical  data.  Twenty-one sites  were identified with conta-
mination in two or more media.   For example,  of the  20 sites indicating soil
contamination,  12 sites also indicated groundwater contamination.  File data
indicated that 33 sites were contaminated from incident(s) occurring at the
site evaluated.   File data for the remaining 2 sites indicated that contami-
nation may have originated off-site.

     B.10.4.1  Tabulation  of Media Exposed to  Contamination.   Table B.10-3
summarizes the  total number of  DISF  responses  indicating  contamination  or
the  absence  of  contamination  found  by  media.   Site files  not containing
sufficient  information  to  determine  contamination  were  also  recorded  for
each of the media evaluated and noted under the appropriate heading in Table
B.10.  This  table indicates that  40 percent  of  the  contamination incidents
occurred  to  groundwater.   The remaining  incidents   occurred  to  either soil
(31 percent), surface water  (24 percent), or air (5 percent).

     B.10.4.2  Tabulation  of Media Exposed  to  Contamination  Incidents  by
Facility  Type.   Table  B.10-4 summarizes the  total number  of DISF responses
indicating  media contamination  associated with  each  facility  type.   This
analysis suggests that approximately 62 percent of the sites associated with
contamination incidents were identified  as either  containers  (25 percent),
landfills  (24 percent), or surface impoundments (13 percent).  Table B.10-4
indicates that,  for  most of the incidents tabulated, in decreasing order of
occurrence, contamination to:

     0    groundwater was  associated with  landfills,  surface impound-
          ment,  containers, tanks  and recycling reclamation;
     0    surface  water  was  associated   with  containers,  landfills,
          surface impoundments, and open dump;
     0    soil   was  associated with  containers,  tanks,  landfills, sur-
          face impoundments, and recycling reclamation; and
     0    air was associated with landfills,  containers, and recycling
          reclamation.

-------
                                   B.10-3
                                 Table B.10-1

                                USEPA REGION X
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES     m
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESu;
                   TABULATION OF SITE DESCRIPTIONS BY TYPE
Facility
Type
Landfill
Open Dump
Surface Impoundment
Injection Well
Land Treatment
Total Number of
Responses Described as
Given Facility Type
15
2
7
1
1
Storage/Treatment Containers 15
Storage/Treatment Tanks
Storage/Treatment Piles
Boilers Using Waste as
Recycl i ng/Recl amation
Midnight Dump
Other
9
3
Fuel 1
4
1
3
Percent of
Total
24
3
11
2
2
24
14
5
2
6
2
5
Total                              62                           100

(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection  criteria  and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in  Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.10-4
                                Table B.10-2

                               USEPA REGION X
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
           TABULATION OF SITES EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
                                        Total Number of
                                        Sites (Described      Percent of
Category  Description                     by Category)          Total


1         Sites indicating documented        24                    65
          contamination (to at least
          one medium)

2         Sites indicating suspected         11                    30
          contamination (to at least
          one medium) and not identified
          by Category 1 above

3         Sites indicating                    2                     5
          documented or suspected
          absence of contamination
          and not identified by
          Categories 1 and 2 above

4         Sites for which there was           0                     0
          an absence of sufficient
          information in the file to
          make a determination of
          contamination, and not iden-
          tified by Categories 1, 2 or
          3 above
     TOTAL SITES                             37                   100

(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            8.10-5
Media Exposed
                                       Table B.10-3

                                      USEPA REGION X
                                  HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
TABULATION OF MEDIA EXPOSED TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENT

                                               Insufficient
   Responses Indicating  Responses Indicating  Information
       Contamination       No Contamination     Available
                                                 in File
   Documented Suspected  Documented   Suspected
  Total
Responses
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
20
4
2
11
5
11
1
9
1
5
0
2
8
10
21
9
3
7
13
6
37
37
37
37
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                                       B.10-6

                                                    Table B.10-4

                                                   USEPA REGION X
                                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                                             DISF  SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES

                          TABULATION OF MEDIA EXPOSED  TO CONTAMINATION INCIDENT BY FACILITY TYPE

Facility
Type


Landfill



Open Dump



Surface
Impoundment




Media Exposed


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Responses
Indicating
Responses

Contamination

Doc.
10
1
1
2
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
2

Susp.
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
3
0
1
Indicati
ng
No Contamination

Doc.
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Susp.
3
7
11
6
1
0
2
0
1
1
4
1
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File

0
5
3
4
0
0
0
2
2
3
3
3

Total
Responses


15
15
15
15
2
2
2
2
7
7
7
7
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly  selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and  the  implications  of  these  criteria
     are discussed in detail  in Section  3.1.1  and  3.2.1.

