'A/440/6-90/005
             i States
             mmental Protection
           Office of Water
           (WH-550G)
EPA 440/6-90-005
May 1990
 vEPA
A Review Of Sources Of
Ground-Water Contamination
From Light Industry
Technical Assistance
Document

-------
   A REVIEW OF SOURCES OF
GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION
     FROM LIGHT INDUSTRY
          OFFICE OF WATER
  OFFICE OF GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
             MAY 1990
                                      Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
                    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

       This document was prepared for the Environmental  Protection
Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection (OGWP) under contract No.
68-C8-0003. Mr. Kevin McCormack of OGWP served as Task Manager for
this project, with assistance from Mr. Steven Roy and Dr. Norbert Dee.

-------
                              EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
        This document addresses the potential impact of light industrial activities on wellhead
protection  areas.  The term  "light  industry" refers to industrial,  commercial, or retail
establishments that manage substances or engage in manufacturing, fabrication, or service
activities that are one step or more removed from the production of primary products from
raw material. These activities, which may pose a potential threat to ground-water quality, are
minimally-regulated or non-regulated by Federal laws.

        Several  States and local governments  have adopted innovative approaches for
controlling light industries. These approaches may involve source identification, zoning and
other controls to limit land uses in  wellhead areas, and public education and technology
transfer to encourage industries to adopt management controls. Other jurisdictions have also
placed strict prohibitions on activities that are allowed in wellhead areas, including restricting
specific light industry types.  These activities may be adopted as part of a comprehensive
Wellhead Protection Program.  Examples of these activities include:

        •       Watershed Rules and Regulations - Local or State agencies
                may adopt land-use plans to protect public water supplies.

        •       Ground-Water Management Areas  - State agencies may
                develop management plans for designated areas to institute
                land  use  and  source  controls  to  protect  ground-water
                quality.

        •       Ground-Water  Standards  -  Many States  have adopted
                standards to protect  their ground water. Standards may be
                either numeric, specifying a maximum concentration for a
                particular contaminant, or narrative, specifying a general
                prohibition on types of discharges or identifying a general
                quality goal.

        •       Ground-Water Classification - Several States have classified
                their ground  water  and specified  differential protection
                measures  according to the  classification.

        The Federal  Safe Drinking  Water Act  Amendments of 1986  mandated the U.S.
Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA)  to  work with the States to develop  Wellhead
Protection  (WHP)  Programs to protect ground-water supplies of  public drinking water.
Under Section 1428 of the Act, each State and Territory was directed to submit a WHP
program to  EPA by June 19, 1989.   Wellhead  Protection  Programs  have six major
components: (1) designation of roles and duties  of State and local agencies; (2) delineation
of wellhead protection areas; (3) identification of contaminant sources;  (4) development of
management approaches for the wellhead  area; (5) preparation of contingency plans for
replacement water  supplies; and (6) planning and  siting of new  wells.  This document
discusses aspects of the third and fourth components outlined above.

        A variety of anthropogenic sources may threaten wellhead  areas, including heavy
industry, waste disposal sites, light industry, on-site wastewater disposal, and agricultural
practices, as well as others.  While  heavy  industry  and agriculture  are acknowledged and
increasingly recognized as sources  of contamination, light industry and on-site wastewater
disposal are also pervasive contaminant sources and frequently are not subject to the same
types of controls.

-------
        Many types of light industries may threaten wellhead areas.  These industries are
found in increasing numbers throughout the  United States, as  light industrial parks and
suburban developments spread into formerly rural areas. A number  of light industry types
are addressed in this document, such as electroplating and polishing services, wood and
lumber treating operations, furniture refinishing and repair services, auto repair shops, road
deicing  operations, scrap metal  and auto junkyard dealers, and laundry and dry-cleaning
establishments.  These light industries manage a variety of contaminants, including  heavy
metal-containing solutions and acid baths in electroplating services, pentachlorophenols and
other preservatives in wood treating operations, solvents and varnishes in furniture refinishing
shops, used oils  and degreasers in auto repair shops, salts in road deicing operations, spent
battery  acids  and solvents  in scrap dealerships, and  detergents  and  solvents such  as
trichloroethylene in dry-cleaning establishments.  Because these  light industries are found
in large numbers throughout the country, there is a widespread potential for wellhead
contamination from these sources.

        A wide variety of constituents have contaminated ground water at light industrial
facilities. The most prevalent groups of contaminants include organics and metals/inorganics.
Typical organic contaminants include benzene, dichloroethylene, dioxins, methylene chloride,
pentachlorophenol, perchlorethylene, toluene, trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, andxylene.
Typical metals/inorganics include arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, nitrates, and sodium
chloride.   These contamination  incidents are  most  frequently associated  with  waste
management and waste disposal activities.

        Following sound management controls can serve as an important component of a
Wellhead  Protection Program to control ground-water contamination by light industry.
Many cases of contamination have  been documented involving spills  and leaks  to soil,
improper waste disposal in septic systems, and releases from underground storage tanks and
pipelines.   In a number of cases,  light  industries have  prevented or  minimized such
contamination incidents by following management controls, such as storing raw materials and
wastes on impermeable pads and in  covered areas; collecting runoff  from material storage
areas; placing drip pans under machinery and  in process  areas; segregating hazardous
materials from disposal in septic systems; minimizing the intensive use of contaminants such
as road salts in  sensitive areas; inspecting and monitoring underground storage tanks and
pipelines; cleaning up spills promptly after they occur; and training personnel to follow sound
material management  practices.  Over the  long-term, the potential for ground-water
contamination by light  industry can also be reduced by  adopting waste minimization
practices, such as waste recycling, raw material substitution, and waste treatment.

-------
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0     Introduction

       1.1     Overview of this Document	        1

       1.2     Definition of "Light Industry"  	        2

       1.3     Summary of Data Collection for this Document  	        6

       1.4     Analysis and Conclusions: The Threat to Ground Water
               from Light Industry	        6
2.0     Overview of the Problem:  Raw Material and Waste Management

       2.1     Phases of Material Management and Mismanagement and
               the Potential for Ground-Water Contamination  	       11

       2.2     Materials Managed by Light Industrial Facilities	       13

       2.3     Analysis and Discussion  	       15


3.0     Controls on Light Industry:  Federal, State,  and Local Roles

       3.1     Regulating Material Management by Light Industry under
               Current Federal Law	       19

       3.2     State and Local Approaches for Controlling Light
               Industry  	       24

       3.3     Analysis and Discussion  	       30


4.0     Minimizing Ground-Water Contamination by Light Industry

       4.1     Management Controls for Preventing Ground-Water
               Contamination  	       33

       4.2     Long-term Solutions: Pollution Prevention - Source
               Reduction, Recycling, and Treatment  	       36

       4.3     Analysis and Discussion  	       39


5.0     Conclusions  	       41


6.0     References  	       43

-------
                                                                             Page 1

1.0     Introduction

        1.1     Overview of this Document

        This document is  one of a series of Technical Assistance Documents (TADs)
prepared by the Office of Ground-Water Protection of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.  This TAD discusses the problem of ground-water contamination caused by light
industrial raw material, production, and waste management practices. While larger industries
have come under increasing Federal and State regulation over the past few years as a means
of controlling activities that can result in ground-water contamination (U.S. EPA, 1987) there
is  a growing awareness that other smaller and either unregulated  or minimally-regulated
industries and businesses also manage materials that may pose a threat to ground water and
wellhead protection areas (U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, 1987).  This TAD is
intended to  assist managers in identifying and controlling potential light industrial sources
of contamination that may pose a threat to public water supplies.

        EPA prepared this document as part of its ongoing effort to assist State and local
governments in developing Wellhead Protection Programs. Wellhead Protection Programs
have six major components (U.S. EPA, 1988):  (1)  designation of roles and duties of State
and  local agencies; (2)  delineation  of wellhead  protection areas; (3) identification  of
contaminant sources; (4) development of management approaches for the wellhead area; (5)
preparation  of contingency plans for replacement water supplies; and (6) planning and siting
of new wells. This document is designed to support the third and fourth tasks outlined above
(i.e., the identification of light industrial sources of ground-water contamination and the
development of management programs to control these sources). Specifically, this document
focuses on a group of industries that are increasing in significance in many wellhead areas.
The number of light industries in this country and the corresponding threat to public water
supplies is growing. Furthermore, many of these light industries are locating in rural and
suburban areas which have not previously been host to businesses that  manage hazardous
materials. As a result, wellhead areas in these regions may become threatened.

•  Organization

        This document is a part of the series of technical assistance documents prepared by
EPA to support State and local Wellhead Protection Programs.  Companion documents in
this series include Developing a State Wellhead  Protection Program:  A User's Guide  to
Assist State  Agencies Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (EPA 440/6-88-003), Guidelines
for Delineation of Wellhead Areas (EPA 440/6-87-010), and Wellhead Protection Programs:
Tools for Local Governments  (EPA 440/6-89-002).  The information  provided in these
previous documents is not repeated in detail in this TAD; however, those documents are cited
where  appropriate.   Instead,  this document focuses on light  industries  as  a potential
contaminant source in Wellhead  Protection Areas and broadly discusses approaches for
minimizing potential impacts.

        This document is organized in six chapters. In Chapter 1, following this introduction,
Section 1.2  defines what is meant by the term "light industry."  Section  1.3 outlines the
methods the Agency used to gather information characterizing light industry, and section 1.4
presents a summary of the results of the initial data-gathering effort for  this document,
including findings concerning the extent of ground-water contamination.

        Chapter 2  focuses  on the materials handled  (Section  2.1)  and the material
management practices followed (Section 2.2) by light industry that can lead to ground-water
contamination. Section  2.3 outlines general conclusions concerning the light  industrial
practices that may threaten Wellhead Protection Areas.

-------
                                                                              Page 2

        Chapter 3 contains a discussion of Federal, State, and local controls to address
ground-water contamination by light industry. This discussion first outlines Federal statutes
in Section 3.1.  Section 3.2 discusses State and local options for controlling light industry,
which may include land use restrictions or zoning to control the location of light industries
over vulnerable sources of ground water.  Finally, Section 3.3 describes an approach that
State and local governments may adopt to develop programs to control light industries in
Wellhead Protection Areas.

        Chapter 4 focuses on the technical  controls that light industries have adopted to
minimize the potential for ground-water contamination.  Section 4.1 describes management
controls  that industries have followed to ensure that "good housekeeping" principles are
adopted  at facilities,  and section 4.2 discusses waste  minimization techniques that some
industries have instituted to limit the production of potential contaminants.   The chapter
concludes in Section 4.3 with an analysis of the role these management controls and waste
minimization techniques can play in a Wellhead  Protection Program.

        Finally, Chapter 5 summarizes the findings of this document, and Chapter 6 lists the
references collected by the Agency to support this analysis.
        1.2     Definition of "Light Industry"

        As used in this document, the term "light industry" refers to industrial, commercial,
or retail establishments that are not generally addressed under Federal hazardous waste or
hazardous material control laws or regulations.  This term is not new. It has been used in
the manufacturing and  service sectors for many years  and has generally been thought to
define those manufacturing, fabrication, or service industries that are one step or more
removed from the production of primary products from raw material. For example, chemical
manufacturing may be thought of as heavy industry, while paint formulating is light industry.
This document takes that definition one step further by also focusing on the waste generation
and management practices of the industry to define its status.

        Federal hazardous waste laws and hazardous material control laws and regulations
are discussed in Chapter 3 and generally include the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act  (RCRA), Comprehensive  Environmental Response  Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA or "Superfund"), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Clean Water Act (CWA),
Toxic Substances Control Act  (TSCA), and Federal, Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA). Although these laws have imposed controls on a wide range of industries and
hazardous  material handling  practices, they have tended  to  focus only  on  the  larger
manufacturing industries which manage the  majority of hazardous wastes  and hazardous
materials  in this country.  Other smaller industries  and businesses have  not been as
stringently controlled, either because the Federal statutes focus on industries that manage
wastes or materials above a threshold  amount or because the materials managed by the
smaller industries are not considered "hazardous."  Nonetheless, EPA  and many States have
discovered that these lower quantity or "non-hazardous" materials managed by light industry
can still contaminate Wellhead Protection Areas.

        In certain hydrogeologic settings, even very small amounts of hazardous material can
contaminate large areas of ground water; both community and private supply wells have been
contaminated by light industries (Ford and Quarles, 1987). Furthermore, materials that are
not generally regarded as hazardous commonly contaminate ground-water supplies.  Such
contaminants include nitrates  and biological substances, like bacteria  and viruses.

-------
                                                                              PageS

        As background  for  this document, a  data-gathering effort was completed to
characterize those light industries that pose the greatest potential threat to ground water (see
Section 1.3).  Based on this effort,  20 light industry sectors were identified as potentially
significant sources of ground-water contamination.  These sectors include the following:

        •      Agricultural Products and Services
        •      Mining and Quarrying
        •      Highway Deicing
        •      Textile and Apparel Products
        •      Lumber and Wood  Preserving
        •      Printing and Publishing
        •      Chemical Product Blending
        •      Leather Products
        •      Mineral Products: Glass and Cement
        •      Metal Products
        •      Machine Shops
        •      Electronics and Electronic Equipment
        •      Transportation Maintenance
        •      Scrap Trade and Metal Container Recyclers
        •      Chemical and Petroleum Storage and Sales
        •      Automotive Repair, Services, and Parking
        •      Personal Services: Laundry, Pest Control, and
               Photofinishing
        •      Repair Services:  Furniture, Welding, and
               Septage Services
        •      Amusement and Recreation
        •      Educational, Medical, and Engineering Laboratories

        The portion of the American economy represented by these light industries is
growing and dynamic - changing and adapting over time.  Hence, controlling these sources
of contamination, especially in wellhead protection areas, is increasing in importance. While
the extent  of light industrial practices is increasing,  the  areas or  regions where these
industries are found is also changing.   As more and more sections of the country become
"suburbanized," light industries are appearing in formerly rural areas and give rise to more
numerous sources of ground-water contamination.  Because public water supply wellhead
areas are often located in these  rural or suburban regions, the widespread growth in the
number of contaminant sources is a major concern with regard to wellhead protection.

