DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
for
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE REGULATIONS
(Regulations mandated by Section 311, Pub. L. 92-500
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972)
DRAFT
January 1976
-------
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
for
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE REGULATIONS
(Regulations mandated by Section 311, Pub. L. 92-500,
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972)
January 1976
Hazardous Substances Branch
Criteria and Standards Division
Office of Water Planning and Standards
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
-------
Foreword
This development document is one of a series of publications
by the Environmental Protection Agency to present information
which is considered useful in developing a national program for
the control of hazardous substance spills. Contained in this volume
the reader will find an explanation of criteria and rationale used
to select elements and compounds for priority attention under the
national program. Review of the document and its data supplement
in its entirety should provide the reader with a technical basis for
the four key regulations needed to implement the national program
provided for under Section 311 of The Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972.
The information contained in this document is intended to build
upon detailed information provided in EPA Report #440/9-75-005 a-d,
Determination of Harmful Quantities and Rates of Penalty for
Hazardous Substances. The present document contains condensed
versions of some information from the previous report and fre-
quently refers to it, but contains much additional information.
It is reasonable to anticipate that additional publications in this
hazardous substance series will include methods and costs of spill
prevention, procedures for spill response and mitigation, safety
information, recent bioassay results and updates of previous reports
such as the Field Detection and Damage Assessment Handbook for
Oil and Hazardous Material Spills.
-------
-2-
This document is intended to provide information supplemental
to that contained in the preambles to the several hazardous sub-
stance regulations. Individuals whose work is particularly acknow-
ledged are Dr. Gregory Kew, Mr. Jonathan Amson, Mr. Robert
Sanford, Mr. Charles Gentry, Jr., and Dr. Allen Jennings.
Ms. Mary Smaldore's contribution as typist is most appreciated.
The sole purpose of assembling the information has been to
provide a basis to meet the regulation requirements under Section
311. As such, this information should not be confused with that
collected for other purposes nor should it be viewed as valid for
alternative uses. Although the Agency has attempted to include
all available information, there is no attempt to represent the
data as complete or final. Additions and corrections are en-
couraged and may be achieved by contacting Hazardous Substances
Branch, WH-595, Office of Water Planning and Standards,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. 20460(202)
245-3036.
Dr. C. Hugh Thompson
Chief
Hazardous Substances Branch WH-595
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables
List of Figures
Introduction
Chapter I - MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM
A. Introduction
B. Water uses
C. Number of spills
D. State interest in hazardous substance spill programs
E. Industrial interest in hazardous substance spill programs
Chapter II - SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPORTANCE OF REGULATIONS
Chapter III - LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
A. Congressional committee interpretive language
B. Purpose and implications of Section 311
C. Relationship to other provisions of Federal law
D. International implications
E. Pubic participation
Chapter IV - DESIGNATION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
A. Introduction
B. General considerations
C. Rationale and basis for proposed toxicity selection criteria
D. Additional selection criteria considered but rejected at present
Chapter V - DETERMINATION OF ACTUAL REMOVABILITY
Chapter VI - DETERMINATION OF HARMFUL QUANTITIES AND
RATES OF PENALTY
A. General considerations
B. Choice of toxicological data base
C. Detailed description of hybrid methodologies
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter VII - ECONOMIC IMPACT OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE
REGULATIONS
A. Introduction
B. Civil penalties
C. Cost of spill response
D. Spill prevention
E. Cost of insurance
F. Price impacts
G. Energy impacts
Chapter VIII - RECOMMENDATIONS
Appendix
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Number Title
1-1 Sources of Spills 1-14
1-2 Frequency of Spills 1-15
1-3 Pollution Incidents from Sources 1-15
1-4 Amounts Spilled 1-16
1-5 Causes of Spills 1-16
1-6 Spill Mitigation Attempts 1-17
1-7 Accident Frequency by State and Year 1-18
1-8 Accident Frequency by Month 1-19
1-9 Historical Summary of Pollution 1-21
Caused Fish Kills, 1960-1974
I-10 State Hazardous Substance 1-23
Spill Regulatory Programs
I-11 Estimates of Direct Economic 1-28
Losses from Spills
IV-1 Materials from Proposed 40 CFR IV-23
Part 116 with Verified Production
Quantities but No OHM-SIRS Spill
Information
IV-2 Materials Deleted Because of Low IV-34
Potential for Discharge
IV-3 Elemental Composition - IV-42
Freshwater Algae
V-l Physical Properties of Removability V-4
VI-1 Impact Periods Assigned to Material VI-22
Classifications in Deriving the "Anf"
Factor
VI-2 Impact Periods/Anf Factors VI-23
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
N umber Title Page
VI-3 Dispersibility Factor Class VI-24
Definitions
VI-4 Relative "Disp" Factors for Various VI-25
Water Body Types
VI-5 Guidelines for Categorizing VI-29
Hazardous Substances
VI-6 EPA Categories for Harmful VI-31
Quantity (HQ) Determination
VI-7 Units of Measurement (UM) and VI-36
Base Rates of Penalty
VI-8 Physical/Chemical/Dispersal VI-38
(P/C/D) Adjustment Factors
VI-9 Final Rates of Penalty ($/UM) VI-39
VI-10 Final Rates of Penalty ($/lb) VI-40
VII-1 Summary of Estimated Penalties VII-10
VII-2 Cost of Clean-up of Hazardous VII-18
Substances
Appendix Table A-3
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Number Title
IV-A Rationale for Distinguishing Between Oils and
Materials That May Be Hazardous Substances
IV-B Pollutant Concentration Achievable by Discharge
Over Six-Hours vs. Stream Flow Rate
IV-C Spill Rate vs. Production Range
IV-D Spill Potential
IV-E Number of Spills vs. Cost of Materials Spilled
V-A Removability Determination Matrix
VI-A Rates of Penalty as a Function of Adjustment
Factors
-------
INTRODUCTION
A unique source of water pollutants came to national and interna-
tional prominence in the two years immediately preceding passage of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1970 (The Act). Oil spills
from the tankers Torrey Canyon and Ocean Eagle, from offshore plat-
forms in the Gulf of Mexico and off Santa Barbara, California pointed
out the need to address this source of water pollution. Section 11 of
the 1970 Water Pollution Control Act empowered the Federal Govern-
ment to take action against the discharge of oil. Dischargers were
required to report spills and held liable for cleanup and oil removal
costs. Provision for prevention of spills and coordinated federal re-
/
sponse to combat spills and their effects were also included.
Congress realized that a number of chemical substances, in addi-
tion to oil, were involved in pollution resulting from spills and con-
sequently included Section 12 of the Act. This section dealt with
spills of substances other than oil and authorized the executive branch
of the Federal government to develop regulations designating materials
as "hazardous substances" and to establish methods for their removal
from water. Although no liabilities or sanctions against the discharger
of hazardous substances were included, the Federal government was
authorized to take actions necessary to remove the pollutant and protect
public health or welfare.