-------
                                                       B.10-7

                                                Table B.10-4 (cont'd)(1)
Facility
Type
Media Exposed
 Responses
Indicating
Contamination
                                        Doc.
                              Susp.
Responses
Indicating
No Contamination

Doc.    Susp.
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File
  Total
Responses
Incinerator
           (2)
Transportation
Spill Siteci;
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Injection
Well


Land
Treatment


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Storage Treat-
ment Containers


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
2
1
0
4
2
4
1
5
1
1
0
0
6
4
5
3
4
5
9
3
15
15
15
15
IT)Sampled sites were  not randomly selected.Site selection criteria and the implications of these criteria
     are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                                      B.10-8

                                                Table  B.10-4 (cont'd)(1)
                                         Responses
Responses
Insufficient
Facility
Type


Storage Treat-
ment Tanks


Storage Treat-
ment Piles


Boilers Using
Waste as Fuel


Recycling
Reclamation


Indicating
Media Exposed


Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Contami

Doc.
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
nation

Susp.
I
1
0
3
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
Indicating
No Contamination

Doc.
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

Susp.
4
3
6
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Information
Available
in File

3
3
3
2
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
0
2
2
2
0
Total
Responses


9
9
9
9
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria and the implications of these criteria
     are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
               B.10-9
       Table B.10-4 (cont'd)(1)
Responses          Responses           Insufficient
Facility
Type

Midnight
Dump


Other^2^



(1) Sampled sites
are discussed
(2) Facility type
Media Exposed

Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soil
Indicating Indicating
Contamination No Contamination
Doc.
0
1
0
0




were not randomly selected.
in detail in Section
not identified in fi
Information Total
Available Responses
in File
Susp. Doc. Susp.
1
0
0
0




Site selection
0
0
0
0




criteria
0
0
1
0




and the
0
0
0
1




implications
1
1
1
1




of these criteria
3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
les eval
uated.





-------
                                   B.10-10
     B.10.5  Events Causing Contamination.  Contaminated  sites  were associ-
ated with one  or  more of the following  events,  as  outlined in Section VIII
of the DISF.

          Fire/Explosion                .    Seismic Activity
          Spill                         .    Erosion
          Leak                          .    Leachate
          Flood                         .    Emission of Toxic Gases/Mists

     In the  remainder of  this  section,  events tabulated will  include both
documented and suspected events, unless otherwise noted.

     Seven of  these events  were identified at  least  once,  along with three
other types  not  listed  in the DISF.  These other events were described as a
wastewater discharge,  uncontrolled surface runoff,  and drain  overflow.   A
total  of  8  sites  (22 percent) were  involved  in two events and  9  sites (24
percent) three or  more events.

     B.10.5.1  Tabulation of  Events  Causing Contamination Incidents.   Table
B.10-5  summarizes the  total  number of  events causing  contamination  inci-
dents.  In total, 64  contamination events involving  various  facility types
were recorded  in  the DISFs.  For this region,  this tabulation indicates that
approximately  78  percent  of the contamination events were related to leach-
ate  (36 percent),  leaks  (22 percent) or spills (20  percent).   Of  the  64
contaminated  events  tabulated,  32  (50  percent) could be  documented from
information available  in the file.

     B.10.5.2   Tabulation  of  Events  Causing Contamination  Incidents  By
Facility  Type.  Table  B.10-6 summarizes  the events  causing  contamination
incidents at various  facility  types.  Since  a number  of sites  contained a
multiple number of  facilities,  there were a number  of cases where there was
insufficient information  available  in  the file to identify the damage inci-
dent with the  specific facility unit in question.  These represented approxi-
mately 1 percent of the total and are identified in Table B.10-6.