        The growth in light industrial activity is best illustrated by the evolution in industrial
parks from the early developments that contained mainly heavy industries to today's light
industrial or high technology parks.  Most current industrial park developments are oriented
toward the needs of light industry, research, and general office-type operations. As a result,
the number of industrial parks that are  now being zoned for activities other  than heavy
manufacturing has risen dramatically in the last 10 years (Battelle, 1988)

        The development of industrial parks has a long history in this country, and the nature
of these parks has changed over time. In general, industrial parks can be characterized in one
of five types, as described below. However, it is difficult to determine precisely how many of
these various industrial park types exist. A "high  technology park" may also be described as
a research park, industrial park, science center, technology center, or even an office park.
Hence, these five industrial park types should be thought of as a continuum (Battelle, 1988):

-------
                                                                                Page 4

        •      Research Parks.  The major activities associated with this
               type  of development include  research, engineering, and
               certain types of office and administrative activities.  In
               virtually every case,  these  facilities exclude any business
               related to light  manufacturing,  distribution, and  certain
               other associated  business activities.

        •      Technology Parks. The technology park is characterized by
               research and development  activities, high technology and
               light  manufacturing  activities,  office and administrative
               functions, and a wide range of services. Technology parks
               are   similar  to research  parks,   but  also  contain
               manufacturing components. Technology parks are generally
               less than 10 years old.

        •      Office/Mixed Use Parks.   These developments provide
               facilities not only for office-type operations, but also for a
               wide  range of light manufacturing, storage, distribution, and
               other business support services.

        •      "AAA" Industrial and Distribution.  Standard and "AAA"
               industrial parks  are  oriented toward  production, service,
               and distribution.  The "AAA" implies high grade, relatively
               clean industrial  and distribution processes.  They often
               include  distribution  facilities,  rail sidings, outside  and
               underground storage,  and  activities  that may produce
               emissions and wastes.  They have flexible land uses and
               have  less rigorous landscaping and architectural design.

        •      Industrial.   These facilities represent the older type of
               industrial   park.     They  consist  of basic  industrial
               components such as oil refineries and heavy manufacturing
               facilities. Large  volumes of raw materials and  wastes are
               often stored on  these sites.  Although managing these
               facility types is of critical  importance in  wellhead areas,
               these heavy industrial parks  are not addressed  in this
               document.

        Exhibit 1 outlines the continuum of industrial park types. The exhibit illustrates the
range in ages of most parks form  older  heavy  industry to newer light industry parks.
Although not all  light industries  are found  in industrial parks, the  move to light industrial
development is  increasing.  Hence,  understanding  the potential ground-water  impacts
associated with these industrial parks is a critical component of effective wellhead protection.
Wellhead Protection  Program managers should be aware that many of these parks contain
businesses  and industries that manage hazardous materials.  The types  and volumes of
contaminants that may be  introduced into Wellhead Protection  Areas from these  light
industrial parks is discussed in the following chapter.

-------
                                                               Page 5
                                   Exhibit 1
             The Evolution from Heavy Industrial to
                         Light Industrial Parks
AVERAGE AGE (YRS)/
RELATIVE AMOUNT
OF ACRES PRESENTLY
DEDICATED
                          40 - 60 Yr. Average - Many Old, Large, Semi-Abandoned Projects

                                    20 - 30 Yr. Average, Still Some Demand for Dirty,
                                             Noisy Operations

                                             10-20 Yr. Average, Demand for Light
                                                      Industrial Distribution
40-60 Yrs I
        I
        I 20-30 Yrs |
        I
        I
10 Yr. to Present, Growing Rapidly
      New Concept, Still Evolving,
      Most Interest at Present


Type of Park:

Zoning:
Type of General
Activities:


industrial

Heavy
Industrial
Production

"AAA"
Industrial
and
Distribution
Ught
Industry
Distribution
Production
and
Distribution


Office/
Mixed

Office/
Mixed
Use
Distribution,
Office
Administra-
tion


Technology

Research
Mixed
Use
Office
Research
and Devel-
opment,
Office Ad-
ministration


Research
Park

Research
Research
and
Develop-
ment
Decreasing water demand tor process/
decreasing volume ot waste generated

-------
	Page 6

        1.3      Summary of Data Collection for this Document

        A limited data-gathering effort was  conducted to investigate  the light industrial
activities outlined in this document. This effort focused on identifying the nature and extent
of ground-water contamination caused by light industrial facilities. Because of the very broad
scope of the analysis, the data-gathering effort was not designed  to serve as a definitive
characterization of either  the light  industry universe  or  the extent of wellhead  area
contamination caused by light industrial facilities. Instead, the data-gathering effort provided
only a "first-cut" overview of the scope of the problem.

        Information was gathered from a variety of sources and included a broad literature
review and series of phone contacts.  Many of the information sources, however, provided
either incomplete or poorly-documented case studies.  Only those  incidents with sufficient
information to identify the characteristics of the contamination event accurately were included
in this review.   Furthermore, those cases  that could not be  identified as involving non-
regulated or minimally-regulated light industrial activities were not included.  For example,
if the contamination incident resulted from an illegal activity, such as "midnight dumping" of
hazardous waste shipments, or a release from a regulated underground chemical or petroleum
storage tank, the incident was not included in the review. Information for this document is
based on 182 case  studies  of ground-water contamination associated with light industrial
facilities.

        The cases identified in the review do not, of course, encompass the universe of known
contamination incidents. The difficulties encountered in gathering the case study information
indicate that more cases of ground-water contamination by light industry may have occurred,
but documentation for  those cases is not  readily  available.  For  example, some cases of
contamination may have been addressed through privately funded and managed cleanups that
involved little or no State or local government activity. As a result, sufficient information to
summarize such incidents is not available. EPA anticipates that more cases of contamination
may yet  be  discovered as the level of awareness concerning ground-water vulnerability in
Wellhead Protection Areas increases with time.  Hence, the number of reported and well-
documented cases of contamination may also increase. Nonetheless, the information gathered
to date does provide a limited  indication of the nature and  extent of the threat  to ground
water posed by light industry.   The characteristics of light industrial  waste and material
management practices that are associated  with ground-water  contamination incidents are
described in Chapter 2.

        In addition, Chapter 6 of this  document lists the references that were identified and
used  to characterize the light industry sectors and appropriate management controls  and
waste minimization techniques  for raw material and waste management.
        1.4     Analysis  and Conclusions:   The Threat  to  Ground Water from  Light
                Industry

        Over seventy light industries that are associated with documented contamination
incidents were investigated for this document. These light industries include agricultural,
light manufacturing and processing, mining, road maintenance, warehousing and wholesaling,
transportation, personal and business service, research, and entertainment activities.  The
incidents of ground-water contamination reviewed by EPA encompass urban, suburban, and
rural settings in over 30 States. Many of the contamination incidents were noted to have
occurred either near public water supplies or in Wellhead Protection Areas.   Furthermore,
many of the incidents involved documented contamination of public and private water wells;
however, it is not possible to estimate either the number of wells closed due to light industry
contamination or the number of people exposed to contaminants.

-------
                                                                               Page 7

        In response to these findings, a discussion of management controls that have been
used by some light industries is provided in Chapter 4 of this document. That discussion
principally addresses the poor housekeeping practices found in many of the light industry case
studies. In these examples, many light industries have not adequately managed raw and waste
materials by failing to cleanup leaks and spills or by disposing of compounds improperly, such
as discharging industrial wastes to septic systems or directly to the soil. Also, improper
material storage in uncovered or unlined storage areas and handling of container and tank
rinsate from pesticide and chemical storage units was implicated as a contamination source
in a number of cases, as well as leaks and ruptures of underground storage tanks and material
handling pipelines.  Finally, the misuse  or overuse of materials such as road salts and
pesticides was identified as a contamination source.

        Among the light industries reviewed in this report, a few stand out as  having a high
potential for contamination of ground water. These light industries include electroplating and
polishing  services, wood and lumber treating operations, furniture refinishing and repair
services, auto repair shops, road deicing operations, scrap metal and auto junkyard dealers,
and laundry and dry-cleaning establishments. The potential for ground-water contamination
caused by these light industries  is widespread, as these types of businesses are found in large
numbers throughout the country.  Their general characteristics are as follows:

        •      Electroplaters  and Metal Fabricators:  The industries in
               this sector manipulate the form or modify the surface of
               metals physically,  chemically, and/or electrically.  Typical
               processes include forging, stamping, etching,  engraving,
               coating,  polishing, grinding,  painting, and electroplating.
               The by-products of these activities  include not only metal
               scraps but a wide variety of chemicals and solutions that
               pose  a  threat  to  ground water.  Of special interest  are
               wastes such as spent solvents and still bottoms,  paint
               residuals, acid and alkaline solutions, plating and stripping
               solutions, waste oils, heavy metal wastewater sludges, and
               metal dusts  (U.S. EPA, 1986).  These wastes may reach
               ground water  through  deliberate and accidental  dumps,
               accidental spills,  leaks,  and  floor  wash  (Environment
               Canada, 1984).

        •      Wood Preservers  and  Treaters:   The wood  preserving
               industry encompasses establishments primarily engaged in
               treating wood,  sawed or planed in other establishments, to
               prevent decay and to protect against fire and insects (U.S.
               EPA,   1986).     Typical wood  preservatives   include
               pentachlorophenol  (PCP),  creosote, chromated  copper
               arsenic,   and  ammoniacal  copper arsenate.     These
               preservatives  are   applied  to  the  wood  by   steaming,
               boultonizing, and  kiln or air drying either under pressure
               or in  a vacuum. All of these processes produce wastewater
               treatment sludges.  Wastewater sludges from creosote and
               PCP  processes are listed as  RCRA hazardous  wastes.
               Other wastes  include  leftover preservative material in
               delivery  containers;  process steam  condensate containing
               water with creosote, PCP, wood fibers and other materials;
               sludge from process tanks; storm runoff from work areas
               containing spilled  and leached preservatives; and process
               cooling  waters that come  in contact  with  the wood
               preservatives.  "Kick-back" of preservatives  from the wood
               frequently occurs  resulting in  preservatives being spread

-------
                                                               Page 8
around the treatment area. In addition, preservatives may
leach from  treated  wood  stored  in  yard  storage  areas.
While  the amount of preservative that leaches from wood
is typically quite low, all preservatives are somewhat soluble
in water.  Some preservers have installed drip tracks and
pads in storage areas to collect leached preservatives, but
this practice may not be followed at all facilities (U.S. EPA,
1986)

Furniture and Wood Strippers and Refinishers: Furniture
strippers commonly use methylene chloride to remove the
finish from a piece.  Methylene chloride is dissolved in a
solution  of methanol or  isopropyl  alcohol  and water;
smaller  quantities  of acetone,  perchloroethylene, and
toluene may also be present.  The mixture is applied by
brush,  spray, or dipping; the finish is scraped or brushed
off; and  the piece  is rinsed  before  refinishing.   Some
furniture strippers may use a five-step process that entails
dipping in a methylene chloride stripping solution, followed
by a caustic bath, rinse, neutralization with hydrochloric or
phosphoric  acid,  and final rinse  (Connecticut  Dept.  of
Environmental Protection,  1984).   Methylene  chloride
stripping solution is  commonly recycled in the furniture
industry; caustic solutions, however, become weaker with
use and must be discarded. These wastes typically contain
high concentrations  of  methylene chloride  along  with
alcohols, metals, and other solvents. Many shops engaged
in furniture stripping also conduct furniture refinishing
operations.   These shops may handle  stains, containing
mineral spirits, pigments and alcohol; varnish, shellac, or
polyurethane,  containing  denatured   alcohol,  resins,
petroleum distillates and toluene  diisocyanate; or enamel,
lacquer, and acrylic paints, which contain toluene, pigments,
halogenated hydrocarbons, and glycol  ether.

Auto Repair Shops:  Auto repair activities encompass such
operations  as  glass  replacement,  transmission, exhaust
system  and engine repair,  and tire retreading.   Most
businesses  in  this  group  are  small  scale operations
employing less than ten persons. This is especially true for
auto body/paint  shops which are specialized  and may
employ one to three workers (Tennessee Department of
Economic and Community Development,  1986).  Larger
scale  operations usually are  less specialized  and may
provide a full range of repair and maintenance services.
The major threat to ground water posed by these industries
arises from the disposal of such waste products as gasoline,
diesel  fuel, oil, and degreasing solvents.  Auto  body and
paint  shops produce spent paint/solvent waste which  is
classified as a RCRA ignitable hazardous waste.

Road  Deicing Operations:   Highway departments,  their
contractors, and other private parties stockpile and spread
substantial quantities of deicing materials  on streets and
other  paved areas.   Ground water  may be affected  by
improper storage  or by  washoff  of these materials  from

-------
                                                                       Page 9
        road surfaces.  Excessive or improper application to street
        surfaces adds to the potential for contamination.  Salts are
        commonly used  as highway deicing agents, alone or in
        combination with abrasives such as sand, gravel, or ash.
        Sodium chloride is by far the most commonly used deicing
        agent.  Calcium chloride is also used, often together with
        sodium chloride.  Urea, an organic chemical, is generally
        used on airport runways rather than salts because it is less
        corrosive.

•       Scrap and Junkyards:  Scrapyards, salvage yards, junkyards
        and  metals  recyclers, which  accept  or  buy  scrap
        automobiles, "white goods" such as refrigerators and scrap
        metals, are found throughout the country.  The vast bulk of
        the  materials managed in these yards  are stored  in  the
        open, often directly on  the ground, where metal corrosion
        and oil releases can occur.  These establishments most
        often gather ferrous and nonferrous metals for secondary
        smelting  and  recycling.    "Battery breaking,"  or   the
        disassembly of automobile storage batteries for recovery of
        the lead plates inside, may occur. Barrels or drums used to
        contain hazardous materials -- with or without some or all
        of their contents ~ may also be handled and recycled by
        such facilities.    Agricultural  chemical  and  pesticide
        containers make up the bulk of recycled drums, especially
        in the Midwest.  Many recyclers purchase the barrels and
        clean them up for resale as trash  or storage containers.
        Processes used to store, handle,  clean, and transport these
        containers   can  cause   ground-water   contamination.
        Substantial quantities of used oil, gasoline, and antifreeze
        also may be generated in these yards. PCB-laden oils may
        be released from large electric utility transformers and can
        be released from small capacitors and transformers included
        in  household  appliances.    Combustible fuels  may be
        recovered for sale or for on-site burning.