Amendments to the Act in 1972 combined the previous Sections 11
and 12 into a new Section 311 and provided a series of liabilities and
-------
-2-
sanctions against the spill or discharge of designated hazardous sub-
stances. Certain key regulations were required before the hazardous
substance portion of Section 311 could be implemented. These dealt
with the designation of hazardous substances, determination of their
removability, establishment of harmful quantities, and setting of
penalty rates. With these four regulations the Federal government
can require reporting of spills exceeding the harmful quantities, can
assess civil penalties for discharges exceeding the harmful, quantity,
can reclaim costs of spill clean-up and damage mitigation, and can
take direct actions to protect public and environmental health if the
discharger refuses or is unable to do so. This document is intended
to reconstruct or outline the background and data used in developing
these regulations.
-------
CHAPTER I
MAGNITUDE OF THE CHEMICAL SPILL PROBLEM
A. Introduction
The design of a regulatory framework and operational program
to control chemical spills is dependent upon the definition of the
problem. This chapter sets the basic scope and definition of the
spill problem in qualitative and, to the extent possible, quantitative
terms. Throughout this section certain guideposts appear, indicating
a possible approach to subsets of the overall problem. All of these
will be expanded in later chapters dealing with development of the
individual regulations.
Spills are unique among the various routes by which pollutants
reach water. Spills from vessels, motor and rail carriers cannot
be predicted on either a time or location basis. While the location
of spills from a fixed facility can be predicted, the time of occurrence
cannot.
In contrast, non-spill discharges from fixed facilities occur at
predictable places and on a routine schedule corresponding to manu-
facturing or processing activities. Other predictable activities include
those subject to permits under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 (P. L. 92-500), and the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-532), such as ocean
dumping of wastes and dredged spoil disposal.
-------
-2-
A spill from either a fixed facility or a transportation source is
generally a sudden, unplanned release of a pollutant resulting in a
rapid increase in concentration of the material in the water. The
rate of concentration increase depends on the rate of pollutant dis-
t
charge and flow characteristics of the receiving water body. The
peak concentration attained in the receiving water depends primarily
on the total quantity released and the flow characteristics of that water
body. After peak concentration is reached, dilution begins, with the
rate of dilution dependent on the flow characteristics of the affected
water body. Water quality in the spill area is usually affected for
only a relatively short period of time by the material itself, but the
long-term effects resulting from severe or widespread damage can
reduce the overall environmental quality. Exceptions to these gener-
alities are spills of nondegradable chemicals of low solubility which
can persist in the sediments, or spills in quiescent water bodies where
dilution rates are slow. In these cases, long-term contamination and
resultant impaired water quality are of great concern,
B* Water Uses
Hazardous substances, other than oil, are defined in Section 311
of P. L. 92-500 as "..« such elements and compounds which, when dis-
charged in any quantity into or upon the navigable waters of the U.S.
or adjoining shorelines or the waters of the contiguous zone, present
an imminent and substantial danger to the public health and welfare,
including but not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, shorelines, and
beaches, " When developing a list of hazardous substances it is neces-
-------
-3-
sary to consider the potential effect of spills on intended water uses -
such as public water supply, propagation of fish or wildlife, recrea-
tion, aesthetics, agriculture and industrial needs. All of these uses
are applicable to fresh waters. In estuaries or in waters of the coastal
and contiguous zones, fish or wildlife propagation, aesthetics, and
recreation are the most important water uses. However, it is recog-
nized that the future may include water supply in the uses of marine
waters.
Examination of the potential impact of a chemical spill on each
water use requires consideration of the unique aspects of spill situa-
tions and the toxic nature of the many chemicals that may be designated
,
as "hazardous". It should be noted that (1) a spill usually results in a
concentrated "slug" of material; (2) transportation spills are unpredict-
able as to both time and location; (3) fixed facility spills are unpredictable
in time. These three factors and their impact on potential water uses
are discussed further below.
1. Public Water Supplies
Water treatment plants producing a potable public water supply are
designed to remove certain classes of pollutants from the water with
the degree of treatment employed primarily dependent upon the quality
1
of raw water . The objective of any potable water treatment facility
is to produce clean water free from pathogenic organisms, hazardous
or radioactive materials, and objectionable taste, odor, and color.
Turbidity is generally removed in a three-step process involving gravity
-------
-4-
sedimentation, flocculation precipitation, and filtration. Pathogenic
organisms are dealt with by disinfective chlorination with either gaseous
chlorine or hypochlorite salts. Objectionable tastes and odors arising
from dissolved gases are often overcome by aeration. More severe
taste and odor problems, as well as color imparting chemicals,, are
usually removed by the use of activated carbonc Waters with excessive
hardness (high magnesium or calcium content) are softened by either
the lime-soda precipitation process or an ion-exchange process usually
1
employing natural or synthetic zeolite
Water from subsurface sources generally is chlorinated as a pre-
ventive measure and softened as required, while water from, surface
sources requires, at minimum, flocculation, filtration and chlorination.
Many water treatment plants are effective in the removal of suspended
solids and disinfection, but have only limited effectiveness in the '
removal of dissolved materials.
-------
-5-
Only the most sophisticated treatment plants which employ activated
carbon and ion exchange in addition to the other, more standard floccu-
lation and filtration processes, are equipped to effectively remove certain
levels of both organic and inorganic materials. Since the design of even
the most advanced water supply treatment plants is subject to stringent
cost versus benefit analysis, most operate within specified limits and
few, if any, are equipped to deal with the possibility of sudden high
concentration of contaminant resulting from a chemical spill. Small
water supplies are therefore very vunerable to small spills of hazar-
dous substances.
Upstream treatment plants employing less refined treatment in
relatively clean waters, may be more severely impacted by a spill than
those situated below areas of heavy industrial and municipal use. Many
spills do not reach surface waters, but even in these cases ground
water aquifers may be affected, resulting in eventual contamination of
drinking water supplies. Because public water supplies can be threatened
by a chemical spill, orally administered mammalian toxicity data and
Federal Drinking Water Standards have been considered as primary data
by which the potential impact of a material on potable water use may
be assessed. The protection of public water supplies primarily depends
on prompt notification of a discharge of a hazardous substance. Several
2
programs exist today as an attempt to accomplish this task . The critical
factor for any system is timely notice of the spill. The designation of
the list of hazardous substances and the determination of harmful
-------
-6-
quantities are of utmost importance in this notification activity and
the protection of public health via the drinking water.
2. Propagation of Fish or Wildlife
The biota of any aquatic ecosystem represents that balance among
trophic levels, species, and numbers of individuals best able to exist
in that particular water body. The balance obtained is the product of
adaptation of the biota to the available water quality. It can be said*
therefore, that the aquatic ecosystem observed is in part a reflection
of water quality at the time. By adaptation, given species in given
3
numbers populate waters of given quality . Observation and experiment
demonstrate that changes in water quality produced by the introduction
4-6
of a pollutant will dictate alterations in the biota . Sensitive species
will be eliminated or reduced in number; some will adapt and repopulate;
tolerant species will remain unaffected; some may increase in. number;
4
new, tolerant species may become established . A new balance is then
reached which again depends on the currently existing water quality-
Abatement of the pollutant discharge again dictates changes in the biota
\
with eventual return to the previous balance. Completely analogous short-
term alterations can be observed with natural changes in water quality
precipitated by seasonal changes.