     This analysis  indicates  that approximately 70 percent  of  the leachate
events were  associated  with landfills  (52 percent), open dumps  (9 percent)
or  surface impoundments (9 percent).  Leaks were found to occur primarily at
container storage facilities.   Approximately  78 percent of the spill events
were  associated  with  storage  or treatment facilities  (all  types)  (61 per-
cent) and surface  impoundments (17 percent).

     B.10-6    Chemicals  Documented in  Contamination Incidents.    For   this
analysis, chemical compounds were organized into the following general cate-
gories:

     'Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHOs)             'Inorganics
     'Volatile Non-haiogenated Organics  (VNHOs)        'Cyanide
     'Base Neutral Extractables (BNEs)                 'Acids
     "Pesticides                                       'Acid Compounds
     •RGBs                                             'Alkalies
     'Metals                                           'Alcohols
     •Qil                                              'Aldehydes
      'Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds                        'Ketones
      'Asbestos                                          'Radioactive

-------
                                   B.10-11
                                 Table B.10-5

                                USEPA REGION X
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES

            TABULATION OF EVENTS CAUSING CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS
Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic Gases/Mists
Other
Total
Documented
1
7
7
2
0
0
10
1
4
32
Suspected
0
6
7
2
0
2
13
0
2
32
Total
1
13
14
4
0
2
23
1
6
64
(1)  Sampled sites  were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and
     the implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section
     3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                             B.10-12
                                      Table B.10-6

                                     USEPA REGION X
                                  HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF  EVALUATED  SITES
        TABULATION  OF  EVENTS  CAUSING  CONTAMINATION  INCIDENTS BY  FACILITY  TYPE


Facility
Type
Landfill









Open
Dump








Surface
Impound-
ments










Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other



Documented
0
0
0
1
0
0
6

0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2

0
1



Suspected
0
0
0
0
0
0
6

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
1
4
2
0
I
4

0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0



Total
0
0
0
1
0
0
12

0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2

0
1
0
1
4
2
0
1
6

0
1
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are  discussed in  detail  in  Section  3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                              B.10-13
                                    Table B.10-6 (cont'd)^1^
Facility
  Type
Event
Documented
Suspected
Insufficient
Information
 Available
 in File
Total
Incinerator
           (2)
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
  Gases/Mists
Other
Injection
Well








Land
Treatment








Transporta-
tion xSpi 11
SiteCZ7
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0



0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0



0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0



0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0



               Flood
               Seismic Activity
               Erosion
               Leachate
               Emission of Toxic
                 Gases/Mists
               Other
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the implications
     of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                              B.10-14
                                    Table  B.10-6  (cont'd)
                                                         (1)


Facility
Type
Storage
Treatment
Containers







Storage
Treatment
Tanks







Storage
Treatment
Piles







Boilers
Using Waste
as Fuel










Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other



Documented
1
3
6
1
0
0
0

0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0



Suspected
0
6
4
0
0
0
1

0
1
0
1
3
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
0
1
1
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
1



Total
1
10
11
1
0
0
1

0
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
1
(1)  Smpled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection criteria and the  implications
     of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section  3.1.1 and  3.2.1.

-------
                                             B.10-15
                                   Table B.10-6 (cont'd)
                                                        (1)
                                                                 Insufficient
                                                                 Information
Facility
Type
Recycling
Reclamation








Midnight
Dump









Event
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other
Fire/Explosion
Spills
Leaks
Flood
Seismic Activity
Erosion
Leachate
Emission of Toxic
Gases/Mists
Other

Documented
1
1
2
1
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0

Suspected
0
2
2
0
0
1
1

0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
Available
in File
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

Total
1
3
4
1
0
I
1

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.
     of these criteria are discussed in  detail
 Site selection criteria and the implications
in Section 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.10-16
Table B.10-7 summarizes the total  number of times that a chemical in a given
category was positively  identified  by sampling and analytical  techniques as
occurring as contaminants in the various media.

     Eight of these chemical categories were identified at least once.  This
tabulation indicates that  approximately 70 percent of the chemical  categor-
ies were identified as either metals (28 percent), VHOs (22 percent) or acid
compounds  (20  percent).   Table  B.10-8  lists  the  most  commonly  occurring
chemicals found in each of these categories, and the range of concentrations
observed in the affected media.