•       Laundry and Dry Cleaning Establishments: Dry  cleaning
        entails laundering garments in non-aqueous degreasers and
        solvents rather than water and detergents.  Typically,  the
        garments are agitated within large machines containing the
        solvents then spun, removed,  and dried in a separate
        machine.  The contaminated solvents are filtered, distilled,
        and returned for reuse.  Distillation can be done in-house
        with the  appropriate  equipment.    Newer  dry-cleaning
        machines, referred to as dry-to-dry machines, are entirely
        self-contained  and do  not require the  transfer  of wet
        garments to a drier. The threat to ground water from  dry
        cleaning operations stems  from the solvents used for  the
        cleaning process.  The most common solvent  used is
        tetrachloroethylene   (also   called  perchloroethylene),
        although fluorocarbon-113 and petroleum solvents are used
        as well  (U.S. EPA, 1987).  All three of these solvents  are
        volatile and  toxic and  capable  of  contaminating ground
        water.  The  most common routes  of solvent release are
        through spills during handling and storage (solvent typically
        is transported and stored  in 55 gallon  drums) and leaks

-------
	Page 10

               from   cleaning   equipment   gaskets   and   other
               interconnections  (Institute  for  Local Self-Reliance and
               Connecticut  DEP,  1984).    Spent  filter  sludges  and
               cartridges, used for recycling the solvents, also can contain
               significant amounts of residual solvent. To a lesser extent,
               drying vents  allow the condensation  and dripping  of
               solvents  onto  the ground, and water collected  during
               solvent distillation (typically  less  than one  gallon per
               month) can  cause contamination  if not  collected and
               disposed of properly (Institute for Local Self-Reliance and
               Connecticut DEP, 1984).

        Although many of the above-listed light industries have been identified as past
sources of ground-water contamination, much of this potential threat to Wellhead Protection
Areas  is being  mitigated  through the adoption  of improved  raw and waste material
management practices.  Light industries are instituting these practices as a result of the
enforcement of existing Federal, State, and  local laws and through voluntary adoption of
improved material management practices.   With regard to existing Federal law, RCRA
standards for hazardous waste management require that generators manage their wastes
properly in tanks or containers and arrange for transport of the wastes to permitted on-site
or off-site disposal facilities. Many of the past cases of improper waste  management  at dry
cleaners, electroplating facilities, and wood preservers, for instance, are  being prevented by
RCRA standards for small and large quantity generators (see Chapter 3).

        In addition to controls mandated by Federal law, certain State and local authorities
are enforcing more stringent standards on the siting of light industries and the practices
followed by the industries. The liabilities associated with improper waste management have
also led many industries  to  adopt  management  practices that  are  protective of the
environment.  Furthermore, the increasing  costs associated with waste management and
disposal have encouraged industries to adopt  waste minimization  techniques to limit the
generation of waste products.  As a result, many of the types of past contamination incidents
reviewed by EPA will be prevented in the future.

        Nonetheless, while light industrial management practices are improving, many of the
material handling processes followed by light industry still remain unregulated or minimally-
regulated.   As discussed  below in Chapter 3, generators of  less  than 100 kg/month of
hazardous waste are not stringently regulated under the current RCRA program.  In addition,
leaks or spills of raw materials or products are not controlled under RCRA and may not be
fully addressed under  CERCLA or other authorities.  Furthermore,  there  are no data
available to accurately assess the extent of voluntary adoption of management controls and
waste minimization techniques by light industry.  Therefore,  Wellhead Protection Program
managers and other State and Local officials should be aware that existing controls may not
be adequate to ensure that hazardous materials are managed in a manner that will prevent
contamination of Wellhead Protection Areas.  Protecting these public water supplies may
require local jurisdictions to either impose  limitations on the siting of light industries in
Wellhead Protection Areas or encourage the widespread adoption of management controls.
Examples of such State and local programs are discussed in Chapter 3.

        The following chapter provides a broad overview of the raw and waste materials
managed by light industries that may pose a threat to Wellhead Protection Areas.

-------
                                                                            Page 11

2.0     Overview of the Problem: Raw Material and Waste Management

        This chapter describes the material management phases and potential contaminants
handled by light industries. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the significance of
light industrial material management for wellhead protection.
        2.1     Phases of Material Management and Mismanagement and
               the Potential for Ground-Water Contamination

        EPA has identified five general phases of material management by light industry that
may pose a threat of ground-water contamination:

        •       Raw material and product delivery, transport, and transfer.
               Leaks and spill incidents may occur while managing raw
               and waste materials during transport between storage and
               use locations, through processing areas,  and to disposal
               sites.

        •       Raw material and product storage.  Contaminants can be
               released   into  ground  water  when storage  tanks  or
               containers fail.  Rusted barrels can leak; holding tanks can
               fail due to faulty design, construction, or maintenance; fires,
               collisions,  and other accidents  may  cause spills,  and
               improper operation may result in unplanned releases.

        •       Material  processing  and  manufacturing.    Production
               processes are subject to  malfunctions, spills, or leaks or
               may involve planned releases of materials.

        •       Waste Management and Disposal. On-site waste treatment
               and disposal may cause ground-water contamination (e.g.,
               in  septic  systems   which  are  poorly  designed  or
               inappropriate to treat the waste products) or may involve
               material-handling processes subject to accidents. Disposal
               into sewers may lead to contamination if sewers leak.

        •       Process and site maintenance. Potential contaminants may
               be   released  during  the   maintenance of  buildings,
               equipment, or vehicles.

        Ground-water contamination can occur at  any  one of these phases  of material
management. Exhibit 2 illustrates the frequency with which the various phases were involved
in the ground-water contamination incidents reviewed by EPA.  The exhibit demonstrates that
contamination incidents are most frequently associated with waste management and waste
disposal activities.

-------
                                                   Page 12
                         EXHIBIT 2
 Distribution of Material Management Phases
in Ground-Water Contamination Case Studies  1
    100
M
0>
U
(0
U.
 )
0)
M
(0
o
0)
A
3
80
    60
40
20
          Management Storage
            and
          Disposal
                   Processing  Unknown  Maintenance Transport
                   and Manu-                and
                   facturlng                Transfer
                Material Management Phases
  1 Data for this exhibit were compiled from the summary of 182 case studies of ground-water
  contamination at light industrial facilities.

-------
                                                                              Page 13

        Waste management generally involves packaging or preparing wastes for off-site
shipment and transferring wastes to storage areas  through pipelines or other  conduit.
Releases can occur through leakage from waste containers or temporary storage tanks.  In
addition, a number of light industries have experienced releases from pipelines  used to
transport wastewaters to  storage tanks or containers for further treatment or management.
Because light industries generally do not dispose of their waste materials on-site, proper waste
management prior to off-site shipment is critical for the protection of Wellhead Protection
Areas. Such management practices include inspecting waste storage tanks and containers to
ensure that they are not leaking and maintaining catchment basins  and berms to contain
releases. Furthermore, removing waste materials from a light industry site in a timely manner
helps to ensure that the wastes will not be abandoned and left in place.

        Improper waste  disposal has  also occurred at many  light industry facilities.  Any
occurrence of improper waste or material management that  results in a release to soil or
ground water which is not cleaned up constitutes improper waste disposal. For example, light
industries, such as auto repair shops or electroplaters, have experienced releases to  soil that
have not been addressed through soil excavation or other remediation. Such improper waste
disposal often leads to ground-water contamination.  Some light industries also improperly
dispose  of their hazardous wastewaters in septic systems or other on-site wastewater  disposal
systems  which are not capable of adequately treating  many hazardous wastes.  As  a result,
contaminants discharged  into a septic system may pass through the system's soil infiltration
field and into ground water. Properly segregating wastes and preventing hazardous wastes
from  entering  septic systems  is the best means of ensuring  that such ground-water
contamination will not occur.

        All of the phases of material management at individual light industrial facilities are
also prevalent at light industrial parks, although the nature of the potentially contaminating
activities may differ with  the different  park types. Furthermore, the layout  and construction
of the parks themselves may impact wellhead areas by affecting water runoff patterns and by
introducing fertilizers and pesticides into the area as part of landscaping practices. In general,
the number of potentially contaminating activities, as well as the quantities of contaminants,
increases with the degree or level of industrial activity at an industrial park. The quantity of
contaminants present  also  generally increases with the degree or  level  of industrial
orientation, although the hazard posed by even a small volume of contaminants may still be
severe.  For example, a small amount of a very hazardous material introduced into a wellhead
area from a mixed  use park could be more  harmful  than large amounts of a less hazardous
substance introduced from a  heavy industry park.  The industrial park activities with the
potential to contaminate ground water are illustrated in Exhibit 3.
        2.2     Materials Managed by Light Industrial Facilities

        Light industries manage a wide range of materials that may potentially contaminate
ground water. Virtually all materials managed at larger or heavy industry facilities are also
found at light industry facilities, though in smaller quantities.  In general, these contaminants
include  the following:

        •      Petroleum Products. Fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel) and their
               additives (benzene, xylene), grease, oil, and PCBs.

-------
         	Page 14


                                                   EXHIBIT 3

     INDUSTRIAL PARK ACTIVITIES WITH POTENTIAL TO CONTAMINATE GROUND WATER
                                   Science
                                    Parks
            Technology
            Parks
Office/
Mixed Use
"AAA"
Industrial
                                                                                                        Industrial
Storage, On-Site

 Above-ground storage container
 or impoundment failure

 Underground storage tank failure

 Leaks, spills, fires

Disposal

 On-site septic tank, treatment
 inadequate, seepage lagoon

 Sewer leak

Processing/Production

 Leaks, spills, overflows

Transporter/Transfer

 Spills (large quantity)

 Leaks (small quantity from
 pipeline or vehicle)

Maintenance Activities

 Handling, use, disposal of
 cleaning materials

 Handling, use, disposal of waste
 material (e.g., used oil)

Landscaping

 Maintenance and salt
 application

 Impoundments and streams

 Vegetation maintenance

 Livestock (ducks and geese)
some
  Source: Battelle, 1988

-------
                                                                              Page 15

        •       Other  Organics.   Chemicals  used as solvents,  process
                chemicals in printing, photography, textiles, dry cleaning,
                electronics,  furniture  stripping,  tanning,  refrigerants,
                lubricants, dyes, adhesives, preservatives, disinfectants, and
                as  feedstocks  for  chemical, pharmaceutical, and  plastic
                production.

        •       Pesticides.    Organic  chemicals used  for insecticides,
                fungicides, herbicides, and rodenticides.

        •       Metals and Other  Inorganics.  Acids, alkalis, metals, salt,
                cyanides, detergents, and nitrates.

        •       Microorganisms. Viruses and bacteria.

        Exhibit 4 illustrates the frequency with which contaminants managed by light industry
were reported in the case. As demonstrated in the exhibit, a wide variety of constituents have
contaminated ground water at light industrial facilities. The most prevalent general groups
of contaminants observed in  the  case studies  include  organics  and  metals/inorganics.
Although these categories are very broad and encompass a large number of constituents, the
case study information generally is not sufficiently detailed to support a more specific analysis.

        For those case study reports that do contain constituent-specific information, typical
organic  contaminants  include  benzene,  dichloroethylene,  dioxins,  methylene  chloride,
pentachlorophenol, perchlorethylene, toluene, trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, and xylene.
Most of these organics appear to be used as solvents in production or cleaning processes.
Typical metals/inorganics reported in the case studies include arsenic, chromium, copper, lead,
nickel, nitrates, and sodium chloride.

        The following section analyzes the implications of the case study findings with regard
to wellhead protection.
        2.3    Analysis and Discussion

        Information from the  light industry  ground-water contamination case studies
summarized in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 encompasses a wide range of industry types, material
management practices, and contaminants.  Although the true extent of Wellhead Protection
Area contamination caused by light industry is unknown at this time, the data gathered for
this analysis reveal certain patterns concerning the threats light industry pose to ground-water
quality.

        The most prevalent material management phase associated with the ground-water
contamination  cases involved waste management and disposal.  Improper storage of raw
material and product storage was cited as the next most common contamination source. The
predominance of waste management and disposal activities in the ground-water contamination
cases is not unexpected.  These cases involve activities such as improper disposal in septic
systems and illegal dumping or abandonment of wastes.  Although many of these practices
are currently addressed by RCRA requirements (see Chapter 3),  illegal or negligent disposal
may  still occur. Similarly, raw material and product storage has  also come under increasing
regulatory control, especially for those practices involving underground storage tanks (RCRA
Subtitle  I).  Enforcing  existing Federally-mandated  standards  and  controls for waste
management and product storage may serve as one means of limiting contamination resulting
from these material management phases at light industry facilities.

-------
                                                      Page 16
                          EXHIBIT 4
     Distribution of Materials Managed by

     Light Industrial Case Study Facilities  l
    100
     80
U
(0
u_
o
(0
(0
O
.0

3
     60
40
20
            Other   Metals and  Petroleum Pesticides

           Organlcs  Inorganics  Products
                                   Unknown   Micro-

                                          organisms
                      Materials Managed
1 Data for this exhibit were compiled from the summary of 182 case studies of ground-water

contamination at light industrial facilities.

-------
                                                                              Page 17

        The prevalence of the organic and inorganic constituents observed in the case studies
is also expected. The organic contaminants are primarily solvents used as parts cleaners and
as carriers for other substances. These organics are used in a variety of light industries, such
as wood preserving and dry cleaning, and many  of the organics are mobile in the soil and
ground water environments. Similarly, the inorganic constituents observed in the case studies
are also in widespread use by light industry, especially in electroplating and metal fabrication
industries.   Most all of the constituents  observed  in the case  studies are  regulated as
hazardous wastes by RCRA or hazardous substances by CERCLA.  The exceptions include
nitrates, sodium chloride, and BOD, although these contaminants are also addressed under
drinking water criteria.

        In  sum, the case study findings indicate that:  (1) waste management and product
storage  processes pose the most prevalent  release threats to ground water, and (2) a wide
variety of potentially harmful constituents  are managed at light industry facilities and are
involved in release incidents.