A guiding p'rinciple in the area of water quality is that man places
higher value on those ecosystems which are supported by the higher
water quality. Value in relation to fish and wildlife water uses can
">!
be expressed in terms of economically important food fish, recrea-
-------
-7-
tionally important game fish and animals, and aesthetically enjoyable
wildlife. Classically, water quality criteria have been developed for
sensitive, important species so that standards for their protection
could be established. The traditional criteria have been based pri-
marily on acute fish bioassays, and are expressed as median tolerance
limits (TLm) and LC50 values, or that concentration at which half
the test population die in a given time period. Extrapolation of this
laboratory data to the development of criteria has been accomplished
by the use of application factors along with other considerations.
A
The true application factor for a particular material or waste is
derived by dividing the "no effect level" by the 96-hour TLm for a
particular species. The derived factor is then multiplied by the TLm
value for any other species to arrive at an acceptable long-term re-
3
ceiving water concentration of the material to the species in question,.
The inherent difficulties in establishing truly harmless levels have
led to use of estimated application factors for approximating the
"no effect level" of various materials. Their use has been an accepted
3
practice for arriving at water quality criteria for a variety of pollutants
These estimated factors, based on persistence, chemical structure,
and chronic effects, have typically ranged from 0.01 to 0.1.
-------
-8-
biota, they are more applicable in the setting of criteria to control
the continuous discharge. Consequently, acute toxicity data, evalu-
ated without the use of application factors, have been considered to
be the most realistic basis for a decision on the designation of a
material as hazardous under Section 311.
Three potential routes of acute exposure to mammalian life are
oral, dermal or inhalational exposure. Consequently, the same
three types of data, or any combination, can be \ised to evaluate the
potential danger posed by candidate materials to mammalian life,
including man.
Unfortunately, designation of a material as hazardous and the
resultant prompt reporting of incidents will do little to actually
protect exposed fish and wildlife. Their ultimate protection from a
chemical spill hinges on prevention of the discharge by the assess-
ment of deterrent penalties or by the implementation of an adequate
spill prevention plan. Both of these control methods first require a
designation of those materials likely to adversely affect the propaga-
tion of fish and wildlife.
3. Recreation or Aesthetics
The importance of clean water as a recreational resource to
3
Americans has been documented Further, trends indicate that in-
creasing numbers of people are seeking water as an integral part of
7
their outdoor recreation .
-------
-9-
Recreational water uses can be divided into two classes, active
and passive. Active water uses consist primarily of swimming,
fishing, and boating while the passive uses are more aesthetic in
nature and include activities such as walking alongside or sitting by
water. Chemical spills can obviously impair all aspects of recrea-
tional water use. Since principles for evaluating the impact of various
substances on fish are discussed in the previous section, sport fishing
need not be further addressedc Of the other recreational uses, the
active, direct contact uses offer the greatest potential danger to the
public. The unexpected, sudden release of materials which are corro-
sive, irritating or dermally toxic, or which release toxic vapors, can
place swimmers and boaters in direct jeopardy and impair water use
until the spill passes, dilutes to a safe level, or is in some way
mitigated.
The assessment of a material's threat to contact recreation can
be made by the evaluation of appropriate acute toxicity data. Acute
inhalation and dermal toxicity data are considered as the most appli-
cable since they represent probable routes of exposure to individuals
participating in contact recreation. When available, skin and eye
irritation data may be used, but these data are generally developed
by long-term exposure and caution must be exercised when applying
them to the spill situation.
Impairment of aesthetic recreational uses arises from the pre-
viously mentioned toxic or irritating properties of chemicals, but
other less well defined characteristics such as color and odor can
-------
-10-
impact the aesthetic quality of water. Fouled beaches are typically
associated with oil spills and public outcry frequently accompanies
such incidents. The possibility for equivalent situations does exist
for some chemicals but the non-persistent or soluble nature of most
tend to minimize the potential. Because of the temporal and subjective
nature of aesthetic impairment, guidelines for evaluation are not
presented in this document and aesthetic impairment has not been
considered as a criterion for designating hazardous substancesr
4o Agricultural Uses
Because livestock watering and irrigation are the primary and
most widespread agricultural water uses, the impact of chemical
spills on these uses will be the principal area of concern in this
V
section. In certain locales, washing and hydrocooling of fruits
and vegetables prior to marketing are important water uses, while
elsewhere high purity water of potable quality is required for milk
production. Of all agricultural water uses, irrigation is the largest
3
single-purpose consumptive use . Although farmstead water uses
include drinking water» the guidelines presented for public water
supplies are applicable and should be adequate.
Livestock watering from either flowing streams or impound-
ments fed by streams are endangered by upstream chemical spills.
/
Since the most probable route of exposure is by ingestion, acute
mammalian oral toxicity data are preferred to evaluate the danger
potential of candidate materials.
-------
-11-
Spills of phytotoxic materials in irrigation water sources can
either destroy or debilitate crops for an entire season. In these
cases, severe economic loss by the grower is a very real possibility
and short-term spills can produce a long-term effect. The assess-
ment of a material's potential impact on irrigation water use can best
be achieved by the examination of acute phytotoxicity data. Some data
8
exist which are based on short-term exposures of four days or less
but current testing protocol may specify exposure times of up to 14
9
days .
As with other previously discussed uses, the protection of live-
stock and crops from a chemical spill hinges on early warning facili-
tated by immediate notification. If sufficient warning is given, animals
can be removed from risk and irrigation pumping can be halted until
the danger passes. However, the ultimate protection of water quality
for agricultural usage again revolves around spill prevention.
5. Industrial Uses
Industrial water uses are many and varied with the type and degree
of treatment being as individual and varied as the industrial processes
10
themselves . Any attempt to delineate each industrial water use,
the required treatment, or the spill impact on each would be a lengthy
process and outside the scope of this document. It is sufficient to say
that a finite potential does exist for chemical spill impairment of indus-
trial water uses. As with other withdrawal uses, early notification is
an effective method by which potential damages can be minimized.
-------
-12-
C. The Number of Spills
Data relative to hazardous substances spills are limited because
reporting of discharges is not now, nor will be required, until such
time as the substances are designated and their harmful quantities
are established., Discussions of the magnitude of the chemical, spill
problem must, therefore, be based, in part, on extrapolations and
reasonable assumptions. The oil spill reporting systems established
after final promulgation of 40 CFR Part 110 has served as a relatively
convenient mechanism for voluntary reporting of chemical spills.
The existing data consists of records of spills which were voluntarily
reported to EPA or the Coast Guard or which were fortuitously
discovered by the Agencies over a two and one-half year interval.
Thus, the current data represent a limited percentage of the actual
chemical spills. While not complete, it may be assumed that the
data are representative of the chemicals spilled, and of the sources
and causes of the spills«,
For the years 1974, 1973, and the last six months of 1972, a total
of 379 reported spill incidents are on record involving substances cur-
rently tinder consideration for designation. Of these reports, 360 (or
95%) involved the actual release of the substance. The remainder can
be classified as "potential" releases and generally resulted from a
transportation accident in which the container did not leak.
-------
-13-
It is noted that 174 of the 379 reports received (46%) show that
the chemical in question actually reached a surface water body. This
is an average of 70 spills per year. Assuming the distribution of all
spills is identical to that for voluntarily reported spills, 46% of all
hazardous substance spills would be subject to notification require-
ments, clean-up liability, and civil penalty provisions of Section 311.