     B.10.7  Damage Incidents.  The following six affected areas were evalu-
ated for site related damage on the DISF.

               .  Drinking Water              .  Fauna
               .  Food Chain                  .  Human Health
               .  Flora                       .  Property Damage


     In  the  remainder of  this  section damage  will  be  interpreted to mean
both documented and suspected incidents/events unless otherwise  noted.

     Damage  was  identified for  at  least  15  sites, or  41 percent,  of  the
sites evaluated.   As noted in Section B.10.4 higher percentages of the sites
indicated contamination (95 percent).  Damage was indicated in approximately
42 percent  of  the contaminated  sites evaluated.  Of the  28  affected areas
indicating damage, only 10 (36 percent) could be documented using the evalu-
ation criteria.

     Sites  indicating  the  absence  of  damage,  and/or files not containing
sufficient information to determine damage, were also identified.  A tabula-
tion of  sites  identified  with  damage  for  at  least one  of the  above cate-
gories is  outlined in  Table B.10-9.  Of note, are  the  7 sites (19 percent)
identified as having  damage to  two or more affected areas.  Of the 20 sites
indicating soil contamination 5  sites also indicated in  damage  to  drinking
water.    Also,  of  the  26  sites  indicating  soil and/or surface water contam-
ination, 4 sites also indicated damage to flora, fauna or the food chain.

     Table  B.10-10 indicates  that  of the   37  sites evaluated,  9  sites  (24
percent) indicated high environmental damage, 6 sites (16 percent) indicated
medium environmental damage and  7  sites (19 percent) indicated low environ-
mental damage.   The remaining 15 site files indicated no apparent damage (11
percent) or  did  not  have enough information available  (30 percent) to make
an  evaluation.   Of note,  are the  files  associated with  the  13  sites  (35
percent)  which  suggested  that  the  actual  damage  may  be higher  than  the
response  described in the  DISF,  but  the  file contained  insufficient ana-
lytical data available  to support a higher damage  rating.

     The analysis  also indicated  that out  of the 37 sites evaluated, 1 site
indicated  high  human  health  damage,  I* site  (3 percent)  indicated medium
human  health damage and  no sites  indicated  low human  health damage.  The
remaining  35 sites  indicated no  apparent damage  (i.e.  there was  no data
available  on public health  damages)  (57  percent)  or while  there  was some
data, there was not enough information available to make an evaluation (37


^Incident not associated with  the waste management facility at the site.

-------
                                       B.10-17
                                    Table B.10-7

                                   USEPA REGION X
                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES     m
                          DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITESu;

              TABULATION OF CHEMICALS DOCUMENTED IN CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS


                                                  Total Positive           Percent
Chemical Category	Identifications	of Total

Volatile Halogenated Organics (VHOs)                   11                       22
Volatile Non-halogenated Organics (VNHOs)               2                        4
Base Neutral Extractables (BNEs)                        2                        4
Pesticides                                              2                        4
PCBs                                                    4                        8
Metals                                                 12                       28
Oil                                                     00
Ammonia/Ammonia Compounds                               0                        0
Inorganics                                              4                        8
Cyanide                                                 1                        2
Acids                                                   0                        0
Acid Compounds                                         10                       20
Alkalies                                                0                        0
Alcohols                                                0                        0
Aldehydes                                               0                        0
Ketones                                                 0                        0
Radioactive                                             0                        0
Asbestos                                                0                        0
Others                                                  0                        0

Total                                                  48                      100

(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1
     and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.10-18
                                    Table B.10-8

                                   USEPA REGION X
                                HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                           DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
           (1)
             CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED BY MEDIA
Most Frequently
Observed
Contaminant Concentration Range
Chemical Category Contaminant
VHOs


Acid Compounds
Metals


1,1,1 trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
dichloromethane
phenols
lead
manganese
chromium
Groundwater
(mg/1)
2.09-10.0
0.0-315.0
0.0-0.7
0.0001-2.3
0.006-810
0.012-1.1
0.004-12.4
Surface Water Soil Air
(mg/1) (mg/kg) (mg/1)
NO
ND
0.425
ND
ND
ND
0.001-0.215
ND
ND
70
trace-2.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NOTES:
     ND = no data available
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1
     and 3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.10-19
                                 Table B.10-9