-------
                                                                            Page 19

3.0     Controls on Light Industry:  Federal, State, and Local Roles

        In this chapter, we outline the various Federal controls that may affect light industry
practices. Selected State and local initiatives are also discussed. The chapter concludes with
an analysis of the interrelationships among Federal, State, and local activities and the manner
in which they can be used together to develop an efficient and effective means of evaluating
and regulating  ground-water threats from light industrial  sources.  EPA  prepared this
discussion to help Wellhead Protection Program managers and other officials understand and
develop appropriate management controls  for light industry within their jurisdictions.
        3.1     Regulating Material Management by Light Industry
               under Current Federal Law

        A variety of Federal laws  and regulations control the management of hazardous
materials and wastes.  However, many of these Federal requirements impose only limited
controls on light industry, while  leaving certain potentially contaminating activities or
substances unregulated.  The following section describes several of these Federal laws and
regulations.  The discussion highlights  the manner in which these requirements either do or
do not apply to certain light industry practices. The major Federal Regulations controlling
the management of hazardous materials are:

        •       RCRA (Resource  Conservation and Recovery Act);

        •       CERCLA  (Comprehensive  Environmental  Response,
               Compensation and Liability Act);

        •       SDWA (Safe Drinking Water Act);

        •       CWA (Clean Water Act);

        •       TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act); and

        •       FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and  Rodenticide Act).

The application of each of these  regulations to light industry management  practices is
discussed below.

•       Resource  Conservation and  Recovery Act  (RCRAV   RCRA addresses   the
management of hazardous and  solid wastes  under Subtitles C  and  D of the  statute,
respectively. These portions of RCRA address only waste materials and not raw materials
or products. For example, pesticides that are packaged for sale are not a hazardous waste.
The material may become a hazardous waste, however, when the pesticides are discarded. In
contrast, under Subtitle I of RCRA, standards are provided for underground storage tanks
(USTs) that are used  to manage chemical and petroleum products.  Each of these RCRA
program areas may impose controls on certain activities of light industry.

        Subtitle C of RCRA recognizes three classes of hazardous waste generators (40 CFR
262.34):  (1) generators of greater than 1,000 kg/month of hazardous waste (large quantity
generators); (2) generators  of between 100  and 1,000 kg/month of hazardous waste (small
quantity generators - SQGs); and (3) generators of less than 100 kg/month of hazardous waste
(conditionally exempt small quantity generators or very small quantity generators - VSQGs).
Large  quantity generators and most small  quantity generators  must meet  specified
requirements, including:  obtaining an EPA ID number, properly managing the waste in tanks
or containers (40 CFR 262.34), manifesting off-site shipments of the waste, and maintaining
records and regular reporting. Generators of less than 100 kg/month of hazardous waste, or

-------
                                                                            Page 20

conditionally exempt small quantity generators, however, are not required to meet the
technical requirements for RCRA generators (40 CFR 261.5).  Many of the types of light
industries described in this document fall in this class of conditionally exempt small quantity
hazardous waste generators.

        Exhibit 5 illustrates the relative breakdown between the number of small quantity
generators and very small quantity or conditionally exempt generators.  Estimates of the
breakdown between SQGs  and VSQGs suggest that there are approximately  175,000
generators in the 100 to 1,000 kg/month category and 455,000 generators of less than 100
kg./month (U.S. EPA, 1985).  Although EPA estimates that these two groups of generators
represent approximately 98 percent of all hazardous waste generators  in the United States,
the total volume of waste managed by these groups amounts to less than 0.5 percent of the
total quantity of waste generated annually. Nonetheless, these small and conditionally exempt
generators still manage approximately 630,000 metric tons of hazardous waste per year (U.S.
EPA, 1985).  The vast number of these generators and the relative lack of regulatory contro'
on their operations raises  the potential for ground-water contamination.

        Concerns that arise from the activities of these operations can be traced, at least in
part, to several factors:

        •      Many operators of smaller facilities are not aware that they
               may be generating hazardous wastes, or that their disposal
               practices could result in contamination of ground water.

        •      Facilities that do not generate large volumes of waste may
               nonetheless   handle large  volumes  of  hazardous  raw
               materials  which  should be of concern to local planners
               seeking to protect their water supply.  Wood preservers,
               furniture strippers, and pesticide applicators are only three
               examples of industries that  typically do not generate large
               volumes of waste, yet may have large volumes of chemicals
               stored on site.

        •      Even small volumes of hazardous raw or waste materials
               can contaminate a water supply, particularly if the material
               is discharged in a Wellhead Protection Area.

        Certain types of wastes that typically might be managed by light industries have been
specifically exempted from regulation  under RCRA.  These wastes include agricultural
irrigation return flows, materials that are recycled in closed systems, and wastewaters that are
disposed of in sewers or publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs)  (40 CFR 261.4 (a)).
Furthermore,  recycled  materials  such as used batteries and used  oil are not regarded as
hazardous waste under RCRA  However, if these materials are disposed of,  they must be
managed as hazardous waste.

        RCRA Subtitle D regulates  other types  of wastes defined as solid wastes, including
household garbage, mining wastes, wastes from oil and gas production, and cement kiln dust
waste (40 CFR 261.4(b)). It is important to note, however, that although these "solid wastes"
must be managed in compliance with the criteria outlined under RCRA Subtitle D, these
criteria apply only to the  solid waste management facilities that ultimately dispose of the
waste (40 CFR Part 257). In effect, the light industries that generate solid waste are not
regulated under RCRA Subtitle D. Hence, light industries that are either generators of solid
waste or conditionally exempt generators of hazardous waste are only minimally regulated by
the RCRA hazardous waste controls.

-------
                                                         Page 21
                                Exhibit 5
Distribution of Small Quantity Generators by Industry Group:
                         SQGs and VSQGs
                      Metal Mfg.
                        9%
                              Other Mfg.
                                 5%
            Other
       Non-Manufacturing
             13%

            Construction
                3%
             Other
         Non-Manufacturing
              22%
                                  SQGs
                               (>100 kg/mo)
                             Other Mfg.
                                9%
                           Construction
                              13%
                                VSQGs
                              (<100 kg/mo)
 Vehicle Maintenance
       70%
I   I  Manufacturing

^H  Non-Manufacturing
 Vehicle Maintenance
       48%
        Source: Small Quantity Generator Survey data and analysis of secondary Industries

-------
                                                                             Page 22

        The Subtitle I program of RCRA regulates approximately 1.5 million underground
storage tanks that are used to store chemical and petroleum products. The program bans the
installation of unprotected new tanks, requires tank owners to notify EPA of the number of
tanks in use, establishes standards to clean up releases from the tanks, and imposes technical
standards and inspection requirements for existing tanks (40 CFR Part 280). Subtitle I differs
from Subtitle C and D in  that it applies technical standards  to processes that manage
products, not wastes. The UST program addresses the petroleum storage tanks used by light
industries, such as automobile service stations and dealerships, and the chemical storage tanks
found at light industries, such as agricultural supply services and certain electroplating shops
and electronic equipment manufacturers.  However, the UST program applies only to tanks
with at least ten percent of their volume buried underground.  Furthermore, the  following
types of tanks are specifically exempted from the Subtitle I controls:  farm and residential
tanks with a  holding capacity of less than 1,100 gallons; on-site tanks storing  heating oil;
septic  tanks; pipelines regulated under  other  laws;  surface impoundments;  systems for
collecting storm water and  wastewater;  flow-through process tanks;  and liquid traps or
associated gathering lines related to operations in the oil and natural gas industry (40 CFR
Part 280).  Thus, although  Subtitle I presents a  level of protection against leakage  from
certain types  and volumes of hazardous materials containers, non-regulated activities within
a wellhead area can pose an  equivalent threat to a water supply.  Furthermore, RCRA does
not stipulate  provisions that govern raw materials handling practices within an industry.

•       Comprehensive  Environmental  Response.   Compensation,  and  Liability  Act
(CERCLA).  The best known component of CERCLA is the remedial action program which
addresses past releases of hazardous substances to the environment. Many cases of ground-
water contamination by light industry are currently being addressed under Superfund.  In
addition, Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
imposes certain emergency planning and  notification requirements on facilities  that handle
hazardous materials. The first of these requirements, found in sections 301-303,311, and 312
of Title III, is known as the "emergency planning and community right-to-know"  program.
This program requires  facilities  to  notify State officials of the presence of "extremely
hazardous substances" at their location, and to supply local officials with a list of all materials
stored  on site in volumes that exceed  threshold quantities established by EPA (40 CFR Part
355 and 40 CFR Part 370).  These provisions were adopted to enable communities with
participating  facilities to establish emergency planning and notification procedures, based on
the materials located within the community.  Section 302 authorizes State  officials to
designate additional facilities (e.g., those which handle lesser amounts of regulated materials)
as subject to  the planning  requirements.

        Additional provisions within Title III relate to notification requirements for releases
of hazardous materials.  Section 304 of SARA requires immediate notification to  local and
State emergency planning committees if any of the listed hazardous substances are released
from a facility (40 CFR Part 302.4 and 40 CFR Part 355), as well as follow up emergency
notice.  A second program, under SARA Section 313, requires that all releases of hazardous
substances, both routine and accidental,  as well as off-site shipments of waste containing
listed toxic chemicals, must be reported to EPA (40 CFR Part 372). Although both of these
programs require light industries to notify EPA of releases of hazardous substances, Title III
contains no  explicit cleanup requirements.   Title III, like  RCRA, does not  impose any
conditions on materials  handling practices; it only requires inventories and reports.

•       Safe  Drinking Water Act (SDWAV The SDWA mandates  controls on certain waste
management activities to prevent the contamination of drinking water supplies. In particular,
EPA has promulgated regulations under the SDWA  to control the disposal of  wastes in
underground injection wells (40 CFR Part 144).  The  SDWA regulates five general classes
of underground injection wells.  Class I wells are those  that are used to dispose of hazardous
or other industrial waste.  Class II wells are used to dispose of materials such as brines and
oil drilling wastes. Class III  and IV wells are other types of disposal wells which are far less

-------
                                                                            Page 23

common. Class V wells include the remaining types of waste disposal wells, including shallow
dry wells and certain types of septic systems.  Many contamination events caused by light
industry involve the improper disposal of wastes in these Class V wells.  Although some
controls are now being imposed on disposal in Class V wells, improper waste disposal by light
industry in these wells still occurs.  Changes  to the Federal regulatory requirements  may
impose tighter controls on disposal in Class V wells in the future.

        The 1986 amendments to the SDWA include  provisions that require States to
establish Wellhead Protection Areas around  public water supply wells.  These provisions
require, among other things, the identification of all potential sources of contamination
within the Wellhead Protection Areas and a description of control measures to protect the
water supply. These activities and control measures include light industrial operations.

        Clean Water Act (CWAV The CWA addresses the restoration and maintenance of
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters through the reduction
and elimination of toxic pollutant discharges;  providing States with financial assistance for
the construction of publicly owned waste treatment works; development and implementation
of areawide waste treatment management plans for the control of pollutant sources in each
State; development of technology necessary to  eliminate pollutant discharge  into oceans,
coastal and navigable waters; and for assessment and management of nonpoint sources of
pollution nationwide.

        Provisions under CWA applicable to the control of light industrial sources of ground-
water contamination include nonpoint source pollution control programs (Section 319),
effluent permitting guidelines  (Section  304),  and stormwater  permitting requirements
currently under development under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES; Section 402).

•       Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA regulates the use of new and existing
chemical substances and mixtures. Under Section 5 of TSCA, manufacturers of new chemical
substances  must notify EPA through the submittal of a  pre-manufacture notice  (PMN) at
least 90 days prior to commencing manufacture or import of the substance for non-exempt
commercial purposes.  EPA will then review  the new chemical substance  and  may impose
restrictions on the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, or disposal of the substance.
In some cases,  companies  may have conducted toxicity testing prior  to beginning to
manufacture the substance.  As a result of this process, EPA may restrict the use of certain
chemical products either handled or produced by light industries.

        TSCA also regulates the use and disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).   For
example, EPA is instituting a nationwide program in which the PCB-containing fluids in
electric transformers and capacitors are being replaced with other polyelectrolytes.  TSCA
further requires that waste PCBs from these and other applications must be disposed of in
approved landfills or incinerators or EPA-approved alternative disposal technologies. Light
industries that either use machinery containing  PCBs or collect scrap materials containing
PCBs must comply with these TSCA controls.

•       Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).  FIFRA addresses the
registration and use of pesticides in the United States. The act has been used  to indirectly
protect  ground water through the pesticide registration program.  A manufacturer must
generally submit a variety of health and safety data before EPA can register a pesticide (40
CFR Part 152). If EPA determines that use of a pesticide will result in unreasonable adverse
effects  on  the  environment,  including  ground-water  contamination,  EPA may deny
registration. Among other options, EPA can  impose packaging and labelling requirements
and restrict the use of a pesticide.  Cancellation of a registration is also possible if product
use generally causes unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.  Each pesticide must

-------
                                                                             Page 24

have a label that contains detailed directions for use.  All users, including light industry, must
comply with these requirements.

        Applicability of Federal Controls to Light Industry

        The  preceding discussion  illustrates  that  certain light  industrial practices are
regulated by Federal law, principally under Subtitles C and I of RCRA These regulations,
however, are limited to the listed waste disposal and storage practices and materials.  While
the regulations do govern most major generators,  much  of the light industrial sector  is
exempt.

        Provisions of SARA Title III apply to any facility  that uses hazardous materials  in
excess of the listed threshold quantities, but even this expansion of the regulated community
does not encompass all light industrial facilities.  Furthermore, the statute only requires an
inventory of materials; management practices or guidance are neither provided nor mandated.

        TSCA and FIFRA impose restrictions on the use of a limited number of materials
that could  pose a threat to a community's ground water,  and the SDWA  regulates some
activities that affect ground-water quality.

        Thus, the Federal programs, although providing comprehensive regulation of major
generators  of waste and handling of select materials, provides little regulation of production
processes and small-scale waste management practices.  These limitations can be traced  in
part to the sheer number of facilities that would be brought under the Federal umbrella, if
it  were to become  all inclusive.   Additional constraints  on a Federal role arise from
traditional  reliance on State regulation of activities  relating to the ground-water resource.
Various States and local governments have taken additional steps to protect  their ground
water, which include measures relating to light industrial activities.

        Many States and local governments have adopted control programs under the broad
mandates of  RCRA, CERCLA, or other  Federal  or State  statutes.   A  comprehensive
summary of State and local programs is beyond the scope of this document. Nonetheless,  in
the following section we briefly describe State and local approaches for controlling light
industries.  This chapter concludes with a description of the interrelationship among Federal,
State, and local programs and how the various authorities  can be combined to prevent the
occurrence of ground-water contamination from light industrial activities.
        3.2      State and Local Approaches for Controlling Light Industry

        The Federal government delegates to the States a broad police power to legislate on
behalf of the public health, safety, and welfare.  This power can be used to protect ground-
water resources from various forms of industrial contamination. While the authority is broad,
it is tempered by limitations imposed by the principle of Federal preemption, language found
in State constitutions, and rulings of Federal and State courts.