Prior to promulgation of 40 CFR Part 110, which defined the harmful
quantity of oil and thereby activated mandatory reporting of oil spills,
voluntary reports were received by both the Coast Guard and the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration (predecessor to the EPA Office
of Water Programs). Following rulemaking and mandatory reporting,
the number of reports increased at least ten-fold. It is therefore
reasonable to assume that a similar increase in spill reports will
accompany the promulgation of regulations which activate the hazardous
substances portion of Section 311. Thus, the number of reportable
spills might reasonably be predicted to increase from 70 to 700 per
year following institution of the mandatory reporting requirements.
If anything, this estimate of 700 spills per year is likely to be con-
servative, because the nature of many chemicals proposed as hazardous
does not result in readily observed effects when they are spilled. This
is in contrast to the situation for oils where a relatively small volume
spilled results in the familiar and obvious sheen or discoloration of
the water. Furthermore, while many substances proposed as hazardous
are widely recognized as water pollutants, others are less well known.
-------
-14
Industry has usually not considered these latter chemicals worthy of
concern unless they are discharged in extremely large quantities.
Consequently, a more realistic estimate of the number of spills of
proposed substances actually reaching a surface water body may be
somewhat greater.
Further statistics are available from the voluntary data base, but
must be used cautiously because of the incomplete nature of the data.
Reported incidents involving proposed hazardous substances, whether
actually spilled from containers or not, can be broken down according
as shown in the following tables:
TABLE 1-1
Sources of Spills
Source Number of Spills % of Total
Vessel
Rail
Highway
Fixed Facility
40
98
60
181
5.0
26
16
48
Total 379 100
For those cases that actually resulted in surface water pollution,
the frequency and percent contribution are somewhat different:
-------
-15-
TABLE 1-2
Frequency of Spills
Source Number of Spills % of Total
Vessel
Rail
Highway
Fixed Facility
27
15
25
107
16
9
14
61
Total 174 100
If the number of spills that reached water is divided by the total
number of spills for each discharge category, the resulting percentage
obtained represents the relative risk of water pollution resulting from
an accident for each spill category. This is shown in the table below:
TABLE 1-3
Pollution Incidents from Sources
% of Incidents resulting in Water
Source Pollution for Each Source Category
Vessel 68
Rail 15
Highway 42
Fixed Facility 59
If the poundage spilled for each category is divided by the total
amount spilled, one obtains the relative contribution of each spill
category to the total problem:
-------
-16-
TABLE 1-4
Amounts Spilled
Source Pounds % of Total Pounds
Vessel
Rail
Highway
Fixed Facility
19.060,400
8,187,498
989,635
32,498,430
31
13
2
54
Total 60,735,963 100
The causes of spill incidents may be summarized as follows:
TABLE 1-5
Causes of Spills
Cause Number
Equipment Failure 196
Derailment
Tank Failures
Valve Failures
Transfer Line Failures
Pump & Flange Failures
Corrosion
Other Causes
Unknown
59
37
32
26
14
7
10
11
30
19
16
13
7
4
5
6
Human Error 61 18
Tank Overflows
Open Valves
Vessel Groundings
Vessel-Bridge Collisions
Railroad Switching
Other Causes
Unknown
20
13
8
2
2
3
13
33
21
13
3
3
5
21
Other ^74 22
Collisions 43 58
Fire, Explosion, etc. 11 15
Vandalism, Intentional Damage, etc. 7 9
Unknown 13 18
-------
-17-
The variety of actions taken to minimize or mitigate the effects
of spills reaching water may be summarized as follows:
TABLE 1-6
Spill Mitigation Attempts
Method Number of times used
1. Boom 10
2. Skim 8
3. Vacuum * II
4. Physical pickup 17
5. Sorption techniques 10
6. Neutralization techniques 48
7. Containment (diking, holding 29
ponds, ditching, etc.)
8. Controlled burning 2
9. Dirt topping 5
TOTAL = 140
Methods of doubtful value Number of times used
1. Water dispersal 33
(flushing or dilution)
2. Chemical dispersant 1
TOTAL = 34
-------
-18-
TABLE I- 7
Accident Frequency by State and Year
Ala.
Alaska
Ariz.
Ark.
Calif.
Colo.
Conn.
Del.
Fla.
Ga.
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Ind.
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
La.
Maine
Md.
Mass.
Mich.
Minn.
Miss.
Missouri
Mont.
Neb.
Nev.
N.H.
N.J.
N.M.
N.Y.
N.C.
N.D.
Ohio
Okla.
1970*
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1971
1
1
18
1
1
1
1
1
12
6
1
1
2
9
3
2
2
1
6
2
2
5
1
2
7
19
1
1972
1
10
20
2
1
7 '
4
3
6
9
3
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
7
2
17
1
1973**
3
\
2
3
4
1
5
.
5
3
3
7
1
1
2
2
1
5
1
5
15
6
1974
5
1
3
-
39
2
6
6
16
1
23
14
2
12
1
11
3
17
18
6
1
2
16
4
38
7
(Continued on following page)
*Data for five months only
**Data for seven months only
-------
-19-
TABLE 1-7 (continued)
1970* 1971 1972 1973** 1974
Oregon 5
Perm.
R.I.
S.C.
S.D.
Term.
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Va. 2
Wash.
W.Va. 1
Wise.
Wyo.
Wash. ,D. C.
7
14
-
3
1
4 ,
14
7
5
13
3
1
9
3
5
2
6
12
1
2
1
7
2
3
8
4
7
1
7
1
27
9
2
18
19
16
1
15
2
21
7
7
2
*Dataior five months only
**Data for seven months only
TABLE 1-8
Hazardous Substance Accident Frequency by Month (1970 - 1974)
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
None
recorded
in this
period
3
4
5
4
6
5
7
7
8
17
15
15
12
23
19
25
25
25
0
10
18
3
21
9
13
0
8
20
17
22
16
18
7
None
recorded
in this
period
11
23
13
12
22
18
34
38
32
40
58
58
18
20
32
28
-------
-20-
Again, it must be emphasized that the above analyses are based
on incomplete, voluntary data and may conceivably be skewed. The
reporting required after final promulgation of rules on designation,
removability, and harmful quantities should create a more complete
\
data base from which to derive statistics of the sort found above. A
more detailed presentation of the data which went into the proceeding
summaries are found in the Appendix at the end of this volume.
Pollution-caused fish kills have increased dramatically in recent
years (Table I- 9). The total reported number of fish killed went from
six million in 1960 to 119 million in 1974, a 2,000% increase. Although
these totals include fish kills caused by the release of improperly
treated sewage and agricultural runoff, many of them resulted from
abnormal discharges (spills) of chemicals from both fixed facilities
and transportation sources. The actual number of fish killed is likely
to be much higher than the number reported, since fish kill notifica-
tion is not mandatory under Federal law nor is it mandatory in most
localities.
i
EPA figures shown in Table I- 9 indicate that between 1960 and
1974 the number of combined industrial and transporation-related
fish kill reports from the various States increased from 103 in 1960
to 208 in 1974. The data of Table I- 9 are recognized as not clearly
indicative of the changes caused by spills alone, but assist in an
understanding of the magnitude of the problem.