                               USEPA REGION X
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                       DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                         TABULATION OF SITES DAMAGED
Category
Description
Total Number of
Sites (Described
by Category)
Percent of
  Total
          Sites indicating documented
          damage (to at least
          one affected area)

          Sites indicating suspected
          damage (to at least one
          affected area) and not
          identified by Category 1
          above

          Sites indicating
          documented or suspected
          absence of damage and not
          identified by Categories
          1  and 2 above

          Sites for which there was
          an absence of sufficient
          information in the file to
          make a determination of
          damage and not identified
          by Categories 1,2 and 3
          above
                                                    16
                                                    24
                              14
                           38
                                                    22
     TOTAL SITES
                             37
                          100
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in  detail  in  Section  3.1.1
     and 3.2.1.

-------
Affected Area
                                                      B. 10-20
                                                   Table B. 10-10

                                                   USEPA REGION X
                                               HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                                          DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
           TABULATION OF NUMBER & SEVERITY OF DAMAGE INCIDENTS

                                                  Insufficient
       Damage                 No Damage           Information
                                                   Available
Documented Suspected      Documented Suspected       in  File'
Total
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
4
1
0
1
1
3
5
1
3
3
5
1
5
0
0
0
1
0
17
29
28
26
24
23
6
6
6
6
6
10
37
37
37
37
37
37
                                             Severity of Damage
                                                            Insufficient
                                                            Information
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
High
9
1
Medium
6
1
Low
7
0
Available
in File
11
14
No Apparent
Damage
4
21
Total Number
of Responses
37
37
(1)  Sampled sites ere not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria  and  the  implications  of  these
     criteria are discussed in detail  in  Section  3.1.1  and  3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.10-21
percent).   Of note,  are  the  files associated  with 19  sites  (51 percent)
which  suggested  that the actual human  health  damage may be higher than the
severity response described in the DISF, but the file contained insufficient
analytical data to support a higher damage rating.

     B. 10.7.1  Tabulation  of Number,  Type and Severity of Damage  Incidents.
Table  B. 10-10  summarizes  the  total  number  of  DISF  responses   indicating
damage  to  the above  affected  areas.   Site  files  not containing  sufficient
information  to  determine  damage were  also  recorded  and  noted  under the
appropriate heading in Table B.10-10.

     Table  B.10-10  indicates that  40 percent of  the documented damage in-
cidents  occurred to drinking water, with  the  remaining incidents occurring
to property  (30  percent), human health (10 percent), fauna (10 percent) and
food-chain (10 percent).

     B.10.7.2  Tabulation  of Number  and  Severity  of  Damage  Incidents  by
Facility  Type.   Table  B.10-11  summarizes  the  DISF  responses   indicating
damage  to  each  affected area by  associated facility  type.   This analysis
indicates that approximately 71 percent of the damage incidents were associ-
ated with storage facilities (29 percent), landfills  (23 percent) or "other"
facilities  (19 percent).   The  remaining 29 percent  of  the  damage incidents
were associated  with  open dumps,  land treatment, recycling/reclamation, and
boilers using waste  as  fuel.

     Table  B.10-11  also  indicates  that  the  incidents involving  damage  to
drinking water  involved  equally  landfills, containers  and tanks  and land
treatment.

     Table  B.10-11  also  identifies  the  severity  of damage  to environment
and/or human health. Landfills resulted in 56 percent of the cases involving
high or medium environmental damage.

     B.10.8   Status of Response.   Table  B.10-12  summarizes  the  status  of
each site  evaluated from  the  standpoint  of enforcement,  investigative and
remedial actiyites.  This  table  indicates  that only 14 percent of the files
evaluated indicated  that  the  sites  identified were  involved  in either past
or present  legal  or  enforcement  actions.  However,  18 (49  percent) site
files  indicated  that additional environmental investigations  were in prog-
ress  or  completed.   Four  (11  percent)  sites  were  reported to  be involved
with past or present remedial activities.

     Table B.10-12  also  compares  the damage incident type with the remedial
activities and  related costs for  sites having  cost data  available.  These
activities  included excavation  of  contaminated  soils,  spill  cleanup,  and
wastewater treatment.  Costs of remedial  actions  at one site were estimated
to be $160,000-$2,500,000.  Costs  are not available for other sites remedial
actions.