        Programs  adopted  by  States  that  can  help to  protect  ground  water  from
contamination due to light industrial activities include:

        •       Watershed Rules and Regulations - Local agencies in New
                York State, for instance, are authorized to adopt land-use
                plans to protect public water supplies.

-------
                                                                             Page 25

        •      Ground-Water Management Areas - Washington State's
               Department  of Ecology will designate  areas  that  have
               identified  concerns   over   ground-water  quality;   a
               management plan is tailored to suit the local needs.

        •      Ground-Water Standards  -  Many States  have  adopted
               standards to protect their ground water. Standards may be
               either numeric, specifying a maximum concentration for a
               particular contaminant (see, e.g., Alaska,  New Hampshire,
               Texas),  or narrative,  specifying a  general prohibition  on
               types of discharges or identifying a general quality goal
               (see, e.g., Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina). Some States
               have  adopted  both  types  of  standards  to  ensure
               comprehensive protection of the resource.

        •      Ground  Water  Classification  -   Several  States  (e.g.,
               Connecticut, South Carolina, Vermont) have classified their
               ground water and specified differential protection measures
               according to the classification.

        A number of States, such as Illinois and  Wisconsin, have enacted legislation to
authorize adoption of ground-water protection measures by local government.  Illinois'
legislation includes provisions that authorize the creation of setback zones around wells and
an inventory of facilities and activities surrounding the wellhead (Illinois Municipal Code,
Section 11-25-4).  Wisconsin municipalities were given authority to adopt zoning ordinances
"to  encourage the protection of groundwater resources" by legislation  passed in 1984
(Wisconsin Assembly Bill 595).

        The town of Rib Mountain  in Marathon County,  Wisconsin, adopted land-
        use regulations  to protect its  ground-water supplies. The ordinance uses
        overlay zoning to create two districts within  the recharge basin for municipal
        wells.  Lands overlying the sand and gravel  aquifer have greater restrictions
        imposed on use than more upgradient areas in the watershed. Commercial
        and industrial uses are prohibited in Zone A, which is in close proximity to
        the wells.  In Zone B, these uses are allowed  as conditional uses, if they
        meet certain requirements to protect ground water.

        Local governments have other sources of regulating authority in addition to ground-
water specific State legislation; police powers have been  delegated to local government in
most States. This authority can be implemented to  protect ground-water supplies by means
of direct or indirect controls, such as land-use plans, zoning ordinances, site plan review, and
design standards.  Health  ordinances  are an effective means for communities to regulate
potential contaminants through their police powers.  This approach controls materials  use
regardless of the location of the facility, as opposed to regulating the location of the facilities.

        In 1979, the Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission
        (CCPEDC) developed a model health ordinance for use by towns on the
        Cape to control the use, storage, and disposal of toxic and hazardous
        materials.  The model ordinance has three  major  components:

               •       Prohibition  -  Discharges of  toxic  or
                       hazardous materials are prohibited.

-------
                                                                             Page 26

               •       Registration  -  Owners  or operators of
                       facilities  storing a quantity of materials
                       which   exceed  a   threshold  amount
                       (established in regulations by the town)
                       must  register the  type and  amount of
                       materials  with  the  Board  of  Health
                       (BOH).

               •       Inspection/Enforcement -  The BOH  is
                       authorized to conduct inspections of sites
                       where toxic and hazardous materials are
                       stored or used.

       In practice, the BOH identifies all firms or individuals who may be subject
       to the ordinance, notifies them of the need for compliance, provides a list
       of materials considered to be toxic or hazardous and threshold amounts of
       the materials, and supplies  a  registration form which must be completed
       within a specified period of time. The BOH will inspect the facility if the
       forms are not completed on time.  If inspection reveals that forms are in
       error  or  unsatisfactory  practices are observed, the BOH  may  require
       corrective measures to improve storage, use, or disposal practices. Fines for
       violation of corrective orders are up to $200 per day.

       The Town of Barnstable adopted the model ordinance as a Town Bylaw in
       1979, the first community in the nation to adopt a local toxic and hazardous
       materials handling bylaw.  Barnstable is a major business and population
       center located in the middle of the Cape, with the largest concentration of
       light  industrial  and commercial development.  Ninety percent of these
       establishments are located within a four square mile area and all are within
       the zone of contribution for  several of Barnstable's public  water  supply
       wells.  Since several hundred  facilities are affected by the town's bylaw, a
       strong implementation program has been undertaken.

       Barnstable officials were particularly concerned that the only industrial zone
       in the town overlies the zone of contribution for eight public wells supplying
       Hyannis. A large part of the industrial area is occupied by a privately-owned
       industrial park which, as of 1986, was only five percent developed.  The town
       does not wish to discourage development, but must act to protect the water
       supply, which cannot be moved.  Additional facilities of concern are located
       outside the industrial park, but within the zones of contribution.

       The Barnstable BOH received a technical assistance grant from  CCPEDC
       to pay for a staff person working with the local health agent for a year to
       compile a  comprehensive  list  of  materials  considered  to be toxic  or
       hazardous, and  to  develop the registration form.  Since then  the BOH
       procedures and forms have been refined,  and the BOH reports that  100
       percent compliance with the bylaw by covered facilities has been achieved
       with only two visits.

       One  of the  most  influential land-use  control  approaches  utilized by  local
governments involves zoning. Local governments typically establish zoning and subdivision
requirements that prescribe types of approved uses for land and buildings. Industrial zoning
ordinances traditionally divide industrial areas into "light" and "heavy" districts. The controls

-------
                                                                             Page 27

on heavy industries are generally more restrictive, as these industries are considered most
offensive. Some communities, however, have recognized the potential for contamination from
light industry and have imposed fairly comprehensive controls on these activities when they
are located in Wellhead Protection Areas.

        The Dade County, Florida, Wellfield Protection Program is an evolving set
        of  activities that were initiated  in the mid-1970's when volatile organic
        compounds were detected in a number of water supply wells. The sources
        of  these compounds  included leakage  and runoff,  spills  and improper
        disposal, and effluent from heavy and light industrial activities, domestic and
        municipal waste treatment plants,  leaking sewer  systems, and agricultural
        and urban runoff. Development  of the program was undertaken primarily
        within  the  Dade County Department of Environmental Management  to
        ensure long-term protection  of drinking water.

        Section 208 studies under the  Clean Water Act allowed  the county  to
        delineate wellfield areas  of influence  and establish a basis for regulating
        hazardous material use, storage, and disposal.  The Dade County Wellhead
        Protection  Ordinance regulates  the  type and density of wastewater
        discharged within each of five zones in the area of influence, based on soil
        conditions.  The ordinance prohibits the use of hazardous materials within
        the area of influence.

        The  Dade  County program  provides the following  restrictions  on  light
        industry within the wellfield  protection zones:

                1.      No new hazardous materials activities;
                2.      No new nonresidential activities except on
                       sewers;
                3.      Only  "low risk" nonresidential  activities
                       permitted;
                4.      Annual permitting and inspection of all
                       nonresidential uses;
                5.      Density restrictions as a function of travel
                       time to wells;
                6.      No expansion of existing uses unless a net
                       decrease  in  environmental   risk   is
                       demonstrated;
                7.      Progressively more stringent stormwater
                       disposal   requirements   as   wells  are
                       approached;
                8.      Best available technology is required for
                       sewer construction;
                9.      Expedited sewering of unsewered areas;
                10.     Canal construction or improvement  to
                       create hydraulic boundaries between wells
                       and pollution sources;
                11.     Expedited cleanup of  known  pollution
                       sources;
                12.     Creation  of approved  hazardous waste
                       transfer stations outside of the protection
                       zones;
                13.     Limitations   on   transportation    of
                       hazardous   materials   through  the
                       protection zone;

-------
	Page 28

                14.     Installation of air-stripping equipment at
                       water treatment plants to reduce volatile
                       organic compounds which may already be
                       in the ground water; and
                15.     Variances  require a 4/5 affirmative vote
                       from the appeals board.

        The preceding examples illustrate some of the regulatory tools that can be used by
local officials to protect their water supply from identified threats. Equally important to an
effective program is an understanding of the ground-water system and the potential for
contamination.  This understanding and evaluation is critical to ensuring that a regulatory
program addresses potential problems without being overly restrictive.

        Citizens of Spokane, Washington formed a planning group  in  1977 to
        develop a strategy for protecting their underground source of drinking water.
        The committee spent their first year developing a data base of ground-water
        quality, and reaching a  common level of understanding of ground-water
        hydrology and water pollution problems before beginning to develop a plan.
        Their study showed that water  quality was deteriorating due to  human
        activities, including industrial development and chemical spills resulting from
        storage, transportation, and use of chemicals.  Specific incidents that could
        be traced to industrial sources include the contamination of private wells by
        organic cleaning solvents leaching from a county landfill, and contamination
        of additional wells by cyanide originating from pot linings disposed of at an
        aluminum reduction plant.  The citizen's group released a  Water Quality
        Management Plan in 1979, which included recommendations for controlling
        chemical spills and leaks through a combination of land use  and zoning
        regulations, development and enforcement of best management practices,
        and public education.

        Ordinances adopted by  Spokane County  in 1983 established  an Aquifer
        Sensitive Overlay Zone and established procedures for proper handling and
        disposal of hazardous and critical materials in the home and the workplace.
        The  zoning ordinance  encourages  business  and industry  using "critical
        materials" to locate outside of the  sensitive area by setting performance
        criteria for facility design which require the retention of spills or leaks and
        the prevention of subsurface infiltration by defined materials, as well as
        prohibiting chemical waste disposal  in  the sensitive area.  The  critical
        materials ordinance and critical materials handbook include requirements for
        management controls for handling and storage of materials; spill prevention,
        control, and clean up plans; and identifying critical  materials  and critical
        materials use activities. Building permits for new construction are reviewed
        to determine chemical  use and  to check for appropriate design where
        chemicals are used or  stored.   Secondary containment is required for
        underground storage tanks and associated piping, and spill response and
        shipping requirements have been established for transportation of critical
        materials. By adopting  the term "critical materials" the committee sought
        to avoid confusion or the limitations associated with Federal and  State
        hazardous waste regulations.

-------
                                                                              Page 29

        Projects proposed in the  sensitive  zone are  compared with a  Critical
        Materials Activity List developed from an Industrial Survey performed by
        the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) and an Industrial Waste
        Survey performed for DOE.  A review of spills in the Spokane area revealed
        that spills generally result from the transfer of liquids between containers or
        from material transfer lines. The ordinance, therefore, contains guidelines
        that include provisions for materials  handling:

                •       Employee training;

                •       Materials  properties  to  be  considered
                       when choosing  a material for a specific
                       containment or  storage use; and

                •       Criteria  for  determining  the  required
                       containment volume for secondary systems
                       (e.g.,  include  potential precipitation and
                       means for separating  precipitation  from
                       chemicals).

        The ordinance also requires facilities that elect to locate in the  sensitive
        areas  to prepare a spill  plan.   The  plan  is  to  include  facility-specific
        information:

                •       Description of physical facilities and the
                       nature  of  operations utilizing  critical
                       materials;

                •       Notification procedures in the event of a
                       spill;

                •       Identification of potential sources of spills;

                •       Spill control procedures; and

                •       Training programs for personnel.

        The materials manual also contains design concepts  to stimulate ideas for
        materials containment (e.g., covered loading areas, double walled pipes,
        perimeter drains, and floor drains).

        Local citizens have voted to create aquifer protection districts, which assess
        a monthly user charge of $1.25 per month to all customers located over the
        aquifer and an additional $1.25 per month to all those who discharge wastes
        through a drainfield system.  These funds, supplemented by a $0.0025 sales
        tax, defray the costs of new sewerage projects and fund additional aquifer
        protection programs.  All commercial and industrial customers  within  a
        district are required to connect to a sewer within one year of its completion,
        while new facilities are required  to connect immediately.  Commercial and
        industrial facilities outside of service areas must connect to county sewers
        unless the utilities district determines that connection is  not economically
        feasible.

        Placing direct limitations on development is only one of the options available to local
officials. Regulators can condition approval of a proposed development on the adoption of
management plans by the developer or property manager. Developers of private  industrial

-------
                                                                             Page 30

parks, for example, can be required to (or can voluntarily impose) covenants, conditions, and
restrictions (CC&Rs) on park tenants that serve to supplement zoning restrictions.  The
CC&Rs  often act in conjunction with zoning  controls to impose limits  on industrial
"nuisances."   For  example,  the lessee may be  required to submit a detailed site  plan
containing a report which addresses environmental issues related to the operation, such as
the volume  of hazardous wastes produced or the anticipated load on  sewage treatment
facilities. CC&Rs may also prohibit discharges of hazardous materials from a site or restrict
the use of underground storage tanks. Wellhead Protection Program managers can use these
public and private  controls to assist in ground-water protection.

        Additional information regarding the potential tools for protecting ground water can
be found in the publication Wellhead Protection  Programs:  Tools for Local Governments.
USEPA/OGWP.
        3.3     Analysis and Discussion

        The preceding sections indicate that there is no single  source of authority for
evaluating or regulating light industrial practices.  There are, however, a variety of statutes
at both the Federal and State levels which can provide the means for evaluating  and
minimizing threats to Wellhead Protection Areas. Local governments have additional options
available to  them through  their police powers  and  traditional land-use planning  and
regulation techniques.

        Two  of the  initial steps to take in developing a  management  program for light
industry involve the evaluation and definition of 1) the resource to be protected, and 2) the
potential sources  of  concern.  Resource evaluation is beyond the  scope  of this document.
The reader is referred to EPA's Guidelines for Delineation of Wellhead Areas (EPA 440/6-
87-010) as a starting  point for this effort. Several  of the regulatory authorities cited in this
section, however, can be used to ascertain the nature of light industrial operations; an integral
part of evaluating sources.