-------
TABLE 1-9 Historical Summary of Pollution-Caused Fish Kills, 1960 - 1974
19JO'
Number cf states responding 38
NuriSe- of reports - 259
Reports »vch s'jt» number
or ',11 kil'td - ~ 151
rot.,' reofltt'd number of
nsl ki'led . --_ 6.035.000
A««r»re sue of kill ' _ _ _ 2,925
Ui/est kill reported .. .. 5,000,000
Number of reported Incidents
tor each pollution source
coetitlcn
Mric jltural _ 79
Indjstnal 103
MJ-.C.M, . 24
Tranportjlion 0
OtVr . 33
Unknown 50
Tot.l reports - _ 289
Ne No fish
Number of reports *nd fish re- (mil-
ki'lcrJ by sue grouping .pert* lions)
1 COO 000 o- more .1 50
100.000 to i COO.OOO .. 3 0 53
10 000 ti IIO.'XHJ 15 0 31
1 QTO to 10000 64 0 18
0 to 1,000 , - 68 0 07
Ho si:e ttfporfd for incident 138
Avenge duration of hilt In days 2 95
1961
45
413
265
14,910,000
6,535
5,387.090
74
109
57
0
53
60
413
Ho. Me fish
re (mil
ports lions)
4 126
5 085
45 105
107 0 34
104 0 03
118
264
1962
37
421
3.10
44,001.000
5,710
3,180,000
51
20}
33
1
47
60
471
No. Ne fl-.h
re (mil
ports Hops)
2 410
9 1 69
3.8 101
89 030
108 0 03
175
359
19G3
38
442
3C4
6.937.0PO
7.775
2,000,000
84
199
60
17
27
55
442
No. Ne fish
re- (nil-
ports lions)
1 20
12 268
54 182
134 0 41
103 0 03
138
918
1764
40
590
470
22,914.000
5,490
7,887,000
131
193
120
26
17
103
590
Ne No fish
re- (mil-
ports lions)
5 169
15 3B2
51 1 U5
167 0 49
724 0 07
120
144
1955
44
625
520
U.140.0CO
4.310
3.000.003
114
244
125
27
73
92
625
No. Ne fish
re- (mil
ports lloni)
3 5i
17 4C2
63 142
202 0 59
235 0 07
105
197
1966
«
5:2
453
9.614.0CO
5,620
1,000,000
88
195
87
27
38
97
532
No No fish
rr. (mil
ports lions)
2 20
23 543
58 1 53
1S5 0 55
185 0 05
79
271
1967
40
451
354
11,231,000
0400
6.S49.000
87
139
51
23
35
79
454
No Ne fish
re- (mil-
ports (tons)
1 65
7 2Cu
4S 1 W
143 0 46
1C4 005
90
134
196S
42
542
469
15 815,000
6,015
4,029,000
77
177
122
39
23
104
542
Ne Ne CM
re- (mil-
ports (Ions)
3 61
30 744
04 1 79
153 0 4S
719 OOS
73
299
ISM
45
1973
45
53'j 635
'.32
41.1C6 OC1
551X1
26 527,000
117
199
84
32
33
129
53.
Ne Ne fish
re- (mil-
ports Hens)
4 351
9 3 15
81 200
16' 0 W
233 0 or,
102
911
563
22.290,000
6.412
3,240,000
10S
213
120
28
28
133
C35
Ne. No fish
re- (mil
ports lions)
5 114
26 744
91 1 7-
198 OC2
243 0 07
72
12J
1971
46
860
751
73 670 "00
S.M0009
132
231
162
52
61
719
360
Ke. Ne fish
re- (mil-
ports lions)
28 630
76 637
14 333
2C6 0 16
315 010
101
139
1172
50
760
697
1771706"
4.639
2.922.000
in
1*3
1C7
55
72
163
760
Ne. Ne fllh
re- (mil-
ports (lent)
5 8. '7
27 543
S! 7 W
216 Of2
367 00"
63
1.40
1 Onrived alter excluding reports of 100000 kills or more as tMlng unrepresentative
W73
SO
f 9
703
IS 74-
£-0
7 *2 1
. 6*8
STsWfeaoo'i !8!» o53t.ooo
5,**7 6,532
10,000,000,^1 IIX^OOP
fit
* 14M>
AS"
(T»
/li
7Y8
fft. Vafe
re tmii-
W51_
So ~"~
rfii
/£»
7.2.1
tAjL A£»f3t,U
ffc& Haff» fjfaa}
& ?&-S\b I6?.e>
4*T ^L^&'ll
-------
-22-
E. State Interest in Hazardous Substance Spill Programs
In addition to Federal regulation of navigable waters, States
exercise certain authorities over waters within their geographic
boundaries. Lack of Federal regulations addressing hazardous
substance spills has prompted several state governments to enact
spill control programs designed to protect public health and environ-
mental resources. While most elements of the problem are common
to all jurisdictions, the emphasis placed on controling chemical
spills varies from state to state depending on several factors such
as the degree of industrialization and chemical transportation,
amount of surface water, and the value placed on water resources.
Although degree of emphasis on environmental protection in
general is somewhat variable, all state governments evidence im-
mediate concern when aware that a chemical spill threatens human
healthc The respective Departments of Health or State Pollution
Control Boards are the agencies concerned if a spill into a water-
course should make the water unfit for human consumption. Pollution
caused fish kills have traditionally received a high level of interest
at the State level because fish kills are obvious indicators that some-
thing is drastically wrong with the water. All states can take action
*
in the form of compensation for the value of fish killed in a pollution
incident, but there is no other uniform system of civil or criminal
penalties which all states use to control pollution incidents.
-------
-23-
Increasing public awareness has resulted in pressures on both the
Federal and State levels to reexamine the hazards associated with the
storage and transportation of hazardous substances. Many states are
now requiring that spills be reported. Some specify that all spills
greater than a certain number of gallons or pounds be reported, while
for others, there is no such quantity specified. Further, there may be
civil and/or criminal penalties for failure to file a report in addition
to the act of spilling itself.
The following table lists States responding to an EPA questionnaire
regarding specific hazardous substance spill regulations:
TABLE I-10
State Hazardous Substance Spill Regulatory Programs
State
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
Reporting
Requirement
No
No
No
No
No*
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No*
Yes-Stationary
Facilities Only
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Harmful
Quantity
No~~
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes*
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes**
No
No
No
Sanctions
Yes***
No
Yes***
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes***
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
(continued on following page)
-------
-24-
TABLE 1-19 continued
Reporting Harmful
Requirement Quantity Sanctions
Nebraska No No No
Nevada No No Yes***
New Hampshire No No * Yes***
New Jersey Yes Yes Yes
New York Yes Yes Yes
New Mexico No-Pending Yes Yes
North Carolina No No No
North Dakota No No No
Ohio Yes-Effluent Case by Case Yes
Permitholders
Oklahoma Yes Yes Yes
Oregon Yes No Yes
Rhode Island No* Yes Yes
South Carolina No Yes Yes
South Dakota No No No
Tennessee Yes Yes Yes
Texas Yes Yes Yes
Utah Yes-Eff. 6/1/73
Vermont No* Yes Yes
Virginia No No . Yes
Washington Yes Yes Yes
Wisconsin Yes No No
Wyoming No No No
"*"Reliance upon State-Federal Water Quality Standards.
** Quantity and substance tailored to receiving water bodies,.
*** Use state game and fish or other laws not requiring identifica-
tion of spilled material.