-------
                                            B.10-22
                                       Table B.10-11

                                       USEPA REGION X
                                   HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
                              DISF SUMMARY OF EVALUATED SITES
                                         (1)
             TABULATION OF NUMBER & SEVERITY DAMAGE INCIDENTS BY FACILITY TYPE
                                         Landfill
                                                  No Damage
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Documented Suspected     Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     1
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
      4
      0
   3              2
   1              0
   1              0
   1              0
   0              1
   0              0

    Severity of Damage
               Insufficient
               Information
                Available
                 in File
                   8
                  14
                  14
                  14
                  12
                  11
                   Insufficient
                   Information
                    Available
                     in File      Total

                        1          15
                        0          15
                        0          15
                        0          15
                        2          15
                        4          15
     High   Medium   Low
   5
   0
1
0
2
5
No Apparent
  Damage

     3
    10
Total Number
of Responses

     15
     15
Affected Area
Open Dump
Damage No Damage
Documented Suspected Documented Suspected
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File Tota
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     High
      1
      0
   0
   1
   1
   1
   0
   0
        0
        0
        0
        0
        0
        0
         2
         1
         1
         0
         2
         1
    Severity of Damage
               Insufficient
               Information
                Available
Medium   Low     in File
   0
   0
1
0
0
1
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    1
              0
              0
              0
              1
              0
              1
           2
           2
           2
           2
           2
           2
                                 Total Number
                                 of Responses
     2
     2
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1
     and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.10-23
                                     Table B.10-11 (cont'd)
                                                           (1)
                                   Surface Impoundments
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
      1
      0
0              13
0              05
0              05
0              05
0              05
0              04

 Severity of Damage
                                                                      Insufficient
                                                                      Information
                                                                       Available
                                                                        in File      Total

                                                                           3           7
                                                                           2           7
                                                                           2           7
                                                                           2           7
                                                                           2           7
                                                                           3           7
     Hi gh   Medium   Low
1
0
                                          1
                                          0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

    3
    2
No Apparent
  Damage

    1
    5
Total Number
of Responses

     7
     7
                                        Incinerator^
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
                                                                      Insufficient
                                                                      Information
                                                                       Available
                                                                        in File
                                      Total
                                    Severity of Damage
                         High   Medium   Low
                           Insufficient
                           Information
                            Available
                             in File
                          No Apparent
                            Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health

(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1
     and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.
                            Total  Number
                            of Responses

-------
                                            B.10-24
                                   Table B.10-11 (cont'd)

                                      Injection Well
                                                         (1)
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
      0
      0
0              01
0              01
0              01
0              01
0              01
0              01

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 0           1
                                 0           1
                                 0           1
                                 0           1
                                 0           1
                                 0           1
     High   Medium   Low
0
0
0
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

    1
    0
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    1
Total Number
of Responses

     1
     1
                                      Land Treatment
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     1
     0
     0
     0
     0
     1
      1
      0
0              00
0              01
0              01
0              01
1              00
0              00

 Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
0
0
0
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

    0
    1
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 0           1
                                 0           1
                                 0           1
                                 0           1
                                 0           1
                                 0           1
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    0
Total Number
of Responses

     1
     1
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.  Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1
     and 3.2.1.

-------
                                             B.10-25
 Affected  Area

 Drinking  Water
 Food  Chain
 Flora
 Fauna
 Human Health
 Property  Damage
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
                                    Table  B.10-11  (cont'd)
                                                          (1)
                                  Transportation  Spill  Site
                                                           (2)
       Damage

Documented Suspected
     No Damage

Documented Suspected
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File
Total
                                    Severity of Damage
Affected Area
Environmental
Human Health
High
Insufficient
Information
Available No Apparent Total Number
Medium Low in File Damage of Responses





Storage Treatment Containers
Affected Area
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
Damage
Documented Suspected
1 1
0 0
0 2
0 2
1 1
No Damage
Documented
1
0
0
0
0
Suspected
7
9
7
8
9
Insufficient
Information
Available
in File
5
6
6
5
4
Total
15
15
15
15
15
                                    Severity of Damage
                                               Insufficient
                                               Information
High
1
0
Medi urn
0
0
Low
3
0
Available
in File
8
8
No Apparent
Damage
3
7
Total Number
of Responses
15
15
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail  in Section 3.1.1
     and 3.2.1.