        The permit and notification requirements of RCRA and SARA Title III, respectively,
provide two avenues for identification of light industrial activities in Wellhead Protection
Areas.  The files of the State division of hazardous waste  contain the name, location, and
materials handled for all RCRA generators in a given State. This source of information can
provide a first  level  of scrutiny by identifying  most of the major  and many of the  minor
handlers of hazardous materials in the vicinity of a  wellfield. The Small Quantity Generator
provisions of RCRA encompass many light industrial facilities. In addition, some States have
used their RCRA authority to regulate Very Small Quantity Generators, those facilities that
generate less than 100  kg/month of hazardous  waste.  Massachusetts' VSQG program, for
instance, requires such  facilities to register with the Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering (DEQE).   Although these  facilities are not required to obtain a RCRA ID
number or manifest,  they must comply with certain reporting requirements:

        •      Types  and quantities of hazardous waste produced;

        •      Recycling, treatment, or disposal plans; and

        •      Name  and location of facility or generator receiving VSQG waste.

        The VSQG  requirements effectively expand the available data base to include all
generators of hazardous waste. Although this option provides additional information for
regulators and planners, the program also creates an additional administrative burden - the
ratio of VSQGs to SQGs is approximately 2.6 to 1.

-------
                                                                             Page 31

•  Public Participation

        Massachusetts has incorporated another feature into its SQG program which could
be of value to any State or community seeking to reduce light industrial contamination of
ground water. The hazardous waste division of DEQE has established a public participation
group that works with industries and local governments looking at behavior patterns and
providing compliance assistance.  Fact  sheets, videos, information programs, and other
educational materials are  all part of the compliance assistance program.  As noted in the
Cape Cod experience cited above, industries are often willing and able to eliminate problem
areas once they have the information in hand to recognize and correct potential problems.
The State personnel are  able  to address a  wide audience by providing  training and
information  to  local government  officials,  who can use  these methods in their  own
community.  These techniques can be used effectively at both the State and local level with
only a limited expenditure of resources.

•  Inventorying

        The notification requirements of SARA Title III dictate that all facilities  handling
quantities of  hazardous materials in excess of EPA threshold amounts must provide a list of
these materials to community planners.  The significance of these requirements is that they
apply to quantities of materials that are involved in the manufacturing or other processes at
the facility, not just  the waste materials.  These requirements allow community and State
officials to obtain an expanded picture of the light industrial scene, since many facilities may
handle sufficient quantities of hazardous material to qualify for Title III notification, yet not
generate the amounts of hazardous waste necessary to require filing as a RCRA large quantity
generator.  Wood preservers or  furniture strippers, for example, may handle or store large
volumes  of materials but  generate only small amounts of waste.  Materials handling is as
significant as  waste handling in the vicinity of the wellhead, because poor practices in either
aspect of facility operations can  result in contamination of the water supply. Although the
Title III regulations do not include the authority to regulate materials handling, local officials,
armed with the knowledge of storage and use of hazardous materials in the wellhead area,
may decide to impose materials  handling requirements through local controls.

•  Source Identification

        The SDWA  Amendments of 1986 require States to develop management plans for
wellhead  protection,  including identification  and   control  of  potential  sources  of
contamination.  Some States have already established programs to accomplish these same
goals.  States wishing to adopt a Wellhead Protection Program can utilize the information
available  through RCRA  and Title III,  as  described  above,  to identify sources  of
contamination. State initiatives can also provide explicitly for adoption of local ground-water
protection measures. Any of these measures at the State level can incorporate provisions that
include controls  on light industry.

        Once a community has identified the Wellhead Protection Area and the location of
light industrial facilities that overlie the Wellhead Protection Area, planners will need  to
determine the threat  that these facilities pose to the water supply.  Each community will need
to review and evaluate the existing framework of State and Federal controls and determine
whether additional protection is needed for their water supply.  As noted above, few of the
current regulatory programs provide controls on materials handling, production processes,
and  management of small quantity  waste streams.  Localities may determine that local
initiatives are needed to provide adequate safeguards against contamination. This decision
will be based  in part  on the nature and extent of the Wellhead Protection Area and, in part,
on the governing local politics.

-------
                                                                            Page 32

        Communities can use the wide range of planning authorities and police powers
available to fashion a Wellhead Protection Program specific to their own needs.  The
examples provided in Section 3.2 illustrate some of the options that local governments have
adopted to protect Wellhead Protection Areas from light industrial contamination.  Each
community should refer to these and other examples,,but fashion their own program to meet
their own situation.  The appropriate decision for some communities may be to restrict all
industrial activities in the wellhead area through zoning. Other communities may determine
that a limited ban, coupled with controls on activities is appropriate.  These controls can be
in the form of design standards for facilities to reduce the chance of contamination in the
event of a release, bans on the use of certain materials, or restrictions on use in the form of
materials handling or best management practices. The following chapter presents descriptions
of some light industrial practices that pose potential threats to Wellhead Protection Areas
and the management controls that have been used by some industries to address the potential
for contamination.

-------
                                                                             Page 33

4.0     Minimizing Ground-Water Contamination by Light Industry

        Several control techniques have been used by light industry to prevent ground-water
contamination.  These techniques range from low-cost management controls  to  more
sophisticated technology-based waste minimization techniques.  This section  presents an
overview, illustrated with case studies, of management  controls and waste minimization
practices for protecting Wellhead Protection Areas. The section concludes with an analysis
and discussion of the role of industry groups  and local governments in promoting the use of
management controls.


        4.1      Management Controls for Preventing Ground-Water Contamination

        This section discusses seven management controls that have been recommended by
various State and local governments and that have been  adopted by many light industries.
These  management controls are directly applicable to wellhead protection.  The following
seven management controls illustrate the broad range of activities that many light industries
have adopted to reduce the threat of ground-water contamination in Wellhead Protection
Areas.

(1)     Controlling  spillage in  loading  and  unloading of  raw  materials  and wastes
        (Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 1984).  Spillage may  occur
        at material transfer points (e.g., loading and unloading areas) at a variety of light
        industries, such as gas stations, small fuel storage facilities, farm co-ops, or chemical
        storage  facilities.    Through  poor  operating  practices,  gasoline,  oil, pesticides,
        fertilizers, and  chemical solvents are frequently spilled on the ground. Improper use
        of hoses during material transfers also results in spillage.  When these spillage
        problems can  not be avoided, contamination can best be prevented through  the
        installation of catchment basins beneath material handling areas. These basins may
        drain to holding tanks.  Spilled material can then be removed to a treatment facility
        for final disposal or, if the waste is compatible with the local POTW operations, the
        waste may be  treated  and discharged to municipal sewer lines.  These catchment
        basins should  be  coated with impermeable materials to prevent  the  leakage of
        materials through the basin to ground water.

        Example:  An  agricultural supply company in Hospens,  Iowa has  caused
        contamination  of nine wells,  including two  municipal wells.  Approximately
        31,000 square feet of soil was found to be contaminated at the materials
        loading  operations area.  Contaminants   included  pesticides  and  carbon
        tetrachloride.  The handling practices employed at the loading area were the
        primary cause of the ground-water contamination. The threat can be addressed
        by installing basins that drain to  holding  tanks with  proper secondary
        containment.

(2)     Managing contaminated runoff from the rinsing and cleaning of tanks and containers.
        Many pesticide applicators, asphalt  mixing trucks, crop dusters, and lawn services
        clean  off their holding tanks and/or spraying equipment on open ground.  'Such
        cleaning should only be conducted over catchment basins and contaminated runoff
        from the cleaning process should be  collected for on-site recycling and reuse or off-
        site management (Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project, July 1988)

        Example: A crop dusting company in  Marianna, Florida routinely purged and
        then flushed the airplane's pesticide tanks onto the ground after each dusting
        run. This practice resulted in soil contamination and subsequent contamination
        of public water supply wells. The contaminant plume is 2,000 feet in length and
        contains many  different types of pesticides.  Clearly linked to the purging and

-------
                                                                             Page 34

        runoff from rinsing the pesticide tanks, this ground-water contamination could
        have been avoided with minimal runoff control

(3)      Preventing improper disposal in septic systems  or dry wells.  Light  industrial
        generators of solvents  and other hazardous wastes, such  as  auto repair  shops,
        electroplaters, furniture strippers, car washes, dry cleaners, and light manufacturing
        plants, have been known to dispose of their wastes  in septic systems or dry wells.
        The types of wastes that are disposed in septic systems and dry wells should be
        strictly controlled (U.S. EPA, 1986).

        Septic systems generally consist of two units:  a septic tank  and a leaching system.
        Bacteria in the septic tank anaerobically decompose solid material discharged into
        the tank.  Effluent from the septic tank then flows into the soil leaching system. As
        the wastewaters flow through the soil leachfield, some pollutants are filtered, sorbed
        onto the soil,  or undergo aerobic  degradation.  Although   septic systems can
        effectively treat and dispose most domestic wastewaters, these systems cannot treat
        all wastes. Nitrates and volatile organic solvents are generally not removed in the
        septic tank nor are they bound in the soil.  Furthermore, the ability of the soil to
        immobilize heavy metals, pathogens, and phosphates can be exhausted over time. As
        a result,  if these contaminants  are introduced into the septic  system, they can
        migrate  relatively easily  through the soils and into the ground water.  Hence,
        disposal of industrial wastewaters containing metals and organic solvents should be
        prevented. These types of wastewaters can be disposed either through hook-up to
        a sewer system or through the use of "milk-run" pick-ups to gather and transport
        hazardous materials for disposal.

        Dry and shallow wells have also been cited as an important source of ground-water
        contamination.    Contamination  has occurred through  improper disposal of
        wastewaters in these wells and through the movement of surface contaminants into
        the wells during storm events. These wells include municipal, industrial, irrigation,
        and livestock wells and unplugged test  holes.  Many older wells are improperly
        constructed with an absence of casing. Therefore, contaminants that enter the wells
        can move into all water-bearing  strata.  Furthermore, these abandoned wells are
        frequently left uncapped, increasing the likelihood for contamination.  Disposal in
        these wells is controlled by the underground injection control program under the
        Safe Drinking Water Act. Discharging to shallow wells should be prevented and the
        waste  management shifted  to  recycling or  off-site disposal.   In  addition, all
        abandoned wells  should be capped to prevent the entry of any contaminants.

        Example: A Dutchess County, New York dry cleaner routinely disposed solvent
        wastes into the company's septic system.  This improper waste management
        caused a 1,500 foot long plume of various hazardous solvents and metals that
        contaminated wells for an apartment complex.  The remedial action cost $2
        million.  Proper handling and disposal of the wastes  could have completely
        prevented the ground-water threat.

(4)      Minimizing the  intensive use or overuse  of materials, such as road  salts and
        agricultural chemicals.  Many incidents of ground-water contamination have been
        linked to the storage and use of road salts.  Furthermore, agricultural chemicals are
        frequently used  to control vegetation growing in  utility or  road right-of-ways.
        Preventing or limiting  the use of these materials in areas of high ground-water
        vulnerability or switching to other methods of road and right-of-way maintenance will
        help minimize ground-water contamination.  For example, abrasives or other  road
        deicers such as potassium chloride have been substituted for sodium chloride, which
        is  a common  ground-water  contaminant.   Similarly,  in  some areas  Wellhead
        Protection Program managers are returning to mechanical  methods of vegetation

-------
                                                                              Page 35

        control, such as mowing, to maintain  right-of-ways.  ( Massachusetts  Dept. of
        Environmental Quality Engineering, May 1982)

        Example: In Wisconsin, a seed culturing facility intensively applied pesticides
        with heavy watering. The heavy use of pesticides, such as atrazine, is causing
        a threat to ground water.  The extent of contamination is not yet determined,
        but  correctly  managing the use  of the pesticide  and controlling water
        applications would reduce the threat to ground water.

(5)      Preventing leakage from underground storage tanks and pipelines.  Underground
        storage tanks are a well known source  of contamination.   Trucking companies,
        highway departments, and  auto service stations use underground tanks to store
        petroleum products.  Other industries, such as agricultural supply services, may use
        tanks  to  store chemical pesticide and  fertilizer  products.  In addition, product
        delivery or internal material management pipelines may leak and contaminate ground
        water.  Many of these underground storage tanks and pipelines are regulated under
        Subtitle I of RCRA, but smaller tanks and certain  types of pipelines may not be
        addressed  under current  controls.   Leaks from  underground storage tanks  and
        pipelines result  from defects  in materials, improper installation, corrosion, or
        mechanical failure of the pipes and fittings.   Many underground storage tanks
        installed prior to the RCRA Subtitle I controls were simply made of bare carbon
        steel.  The corrosion of these bare steel tanks is by far the most serious cause of
        leaks.  In addition, leaks from pipe fittings  or tanks damaged during installation are
        a serious threat.  The following practices can ensure that such leaks are identified
        and addressed:

        •       Closely monitor the inventory in  the tanks to determine
               whether  product is lost through leaks;

        •       Conduct regular pressure leak testing  of tanks and pipe
               fittings;

        •       Require annual testing of unprotected steel  tanks  and
               piping systems, especially for those aged 15 years or more;

        •       Install leak-detection systems to monitor continuously for
               releases;

        •       Install cathodic corrosion protection systems, especially in
               highly corrosive environments;

        •       For new tanks, conduct a tightness test  and  inspection for
               the complete tank and piping system before the tank is
               filled; and

        •       Install systems to prevent overfilling of the  tanks, such as
               feed cut-off systems and by-pass systems to standby tanks.
               (Massachusetts   Dept.   of  Environmental   Quality
               Engineering and FR 37082, 1988)

        Example: A leaking underground storage tank at a gasoline station in Walpole,
        Massachusetts released approximately 3,000 gallons of gasoline.  The release
        contaminated 23  wells  with constituents such as benzene and toluene. Better
        controls on the underground tank system could  have greatly decreased the
        ground-water contamination.

-------
                                                                             Page 36

(6)     Controlling improper storage of raw materials or product stockpiles. Materials stored
        on the ground and in uncovered areas may leak or leach hazardous materials.  Such
        problems can be prevented by storing materials in covered areas and on pads with
        drains or over catchment basins. These control measures are especially effective for
        materials, such  as treated  lumber, that may leach hazardous materials if they are
        exposed to rain or the elements. (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1983)

        Example:  Eight well contamination incidents in  Rhode Island have been
        recorded due to the improper storage of salt used to deice highways.  At these
        locations, the salt piles were neither covered nor stored on a containment pad.
        High levels of chloride and sodium have contaminated the ground water after
        leaching from the storage sites.  Lack of protection of the salt from the weather
        has caused significant loss of salt to and contamination of the ground water.