F. Industrial Interest in Hazardous Substance Programs
Recognizing the responsibilities and consequences of uncontrolled
release of hazardous chemicals to the environment, the chemical industry
has instituted storage and handling standards, emergency procedures,
and emergency information systems to respond to ^accidents, through
individual company programs, cooperative agreements, and trade organi-
zations o
-------
-25-
1. Industrial Emergency Programs
Millions of pounds of chemicals are shipped around the country
each day. Generally, handling and transportation of chemicals is
uneventful and rountine. However, shipments can be damaged
through mishandling or transportation accidents. Manufacturing and
storage facilities have experienced a spill problem of roughly equal
magnitude.
Some of these spills are preventable while others appear inevitable.
Many firms maintain their own specially trained strike forces to re-
spond to such contingencies.
2. Emergency Information Systems
When a spill does occur, it is crucial that people be protected
from injury and that the discharge be rendered innocuous as quickly
as possible. Nothing is more important in the first minutes following
a spill than obtaining complete information on the substance spilled,
including its effects on the environment. The use of emergency infor-
mation systems alleviate much confusion and provides on-scene
authorities with an improved basis for making decisions regarding
procedures to be followed in containing and controlling a spill.
a. CHEMCARD
The Manufacturing Chemists Association pioneered efforts in
this area when they created the "Chem Card". Each card carries a
-------
-26-
description of the material as well as information relative to general
I
hazards associated with fire, explosion, and human health. Appro-
priate emergency steps to be taken in the event of an accident are
also presented.
b. CHEMTREC
MCA has also initiated the Chemical Transportation Emergency
Center, CHEMTREC, to provide emergency information to public
officials and operators in transportation incidents involving haz-
ardous chemicals. It offers a national toll free telephone manned 24
hours a day, seven days a week. Trained duty officers provide
immediate information concerning steps to be taken in coping with
the shipping accident. If more detailed assistance is required, the
CHEMTREC operator acts as a link between the manufacturer and
the on-scene personnel.
In addition to these efforts by the MCA, individual programs have
been initiated by some companies to provide emergency assistance
whenever and wherever their products are involved.
c. TERP
In 1966, Dupont developed the Transportation Emergency Reporting
Procedure ( TERP ) which provides immediate information on any of its
1500 products which might be involved in a potentially hazardous
incident. This program consists of a "hot line" telephone, through
-------
-27-
which expert advice can be channeled when needed. On being con-
tacted, the coordination staff notifies the authorities at the scene of
the hazardous situation and offers assistance by providing consulta-
tion and advice concerning the hazard potential of the materials. If
needed, the company dispatches personnel to the scene.
Other chemical companies have developed similar emergency
systems for their own products, such as American Cyanimid's TWERP
(Transportation and Warehouse Emergency Reporting Procedure),
Union Carbide's HELP system (Hazardous Emergency Leaks Pro-
cedure), Dow Chemical's DERS (Distribution Emergency Response
System, Allied Chemical's TESAC (Transportation Emergency System),
and many more which have been formed as companies realize the
need.
There are also other emergency systems organized by trade
organizations, such as the Chlorine Institute's Chlorine Emergency
Plan (CHLOREP), the Pesticide Safety Team Network of the National
Agricultural Chemicals Association, the American Water Works Asso-
ciation's Emergency Manual for Hazardous Materials Spill, and the
American Railroad Association's Bureau of Explosives.
3. Industrial Economic Interests
Industry is interested in the direct economic losses involved in
hazardous substance spills, in addition to the public health, safety,
-------
-28-
and public relations aspects. A brief summary giving some limited
perspective of the dimensions of this problem is found below:
TABLE I-11
Estimates of direct economic losses from spills
Total poundage reported spilled 81, 699, 955 Ib.
in OHM-SIRS file during the
interval July, 1972 through 1974
Direct cost of product loss for 15 representative substances
(prices from Chemical Marketing Reporter, May 5, 1975)
Acrylonitrile 1, 382,424 Ib. x $0. 24/lb. = $331, 782
Ammonia 18, 712, 880 Ib. x $0. 09/Ib. = $1, 684,159
Benzene 13, 600 Ib. x $0. 09/lb. = - $1,224
Chlorosulfonic 208,000 Ib. x $0.05/lb. = $10,400
Acid
Formaldehyde 396,832 Ib. x $0.05/lb. = $19,842
Hydrochloric 220, 560 Ib. x $0. 05/lb. = $2,205
Acid
Methyl 193, 600 Ib. x $0. 32/lb. = $61,952
Methacrylate
Nitric Acid 909, 400 Ib. x $0. 07/lb. = $63,658
Phosphoric 850, 900 Ib. x $0.19/lb. = $161,670
Acid
Sulfuric Acid 19, 639,153 Ib. x $0. 03/lb. = $589,174
Sodium Hydroxide 5, 653,158 Ib. x $0. 14/lb. = $791, 442
Styrene 468,880 Ib. x $0. 25/lb. = $117,220
Toluene 1,117, 646 Ib. x $0. 07/lb. = $78,235
Vinyl Acetate 154, 712 Ib. x $0.19/lb. = $29,395
Xylene 438,136 Ib. x $0. 07/lb. = $30,669
TOTAL 50,359,881 Ib. $3,973,037
Economic loss of above 15 substances versus total 1974 chemical
sales of 50 top U. S. chemical producers (Chemical and Engineering
News* May 5, 1975)j
$3,973,037 = 0.00008 = 0.008%
$52,010,000,000
-------
-29-
REFERENCES TO CHAPTER I
1. R. K. Linsley, and J. B. Franzine, Water Resources Engineering,
McGraw-Hill, New York, New York (1964).
2. Emergency Manual, Hazardous Materials Spills, American Water
Works Association, New York, New York (1973).
3. Water Quality Criteria, Report of the National Technical Advisory
Committee to the Secretary of the Interior, (April 1, 1968).
4. J. Cairns, et al., The Effect of a Major Indus trial Spill Upon
Stream Organisms, 26th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, (1971).
5. J. Cairns, and K. L. Dickson, Transactions of the Kansas Academy
of Science, 73, 1 (1970).
6. J. Cairns, K. L. Dickson, and J. S. Grossman, Proceedings of the
1972 National Conference on Control of Hazardous Material Spills,
p. 179 (1972). ]
7. D. Slater, American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, Salt Lake
City, Utah, (September 16, 1971).
8. J.E. McKee, andH.W. Wolf, Water Quality Criteria, 2nd Edition,
The Resources Agency of California, State Water Quality Control
Board Publication No. 3-A, (1963).
9. Biological Field and Laboratory Methods, Office of Research &
Development, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 (1973).
10. G. M. Fair, and J.C. Geyer, Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal,
J. Wiley and Sons, New York (1954).
-------
CHAPTER II
ISSUES RELATING TO THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS
The discussion and analysis presented in Chapter I illustrates
the great need for chemical spill regulations to reduce the number
and magnitude of spills and which emphasize the mitigation of
damages to beneficial water uses. This chapter will state some of
the issues which have been raised and explore alternative solutions.
The designation of regulated materials should be comprehensive
to cover the broad range of materials which may pose danger to public
health or welfare. Nonetheless, this must, by law, be a clearly delin-
eated listing of substances. The proposed designation achieves both
the desired breadth and the legally required specificity by providing
selection criteria and an initial list of chemicals meeting those criteria.