-------
                                            B.10-26
                                   Table B.10-11 (cont'd)

                                  Storage Treatment Tanks
                                                         (1)
Affected Area
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File
                                      Tota
Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
9
9
9
9
9
9
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
                                    Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
      0
      0
0
0
1
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

    5
    4
No Apparent
  Damage

    3
    5
Total Number
of Responses

     9
     9
                                  Storage Treatment Piles
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
      0
      0
0              02
0              02
0              02
0              02
0              02
0              02

 Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
0
0
0
0
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File

                                 1
                                 1
                                 1
                                 1
                                 1
                                 1
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

    2
    1
No Apparent
  Damage

    1
    2
                                      Tota'

                                        3
                                        3
                                        3
                                        3
                                        3
                                        3
Total Number
of Responses

     3
     3
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1
     and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                            B.10-27
                                  Table B.10-11 (cont'd)
                                                        (1)
                                Boilers Using Waste as Fuel
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
      1
      0
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00
0              00

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 1           1
                                 1           1
                                 1           1
                                 1           1
                                 I           1
                                 1           1
     High   Medium   Low
0
0
1
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in_File

    0
    1
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    0
Total Number
of Responses

     1
     1
                                   Recycli ng/Reclamati on
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
      0
      0
0              10
0              01
0              01
0              01
I              00
1              01

 Severity of Damage
     High   Medium   Low
0
0
1
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

    3
    4
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 3           4
                                 3           4
                                 3           4
                                 3           4
                                 3           4
                                 2           4
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    0
Total Number
of Responses

     4
     4
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1
     and 3.2.1.
(2)  Facility type not identified in files evaluated.

-------
                                            B.10-28
                                     Table B.10-11 (cont'd)(1)

                                       Midnight Dump
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property Damage
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               No Damage

          Documented Suspected
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
0              01
0              01
0              01
0              00
0              01
0              01

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 0           1
                                 0           1
                                 0           1
                                 1           1
                                 0           1
                                 0           1
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
      0
      0
0
0
1
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

    0
    0
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    1
Total Number
of Responses

     1
     1
                                           Other
Affected Area

Drinking Water
Food Chain
Flora
Fauna
Human Health
Property
       Damage

Documented Suspected
               NoDamage

          Documented Suspected
     1
     1
     0
     1
     0
     0
1              01
0              01
1              01
0              01
1              01
0              01

 Severity of Damage
                            Insufficient
                            Information
                             Available
                              in File      Total

                                 0           3
                                 1           3
                                 1           3
                                 1           3
                                 1           3
                                 2           3
Affected Area

Environmental
Human Health
     High   Medium   Low
      2
      0
0
0
0
0
Insufficient
Information
 Available
  in File

    1
    2
No Apparent
  Damage

    0
    1
Total Number
of Responses

     3
     3
(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site selection criteria and the
     implications of the£e criteria are discussed in detail in Section 3.1.1
     and 3.2.1.

-------
                                   B.10-29
                                Table B.10-12

                               USEPA REGION X
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES      m
                       DISF SUMMARY OF  EVALUATED SITESu;
                             STATUS OF RESPONSE
                            Total Number of Sites...

  .evaluated        ...with legal/      ...with  investi-     ...with remedial
                    enforcement         gative actions       actions under-
                    action under-       underway/com-        way/completed
                    way/completed       pleted


     37                  5                    18               4
                      DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
Damage    Facility
Incident    type         Location        Remedial  Activity        Costs ($)


1.    Fires,  RR          Seattle, WA     Spill  cleanup,  separ-      160,000-
     Spills,                             ate  incompatible         2,500,000
     leaks.                              wastes,  drum  labeling,
                                         and  inventory reduction


(1)  Sampled sites were not randomly selected.   Site  selection  criteria and the
     implications of these criteria are  discussed in  detail  in  Section 3.1.1
     and 3.2.1.
                                                  *U.S. GOTOKHKEHT PHIHTINS omCE : 1984 0-421-082/517

-------