(7)     Following general good housekeeping practices to catch spills and leaks.  General
        operating procedures should include placing drip pans or catchment basins under
        machinery or material storage areas.  Released materials captured in this way should
        be managed through reuse and recycling or proper containment followed by off-site
        disposal. (U.S.  EPA, 1988)

        Example: A printed circuit board manufacturer in St. Louis Park, Minnesota
        contaminated ground  water with trichloroethylene  (TCE) and heavy metals.
        The source  of contamination was an unnoticed and uncaptured leak in the
        wastewater management system.  Ground-water contamination resulted from
        the absence of a secondary containment in the wastewater management system.
        4.2     Long-Term Solutions:  Pollution Prevention - Source Reduction, Recycling,
               and Treatment

        Combining management controls with technology-based techniques for minimizing
the generation of waste will enhance the prospects for long-term protection of Wellhead
Protection Areas.  EPA encourages pollution prevention, i.e., the reduction or elimination,
to the extent feasible, of any waste that is generated and subsequently treated, stored, or
disposed (U.S. EPA/OSWER, October 1987).  This section presents the three pollution
prevention categories recognized by EPA.  For each category, a "composite" case study is
presented to illustrate the potential threat to Wellhead Protection Areas posed by waste
generation.   Each "composite"  case  study  combines  a description of  a ground-water
contamination case and a description of an applicable pollution prevention technique.  These
composite cases illustrate the  manner in which the three general pollution prevention
techniques may support wellhead protection activities.

(1)     Source reduction.  Source reduction often involves  changes to  input
        materials,  technology changes, and procedural or organizational changes.
        Source reduction techniques include the following:

        •      Training and supervision, which provides information and
               incentives to employees to  effectively minimize  waste
               generation;

-------
                                                                        Page 37
 •       Production  planning  and  sequencing,  which  requires
        planning to ensure  that  only necessary operations  are
        performed and optimized to reduce waste generation;

 •       Process/equipment  adjustment  or  modification,  which
        •involves changing process parameters, equipment,  or  the
        process itself to reduce the amount of waste generated;

 •       Raw material  substitution, which  replaces  existing raw
        materials  with raw  materials  that  will result  in  the
        generation of less waste;

 •       Loss  prevention  and   housekeeping,   which  involves
        maintaining and managing equipment and materials in such
        a way so as to minimize the opportunity for spills, leaks,
        and other undesired releases of hazardous materials; and

 •       Waste segregation and separation, which involves avoiding
        the  mixing of different types of hazardous  and/or non-
        hazardous wastes so as to best utilize any individual waste
        stream  that  is  recoverable  or usable  in   its existing
        composition.

Example: A Dade County, Florida facility repairs diesel truck fuel injectors.
Before repair, fuel injectors are completely cleaned by removing any fuel, oil,
grease, dirt,  or other contaminants that may inhibit the mechanic's ability to
repair the parts.   The facility employed  strong organic solvents such  as
methylene chloride and cresylic acid to remove the dirt and fuel, followed by an
aqueous rinse step to remove any remaining solvent and dirt.  The company
produced waste solvents from the initial solvent cleaning step and solvent-laden
rinsewaters from  the aqueous rinsing process.  The waste solventIdirt mixture
was sent off-site for disposal.  The contaminated rinsewaters were routed to the
facility's septic system which was ineffective in digesting the organic chemicals.
 These chemicals were then discharged into the septic system soil absorption field
thereby contaminating soil and the shallow water table with methylene chloride
and cresylic acid.  The contamination of water in the wellhead area  will create
a  significant risk to those who consume  the  ground  water if the releases
continue or if a  cleanup of the contaminated soil  and ground water is  not
performed.  The cost of contamination removal will be extensive.

        The company could employ an in-line heated aqueous cleaning system
to clean the injectors before repair,  replacing the  solvent cleaning process
involving the organic chemicals.  The in-line system cleans the pans with an
aqueous cleaner,  then follows with a  water rinse.  This cleaning system reuses
the aqueous cleaning solution.  The system also uses rinsewaters to replenish
the evaporative losses from the cleaning tank, instead of wasting them  by
discharge to the septic system.  The cleaning system requires a hot gas drying
step after the cleaning process.  When replacing the spent cleaning solution, the
vendor maintains the cleaning system by removing the accumulated sludge. The
sludge then  is disposed  by the  vendor as  a hazardous  waste.  This practice
eliminates any discharge to the septic system from the initial cleaning operation.
 This waste minimization practice prevents further contamination of the ground
water underlying the facility's septic discharge area.  In addition, the sludge is
less  dangerous and a smaller quantity than the waste solvents  that were
drummed and sent off-site for disposal in the previous practice. If the facility
had  used  the aqueous  cleaning  system throughout  its  life,  the  initial

-------
	Page 38

        contamination of ground water could have been avoided.  Because solvent
        discharge to  the  septic  system is stopped, ground-water contamination is
        eliminated and health risks to the community are reduced. Additional cost
        savings result from eliminated solvent purchase and disposal despite the cost of
        the new cleaning system and the drying step.  The payback period for the change
        is estimated at five years.  (Office of Safe Waste Management, Massachusetts,
        October 23, 1986)

(2)     Recycling. Recycling involves the use, reuse, or reclamation of a hazardous waste as
        an effective  substitute for a commercial product or as an ingredient or feedstock.
        This use, reuse, or reclamation can  occur on-site, or  it can be  done by off-site
        recycling services or waste exchanges.  Examples of recycling include using a small
        on-site  still  to  recover degreasing  solvents  or selling waste  pickling  acids as
        feedstocks for fertilizer manufacturing.

        Example: A facility in Corvallis,  Oregon deposits chrome onto the surface of
        parts with electroplating.   The electroplating process employs a series of tanks
        into which the parts are submerged to deposit the chromium  onto the part
        surfaces (process tanks), and to rinse  the excess chromium from the surfaces
        (rinse tanks).  The facility generated an estimated 1,000 gallons per year of
        waste rinsewater from the plating process,  with chromium as the  hazardous
        constituent.  There was  no attempt to prevent the loss of chromium  to the
        rinsewaters.  The chromium rinsewaters were disposed into a dry well on-site
        resulting in the chromium contamination of approximately 350 tons of soil and
        2.4  million gallons of ground water.   Approximately $2.5  million  will be
        required to clean up the contaminated soil and ground water.

                The company could  employ  a closed-loop evaporation  system to
        recover the chromium from the rinsewater (USEPA, March 1989). The system
        increases the chromium concentration in the rinsewater effluent by driving off
        the water.  The concentrated rinsewater solution then is returned to the original
        plating  bath, thus  conserving  chromium,  and  no longer generating the
        chromium-bearing rinsewaters.   This  waste  minimization practice  prevents
        further contamination of the ground water underlying the facility.  If the facility
        had  used this waste  minimization practice throughout its life,  the  initial
        contamination of ground water could have been  avoided. Additional cost
        savings result from  chromium conservation (chromium usage is reduced by
        more than 97percent).  The chromium raw material cost savings alone ensure
        a payback period of less than  one year for the waste minimization project.

(3)     Treatment.  Treatment, the least preferred pollution prevention technique, involves
        processing the hazardous waste after it is produced to reduce its toxicity or volume.
        Waste toxicity can be reduced by destroying certain chemicals the waste  contains,
        such as volatile organics. Volume reductions may be accomplished by filtering or
        drying a waste to reduce its water content. Because treatment still involves the
        production of the hazardous waste,  source reduction and recycling are preferable
        pollution prevention techniques.

        Example:   A Wausau,  Wisconsin  facility provides printing  and graphic
        reproduction services.  The facility uses inks and solvents in the development of
        the printing and graphics products. Solvents for ink formulation and equipment
        cleaning includeperchloroethylene; trichloroethylene; 1,2, trans-dichloroethylene;
        toluene; and xylene.  Most of the wastes were generated by two unit operations:
        (1) residual  and unused  ink mixtures from the graphics production group, and
        (2) solvent wastes from the equipment cleaning operations.  Because of the
        organic chemicals contained in these wastes, they are a mixture ofRCRA listed

-------
                                                                              Page 39
        hazardous wastes. Both the residual and unused inks and the spent cleaning
        solvents  were  disposed  in  a  manner  that  resulted  in  ground-water
        contamination.   The practice resulted in ground-water contamination  by
        perchloroethylene  (100 ppb),   trichloroethylene   (100 ppb),   1,2,-trans-
        dichloroethylene (339 ppb), toluene  (concentration  unspecified), and xylene
        (concentration  unspecified).    Three  high-yield  production  wells   were
        contaminated causing a drinking water health threat.   The contamination
        cleanup expense included cost of a granular activated carbon adsorber to treat
        the contaminated ground water, in addition to the labor cost to install, operate,
        and maintain the treatment operation.

               The company could employ the following techniques in order to reduce
        the amount of hazardous wastes produced in the printing process:  (1) filtration
        and reuse of waste inks for house colors, and (2) distillation of the solvents
        from the cleaning process for reuse.   The inks are reused in  various products
        which do not require exact matching of colors (Campbell and Glenn, 1982 and
        San Diego Department  of Health Services, 1987).  This practice reduces to a
        large degree the waste and unused inks disposed with the solvent wastes.  The
        distillation of the cleaning solvents allows reuse of these recycled solvents for
        ink preparation and cleaning purposes,  which eliminates the bulk disposal of
        used inks and organic solvents.   The onfy material  requiring disposal is the
        sludge  that forms in the distillation unit.   The sludge resulting from the
        distillation process is  sent off-site for disposal.   The  waste minimization
        practices prevent further contamination of the ground water by reusing inks and
        recycling solvents. Direct cost savings result from lowered ink and solvent
        purchase and reduced waste and sludge disposal costs. The payback period for
        the change is about one year.
        4.3     Analysis and Discussion

        Management controls  and waste  minimization techniques often require careful
planning, creative problem solving, changes in perspective regarding material handling, and
some capital investment. Nonetheless, in addition to protecting Wellhead Protection Areas,
light industries have adopted such practices  to save money through more efficient use of
valuable resources, reduced regulatory compliance costs, and reduced waste treatment disposal
costs.  Other, less tangible benefits  to light  industry from such practices include reduced
financial liabilities (the less waste generated,  the lower the potential for cleanup and third-
party compensation due to environmental releases) and enhanced image in the community
(local residents respond favorably to environmentally responsible behavior by industry).

        Industry groups and local governments can and do play a major role in promoting
management controls and waste minimization techniques by helping disseminate information
and transferring technology to  light industry  regarding management controls (e.g., through
training seminars, workshops,  guidance materials).  Also,  local governments can develop
location and design standards in order to protect Wellhead Protection Areas. For example,
the citizens of Spokane, Washington formed a planning group to develop  a strategy for
protecting their ground water and released a Water Quality Management Plan which includes
recommendations for controlling chemical spills and leaks through methods such as land use
and zoning regulations, development and enforcement  of best management  practices, and
public education.

-------
	Page 40

        Chapter  3  of this  document  presents  several other successful State and  local
Wellhead Protection Programs. Most, if not all of these programs encourage and/or require
facilities within the Wellhead Protection Area to implement management controls and waste
minimization techniques.  For example, part of the Cape  Cod Planning and Economic
Development Commission plan that protects Wellhead Protection Areas involves "milk runs"
to many of the  smaller, largely conditionally exempt, generators in the area in order to pick
up wastes produced. Aggregating these waste quantities secures a more reasonable disposal
rate.  Without  this practice, the generators, which are not otherwise required to dispose of
the waste in any particular fashion, could begin discharging wastes into sewer lines or with
regular solid waste.

        In  sum,  management controls are being  applied  by  light  industries  in  many
jurisdictions as an effective part of Wellhead Protection Programs.  Furthermore, waste
minimization techniques that have been adopted by larger industries may also be incorporated
by light industry to  better ensure long-term protection of Wellhead Protection Areas.

-------
                                                                             Page 41

5.0  Conclusions

        This document has provided a broad  overview of the  potential impact of light
industrial activities on Wellhead Protection Areas. There are many wellhead areas already
defined throughout the United States and many more will be delineated in the next few years.
Although the precise number of light industries located within and in close proximity to
Wellhead Protection Areas is not known  at this time, this document will assist Wellhead
Protection Program managers in identifying and controlling these sources of potential
contaminants. As the number of light industries continues to increase  in this country and
more light industries become located in formerly rural and suburban areas, the potential
impact on Wellhead Protection Areas may also increase.

        The limited data collection effort conducted to support this analysis indicates that
a  broad array  of light industry types  have  been  associated with  past ground-water
contamination incidents. Waste management and disposal activities are identified as the main
source of contamination, while production processes and raw material and product storage
are also a significant source of contaminant releases. A variety of contaminants are involved
in releases from light industries, with chlorinated solvents and metals identified as the most
prevalent constituents in ground water.  However, the actual risk to human health and the
environment posed by light industries is unknown.

        Among  the issues involved in determining the actual threat  to public health and the
environment from light industrial activity is an assessment of the extent of exposure to release
events.  The extent of exposure to a population is a function of factors such as the number
of potential points of release, the volume of individual releases, the mobility of released
constituents in the environment,  and the proximity of the exposed population to releases.
Light industrial activity in this country is extensive; therefore, there are many potential points
of release.  Light industries also have the capability to release materials that are mobile in
the environment and toxic.  Furthermore, because many of these light industries are located
in or near Wellhead  Protection Areas, there is a  high  potential for exposure to releases
through drinking water supplies.  What is largely unknown at this  time is the volume and
frequency of likely releases from light industries.  The data reported in this document
provide a limited overview of the  topic, but this information is far from conclusive.
Nonetheless,  based  upon the information  available  to date,  most releases from light
industries appear to be of small to moderate size, compared to those observed from larger
industries. Although this conclusion is very preliminary in nature and may change as more
information is gathered, the data suggest that the potential for small  to medium-size releases
from the large number of light industries located in Wellhead Protection Areas may pose a
threat to populations relying on ground water for their drinking water supplies.

        Several  State  and  local  governments  have developed innovative approaches for
protecting Wellhead Protection Areas from these light industrial sources of contamination.
These approaches include aggressive source  identification, zoning, other land use controls,
and  education and technology transfer activities to encourage  light industries to adopt
protective management controls.  Several of the management controls and waste minimization
techniques that have been recommended by EPA and State and local  authorities and adopted
by certain light industries are presented in Chapter 4. These management controls and waste

-------
                                                                             Page 42

minimization techniques can be adopted as an  integral part  of a Wellhead Protection
Program. As presented here, these management controls and waste minimization techniques
represent activities that have been or can be applied at light industrial facilities to limit the
threat of releases to ground water.  These practices are described as guidance to illustrate
the types of activities that have been adopted by industry;  however, they do not represent
techniques that can be applied  in all instances or that may be appropriate  for all light
industries.  References that Wellhead Protection Program managers may use to identify
practices and techniques that may be appropriate for individual light industries are available
on request from EPA.