The selection criteria provide an outline for evaluating the toxi-
cological properties and likelihood for spills of potentially hazardous
substances. These criteria represent an attempt to quantify the legal
phrase, ".. .imminent and substantial danger to public health or
welfare...". With specific criteria clearly set forth, the designation
list can be expanded in the future with a minimum, of confusion, as
need and data warrant. Affected industries will also be aware of the
potential of their products for future listing and can plan facilities,
transportation, and handling accordingly. Similarly, public interest
groups will be aware of the data required to support petitions requesting
the addition of substances to the list. The designation thus provides
the cornerstone for the regulatory goals of spill reduction and damage
mitigatiors
-------
-2-
The determination of actual removability, which must accompany
the designation, is also directly functional in achieving these goals.
Substances judged to be actually removable are subject only to clean-up
liability while discharge of a substance determined to be not actually
removable under Section 311(b)(2)(B)(i) could lead to assessment of
civil penalties under Section 311(b)(2)(B)(iii)c The determination that
a substances is not actually removable in proposed 40 CFR Part 117
does not preclude liability of the discharger for damage mitigation
under the definition of "removal" found in Section 311(a)(8) or con-
comitant liabilities under Sections 311(f) and (g). (This definition of
removal covers both removal or the taking of other steps which will
minimize or mitigate damage. Such 'a "dual definition" of removal
permits a restrictive interpretation of "actual removal" while still
preserving incentive for the discharger to mitigate damage.)
Mechanisms leading to reduction of the number or magnitude of
spills are presently at the discretion of potential dischargers, but
would presumably involve prevention through improved handling pro-
cedures, operator training, and equipment installation or modification.
The economic incentives provided by the potential civil penalties are
clear, though the spill prevention actions taken by a potential dis-
charger would depend on an anlysis of cost vs. the risk of penalty
assessment. (An example might be introduction of safety features
on tank trucks which involve one or more of the following negative
results; 1) increased equipment cost, 2) reduced carrying capacity,
or 3) increased operating cost. While fewer spills might well result,
the overall cost might exceed civil penalties anticipated from their
-------
-3-
past spill record.
Questions arise in considering how to implement civil penalties
for nonremovable hazardous substances. For instance, what is the
function of a penalty in the case of the non-preventable spill, and
how can the penalty system be best used to encourage environmental
damage mitigation?
Continuing discussions with safety organizations, other govern-
mental agenies concerned with transportation problems, and with
industry, indicate that the majority of spills result from accidents
rather than deliberate or negligent acts. The proportion of these
which could be termed "preventable" accidents with further
reasonable expenditures is not presently known, though such informa-
tion should result from the improved data base to be generated by
compulsory spill reporting after final promulgation of 40 CFR Part 118.
Cost effective steps may reduce the number and magnitude of spills
but cannot achieve a 100% reduction. Since no level of civil penalty
can totally eliminate spills of hazardous substances, one must also
consider damage mitigation and spill response aimed at protecting
public and environmental health. Section 311 authorizes the
Administrator to select which one of the two available penalty schemes
to use in a given spill incident. Steps involved in this decision have
been clarified (proposed 40 CFR Part 119) so that dischargers
are kept abreast of potential actions on the part of EPA. Basically,
proof of gross negligence on the part of the discharger is used as
the discriminator between the penalty options mentioned in Sections
311(b)(2)(B)(iii)(aa) and 311(b)(2)(B)(iii)(bb). If the discharger has
-------
-4-
taken reasonable steps to prevent the spill or makes use of adequate
response techniques which result in significant damage mitigation
and/or protection of water uses, this will result in application of the
lesser penalty option having an upper limit of $5, 000 per spill event.
The discharger is still liable for mitigation expenses, so the economic
incentive to reduce spillage is not lost. Proof of gross negligence on
the part of the discharger would subject him to the higher civil penalties
of Section 311(b)(2)(B)(iii)(bb), as well as liability for response and
mitigation expenses which may be taken by the government.
Section 311(b)(4) requires that a "harmful quantity" be specified
for each designated hazardous substance. Spills of more than this
amount must be reported to the appropriate Federal agency. Also,
attempts must be made to mitigate damage resulting from such spills
and civil penalties may be assessed. Final promulgation of proposed
40 CFR Part 118 activates the requirement for immediate notification.
If the harmful quantity specified is small, reporting of a large pro-
portion of the total number of spills is assured and a good accounting
of potential environmental damages may be expected. As indicated
earlier, the basic thrust of Section 311 is to provide economic in-
centive for spill prevention. The additional expenditures which might
be economically justifiable based on this are therefore dependent on
the number of spill events reported as well as on the magnitude of
the penalty arising from each.
-------
-5- x
\
The variety of possible enforcement actions and flexibility pos-
sible in penalty assessment should avoid undue hardship on owners
or operators. Upon discharge of the harmful quantity, the U. S. Coast
Guard (USCG) may assess a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per spill
event under Section 311(b)(6). Under the current enforcement program
for oil spills, the amount of the penalty is based on a variety of factors
including the gravity of the violation and the economic strength of the
discharger. It is reasonable to assume similar procedures will be
adopted for spills of hazardous substances. Thus, for a small spill
exceeding the harmful quantity, the penalty assessed by the USCG
could be minimal. Adequate spill prevention and damage mitigation
steps taken by the discharger can also minimize civil penalties assess-
ed by EPA under Section 311(b)(2)(B)(iii), as mentioned earlier.
-------
CHAPTER IE
-^
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
The following chapter was created to outline the legal framework and
policy upon which the proposed regulations are based. First, Congressional
committee interpretive language is reproduced here, for ease of reference.
The discussion found immediately thereafter is intended to illustrate
the operative provisions of Section 311 and to explain their relationship
to the legal requirements of other sections of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972. Finally, the relationship of Section
311 to other Federal and international laws and regulations is explored.
A. Congressional Committee Interpretive Language
s
1. House Public Works Committee Interpretive Language on
Section 311 of H.R. 11896 (reference 1)
Section 311 closely follows existing Section 11 with respect
to oil spills. New provisions for hazardous substances have
been added. The discharger of any hazardous substances
that cannot be cleaned up is liable to a penalty of not to exceed
$50, 000 per discharge depending upon the characteristics of
the discharged substance except where the United States can
show that such discharge was a result of willful negligence or
willful misconduct within the privity and knowledge of the
owner or operator, such owner or operator shall be liable to
a civil penalty as determined by the Administrator. A dis-
charger of a hazardous substance may raise the same defenses
as a discharger of oil under existing law: an Act of God, act
of war, negligence on the part of the U. S. Government, or an
act of a third party. The Administrator will be required to
publish a list of hazardous substances. The list of hazardous
substances must be easy to understand, and must receive
widespread publicity. A pollutant may be designated hazardous
if it presents an aiminent and substantial danger to the public
health or welfare, including, fish, shellfish, and beaches.
