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
------- |