-------
                                                                          Page 43

6.0 References

       The sources listed below were used to develop the discussions in chapters 1 through
4 of this document.
Althoff, W. R, Clearly, R.W., and Roux, P.H. 1981. Aquifer Decontamination for Volatile
Organics: A Case History. Ground Water. 19(5): 495-504.

American  Chemical Society. July 1981. Survey of Laboratory Practices  and Policies for
Employee Protection from Exposure to Chemicals.

American  Chemical Society. September 28, 1982. Report from the CSC/CCPA/CEI Task
Force on RCRA on Clarification and Recordkeeping for Laboratory Waste Chemicals.

American  Chemical Society. 1986. RCRA and Laboratories.

Boateng, K., Evers, P.C., Testa, S.M. 1984. Groundwater Contamination of Two Production
Wells:  A Case History. Groundwater Monitoring Review. 4(2): 24-31.

California Department of Health Services. July, 1986. Alternative Technology for Recycling
and Treatment of Hazardous Wastes, Third Biennial Report.

Cantor, L.W., Knox, R.C., and Fairchild, D.M. 1988. Ground Water Quality Protection. Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, MI, 562 pp.

Cape Cod Planning and Economic  Development Commission. 1987. Cape Cod Regional
Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Small Quantity Generators.  Prepared by SEA
Consultants, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency. February, 1981. Guide to Groundwater and
Aquifer Protection, Town of Burlington.

Clark, F.W. and Sanborn P.M. 1985. Evaluation of Contamination by Organics and Heavy
Metals in Soil  and Bedrock Aquifer.   Second  Annual  Eastern Regional  Groundwater
Conference, Proceedings. July 16-18, 1985. pp. 529-542.

Connecticut Department  of Environmental  Protection.  1984.  Protecting  Connecticut's
Groundwater - A Guide to Groundwater Protection for Local Officials.

Conservation  Law  Foundation.  1984.  Underground  Petroleum  Storage  Tanks: Local
Regulation of A Groundwater Hazard (A Massachusetts Prototype).

Duffy, W.J., Moose, R., and Tomalavage, S.J. 1980. Contamination of Ground Water Supplies
by Trichloroethylene - Three Case Histories.  Third Annual Madison Conference on Applied
Research Practice on Municipal and Industrial Waste, Proceedings. September 10-12, 1980.
pp. 187-200.

Elliot,  R.W. 1985. Toluene Loss Investigation and Remedial Action of Two Geologically
Complex Industrial Sites in Eastern Nebraska. Petroleum Hydrocarbons  and Organic
Chemicals  in  Ground Water  -  Prevention,  Detection,  and  Restoration, Proceedings.
November 13-15, 1985. pp.374-396.

Environment   Canada.  March,  1987.  Catalogue  of  Successful  Hazardous   Waste
Reduction/Recycling Projects. Prepared for Industrial  Programs Branch,  Conservation  &
Protection by Energy Pathways Inc. and Pollution Probe Foundation.

-------
                                                                          Page 44

Environment Canada. January, 1984. Technical Manual - Waste Abatement, Reuse, Recycle
and Reduction Opportunities in Industry

Epstein, S., L. Brown, and C. Pope. 1982. Hazardous Waste in America. Sierra Club Press.

Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Georgia Institute of Technology. April 1985. The Georgia Tech Hazardous Waste On-Site
Consultation Program:  Approach and Results.

Illinois Environmental  Protection Agency. January,  1988. A Primer Regarding Certain
Provisions of the Illinois Groundwater Protection Act.

Institute for Local Self-Reliance. (no date). Proven Profits from Pollution Prevention - Case
Studies in Resource Conservation and Waste Reduction.

James, R.B., Eisenberg, D.M., and Oliveri, A. 1984.  Regulation of Underground Storage
Tanks in the San Francisco Bay Area. Seventh Annual Madison Waste Conferences Municipal
and Industrial Waste, Proceedings. September 11-12, 1984. pp.325-334.

Latsha, J.L. 1987. VOC Removal  from Groundwater - A Case History. Water Pollution
Control Association of Pennsylvania Magazine. 20(5) :6-9.

Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1985. Nonpoint Source Management  Handbook.
Hauppauge, New York.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, Massachusetts Hazardous Waste
Source Conference Proceedings, October 17, 1984.

Massachusetts  Department  of Environmental  Quality  Engineering.  July,  1987.  The
Management of Toxic and Hazardous Materials in a  Zone of Contribution on Cape Cod,
(Tara Gallagher, ed.).

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality  Engineering. August, 1987. Pesticides
and Drinking Water, Responsibilities of Massachusetts Boards of Health.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. May, 1982. Groundwater
Quality and Protection - A Guide for Local Officials.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, (no date). Requirements
for Small Quantity and Very Small Quantity Generators of Hazardous Waste; Satellite
Accumulation of Hazardous Waste.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. February, 1988. Hazardous
Waste Fact Sheets for:

               Vehicle Maintenance and Autobody Repair
               Used Oil
               Space Heaters  (burning waste oil)
               Underground Tanks Storing Waste Oil
               Graphic Artists, Printers, and Photographers
               Laboratories
               Construction Companies
               Furniture Manufacturers, Finishers, Refinishers, and Woodworkers
               Drycleaners
               Metal Finishers

-------
                                                                          Page 45

               Boatyards and Marinas
               Golf Courses
               Small Engine Repair Shops

Massachusetts Special Water Commission on Water Supply. December 1986. Contamination
in Municipal Water Supplies.

National Water Well Association  - 3rd National  Symposium and Exposition on Aquifer
Restoration and Groundwater Monitoring, May 1983.

National Water Well Association  - 4th National  Symposium and Exposition on Aquifer
Restoration and Groundwater Monitoring, May 1984.

National Water Well Association  - 6th National  Symposium and Exposition on Aquifer
Restoration and Groundwater Monitoring, May 1986.

National Conference  on Control of Hazardous Material Spills, Proceedings, Miami Beach,
FL, April 11-13, 1978.

National Conference on Control of Hazardous Material Spills, Proceedings, Louisville, KY,
May 13-15, 1980.

National Governors Association. June, 1988. State Hazardous Waste Minimization Programs.
Prepared by ICF Incorporated.

New York Department of Environmental Conservation. July, 1988. Regulations for Chemical
Bulk Storage.

New York Department of Environmental Conservation. August, 1983. Report of the Central
Southern Tier Groundwater Critical Recharge Area Project for Erwin, New York.

New York Department of Environmental Conservation. January 1983. Technology  for the
Storage of Hazardous Liquids: A State of the Art Review.

New York  State Environmental Facilities Corporation:  Industrial Materials Recycling
Program Annual Report[s], New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation, 1982,
1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987.

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources. May 1985. Profits of Pollution Prevention
- A Compendium of North Carolina Case Studies.

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, (no date).
Accomplishments of North Carolina Industries - Case summaries.

Office of Management and Budget. 1987. Standard Industrial Classification Manual.

Oliveria, D.P. and Sitar, N. 1985. Ground Water Contamination from Under Ground Solvent
Tanks,  Santa Clara,  California. Fifth  National Symposium and Exposition on Aquifer
Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring, Proceedings. May 21-24, 1985. pp. 691-708.

Ontario Ministry of  the Environment. June,  1983. Blueprint for Waste Management in
Ontario.

-------
                                                                          Page 46

Ontario Waste Management Corporation, (no date). Industrial Waste Audit and Reduction
Manual:  Case Study 2 -- Steel Pickling.

Patrick, R., Ford, E. and Quarles, J. 1987. Groundwater Contamination in the United States.
University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 513 pp.

Pima Association of Governments. May, 1988. Metropolitan Tucson Basin Water Quality and
Pollution Source Assessment (Draft).

Portland, Oregon. May,  1988. Columbia South Shore Hazardous Materials Containment
Facilities Design Handbook. (Also, local ordinance restricting certain high risk and hazardous
materials industry and activities.)

Pyles, D., Stimpson, K., Bowden, R., and Wu, B. 1985. Wausau Wisconsin: A Case Study of
an Immediate  Removal Action to Secure and Investigate a Contaminated Water Supply.
Eighth Annual Madison Waste Conference on Municipal and Industrial Waste, Proceedings.
September 18-19, 1985. p. 509.

Quality of Ground Water Symposium - March,  1981: ed.  by W. van Duijvenbooden, P.
Glasbergen (Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,  1981)

Quince, J.R., Ohneck, R.J., and Vondrick, J.J. 1985. Response to an Environmental Incident
Affecting Ground Water. Fifth National Symposium and Exposition on Aquifer Restoration
and Ground Water Monitoring, Proceedings, May 21-24, 1985. pp. 598-608.

Roberts, J.R.,  Cherry, J.A., and Schwartz, F.W.  1982. A Case Study  of a Chemical Spill:
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): History, Distribution, and Surface Translocation. Water
Resources Research. 18:525-534.

Schenectady County Planning Commission, (no date). Groundwater Supply Source Protection,
A Guide for Localities in Upstate New York.

Southern California Association of Governments. May, 1985.  Hazardous Waste Management
Plan for Small Quantity Generators:  Final Report.

Southern Tier Central Regional Planning and Development Board. June 1985. Formal Report
of the Central  Southern Tier Groundwater Critical Recharge Area Project.

Spokane Water Quality Management Program coordination Office and Technical Advisory
Committee.  July  1986. Critical Materials Handbook.

Tacoma, Washington - Groundwater Protection Ordinance, May, 1988.  Contains General
Guidance and Performance Standards for Underground and Aboveground Tanks and for Spill
Prevention and Management.

Tennessee  Department  of  Economic and Community Development,  August  1986(a).
Hazardous Waste Management Assistance: Electroplaters.

Tennessee  Department  of  Economic and Community Development,  August  1986(b).
Hazardous Waste Management Assistance: Paper Products  Manufactures.

Tennessee  Department  of  Economic and Community Development,  August  1986(c).
Hazardous Waste Management Assistance: Printers and Publishers.

Tennessee  Department  of  Economic and Community Development,  August  1986(d).
Hazardous Waste Management Assistance: Dry Cleaners.

-------
                                                                          Page 47

Tennessee Department of  Economic  and Community Development,  August  1986(e).
Hazardous Waste Management Assistance: Automobile Body Repair and Paint Shops.

Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development.  August  1986 (f).
Hazardous Waste Management Assistance: Furniture Fabricators.

University of Tennessee, Energy, Environment and Resource Center.  Measures to Promote
the Reduction and Recycling of Hazardous Wastes in Tennessee.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1985. Census of Manufacturers.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Water Program Operations. October, 1980.
Design Manual: Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Manual. EPA 625/1-80-012.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Drinking Water. October, 1983.  Sanitary
Survey Training.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Solid Waste. April, 1984. Assessment of
Hazardous Waste Mismanagement Damage Case Histories.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1985. Protection of Public  Water Supplies  from
Ground-Water Contamination. U.S. EPA Technology Transfer Publication.  EPA/625/4-
85/016.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February, 1985. National Small Quantity Hazardous
Waste Generator Survey.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Solid Waste. July, 1985. Regulatory Impact
Analysis: Proposed Standards  for  the Management of Used Oil.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Ground-Water Protection. July,  1985. Septic
Systems and Ground-Water Protection: A Program Manager's  Guide  and Reference Book.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August, 1985. The Scrap Metal Recycling Industry.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Solid Waste. January, 1986. Analysis of the
Combined Impact of Various EPA Regulatory Initiatives on Generators of 100-1000 Kg/Mo.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Solid  Waste. October,  1986. Report to
Congress:  Waste Minimization Issues and Options, Volume II.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency/Office of Ground-Water Protection. 1987. An
Annotated Bibliography of Wellhead Protection References, EPA 440/6-87-014.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/OSW. February, 1987.  Characterization of Releases
from Non-Subtitle C Technologies.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III, Philadelphia, PA. April, 1987. Hazardous
Waste Minimization Manual for Small Quantity Generators in Pennsylvania.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Solid  Waste and Emergency Response.
October 1987. Waste Minimization: Environmental Quality and Economic Benefits. EPA/530-
SW-87-026.

-------
	Page 48

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Engineering Research Laboratory. March, 1988.
Information for Wellhead Protection Managers on the Potential Impacts of Selected Sources
of Groundwater Contamination with Emphasis on Activities Associated with Agricultural
Irrigation and Light Industrial Parks (Draft).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Ground-Water Protection. April 1989.
Wellhead Protection Programs:  Tools for Local Government.

U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. October, 1984. Protecting the Nation's Groundwater
from Contamination (Vols. I and II).

Vermont Department of Environmental  Protection.  1984. An Ounce of Prevention  -A
Ground Water Protection Handbook for Local Officials.

Virginia Water Resources Center  (Margaret  Hrezo & Pat Nickinson,  eds). Nov., 1986.
Protecting Virginia's Groundwater:  A Handbook for Local Government Officials.

Washington Department of Ecology. December 1986. Ground Water Resource Protection -
A Handbook for Local Planners and Decision Makers in Washington State. Prepared by King
County Resource Planning.

Winegardner, D.L., Erickson, M. and Quince, J.R. 1985. Aquifer Restoration: Case Histories.
Fifth  National Symposium  and Exposition on Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water
Monitoring, Proceedings. May 21-24, 1988. pp. 611-626.

Winegardner, D.L. and Quince, J.R. 1984. Ground Water Restoration Projects: Five Case
Histories. Fourth National Symposium and Exposition on Aquifer Restoration and Ground
Water Monitoring, Proceedings. May 23-25, 1984. pp. 386-393.

Wisconsin Geological & Natural History Survey. September, 1985. Ground Water Protection
Principles and Alternatives for Rock County, Wisconsin.

Wisconsin Geological  & Natural History Survey (Born, et. al.). 1988.  Wellhead Protection
Districts in Wisconsin: An Analysis and Test Application.

Yoder, Douglas.  Protection of Wellfields and Recharge Areas in Dade County, Florida, pp.
183-198.

-------