Any substance designated as hazardous will have a determina-
tion made by the Administrator as to whether the designated
substance is actually removable. In this regard, the Committee
-------
2 -
expects that the Administrator will take a reasonable and
not a restrictive attitude in the interpretation of the term
"actually removable". The Administrator can specify con-
ditions in a graduated approach under which the substance
is removable or not removable, in whole or in part,, The
definition of the terms 'remove1 and 'removal1 refers to
actual removal by any means including physi cal, chemical,
biological degradation or any other appropriate method or
the taking of such other actions as may be necessary to
minimize or mitigate damage to the public health or wel~
fare. The authorization for appropriations in Section
311(k) is merely a restatement of existing of existing pro-
visions,, This is not an increase in the authorization and
any funds previously appropriated are chargeable to this
fund. Section 311(h) provides that either the district
court of Guam or the District Court of the United States
for the District of Hawaii shall have jurisdiction of actions
arising in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands under
Section 11 except those actions arising under Section 311
(i)(l). The language "notice and opportunity for a hear-
ing" of Section 311(b)(6) is not intended to impose in every
instance the complex procedural requirements associated
with formal adjudicatory hearings on the record before a
hearing examiner such as are used for ratemaking and
similar federal rule issuance. The committee believes
that effective administrative enforcement will be enhanced
by assessment procedures which are expeditious. Pro-
visions of title 5 of the United States Code commonly re-
ferred to as the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended,
will nevertheless apply to assure due process and protec-
tion of a respondent's rights. In that regard, the respond-
ent has the opportunity of a de novo hearing in any collec-
tion proceeding initiated by a United States Attorney after
the conclusion of administrative procedures. The net
result is to parallel the penalty assessment method which
the Coast Guard has used in the past in connection with
laws which it administers.
2. Senate Public Works Committee Interpretive Language
on Section 311 of S. 2770 (reference 2)
Section 311 enacted as a part of the Water Quality Improve-
ment Act which provides for the control of oil pollution has
been modified in three respects. First, the Federal Mari-
time Commission (which has been charged by the President
with responsibility to regulate and enforce the financial
responsibility requirements of this Section) is provided
enforcement authority required to carry out effectively its
functions with respect to vessels which violate the financial
responsibility provisions. Second, the Committee bill pro-
vides for the assessment of the penalty for discharging oil
-------
- 3 -
or hazardous substances in the case where the owner or
operator acted "willfully or negligently". As contained
in existing law the penalty applied to a "knowing" dis-
charge and was only being sought when "actual knowledge"
could be shown. Third, the Committee determined, on
the basis of reports authorized by and subsequently sub-
mitted pursuant to the Water Quality Improvement Act,
that hazardous substances heretofore treated in a separate
section should be subject to the same control mechanism
applied to oil. Under present law major spills of hazardous
substances which could cause significant environmental
and economic damage are not subject to liability for the
cost of clean-up of those spills. The Committee was con-
cerned that many hazardous substances cannot be cleaned-
up by standard methods because they immediately dissolve
in the receiving waters. These substances, the discharge
of which may cause environmental disaster, could not be
subject to any meaningful clean-up liability. A clean-up
liability provision therefore would provide no incentive to
carriers and handlers of these substances to exercise the
great caution that such materials warrant. The Committee
notes that in the March, 1971 report entitled "Control of
Hazardous Polluting Substances , the Administration made
the following recommendation: "We have examined the
issue of whether there should be financial limitations of
liability for the costs of removal of hazardous polluting
substances, and we have concluded that there should be no
liability limitations imposed. " The Committee believes
that the discharge of such substances should be subject to
penalty even though clean-up is not practicable. In this
way, each carrier or handler evaluates the risk of dis-
charge and determines whether or not the potentially penalty
is worth the risk. Because the penalty to be imposed under
this section should relate to the environmental hazard
involved, the Committee determined that the Administrator
should set the amount of penalty on the basis of the actual
amounts of material released into the waste environment.
The bill would establish a minimum fine of $50, 000 and a
limit per barrel fine of $5,000. The Administrator is
expected by regulation to set the fine per barrel of dis-
charge based on toxicity, degradability, and disposability
of such substances. Because no outside limit is proposed
the potential penalty would be the amount of substance
involved times the amount of penalty set by the Adminis-
trator. Concern has been expressed as to the potential
magnitude of a fine to which a carrier or handler of a
hazardous substance might be exposed. The Committee
examined this concern and concluded that the penalty would
be limited in two ways: First, the Administrator would
establish per unit limits on the basis of the hazard posed by
each of the substances designated. Second, the penalty would
be strictly limited to those substances actually released into
-------
4 -
the water* The Committee recognizes that a bulk carriage
of a substance which has an extremely high per unit penalty
will be exposed to an unacceptable level of liability. Faced
with this fact, bulk carriage of extremely toxic materials
in most cases will pose an unacceptable risk. Thus by
determining not to haul, in bulk, such, hazardous materials
the carrier will avoid unacceptable economic risk an,d the
public will not be confronted with unacceptable environmental
risk (over which only the carrier has any control) f
^° Final Conference Committee_Language (reference 3)
Conference substitute
This is the same as the Senate bill and the House amend"
ment with the following changes:
(1) Subsection (b)(2)(B) is revised as follows:
(A) The Administrator shall include in any designation
of a hazardous substance a determination of whether it
can actually be removed.
(B) As provided in the House amendment, if a hazard-
ous substance is determined not. removable, then the owner
or operator of any vessel or onshore or offshore facility
from which there is discharged such substances shall be
liable, subject to subsection (f) defenses, to the United
States for a civil penalty per discharge established by
the Administrator based on toxicity, degradability* and
dispersal characteristics of the hazardous substance*
This applies during the two-year period beginning on the
date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972. Such civil penalty shall be in
an amount not to exceed $50,000 unless there is a showing
of willful negligence or misconduct within the privity and
knowledge of the owner in which case there is no limit to
the civil penalty.
(C) As modified from the Senate bill, from and after
two years after the date of enactment of this Act, the owner
or operator of any vessel or onshore or offshore facility
from which there is discharged any hazardous substance
not removable shall be liable, subject to subsection (f)
defenses, to either (i) a penalty in an amount established
by the Administrator based on toxicity* d eg r ad ability, and
dispersal characteristics of the substance, but not less
than $500 nor more than $5,000 or (ii) a penalty determined
by the number of units discharged multiplied by the amount
established for that unit, but not more than $5, 000, 000 in
the case of a discharge from a vessel and $500, 000 in the
case of a discharge from an onshore or offshore facility.
The determination of which of these two penalties shall be
imposed shall be that made by the Administrator in his dis-
cretion. The Administrator is required to establish by regu-
lation for every hazardous substance which he designates a
-------
- 5 -
unit of measure based on usual trade practices and is
required to establish for each such unit a fixed monetary
amount not less than $100 nor more than $1, 000 per unit.
This amount is to be based on toxicity, degradability, and
dispersal characteristics of the substance and must be
established within six months of the designation of the
hazardous substance.
(2) Subsection (c)(2), which requires a "National Contin-
gency Plan", is amended as proposed in the Senate bill
to require that plan to include a system whereby the State
or States affected by a discharge of oil or hazardous sub-
stance may act to remove the discharge and thereafter be
reimbursed for reasonable costs.
(3) As modified from the Senate bill, subsection (p), relat-
ing to financial responsibility, is further amended to pro-
vide for a fine of not more than $10, 000 for failure to com-
ply with this subsection and authorizes the Secretary of the
Treasury to refuse clearance to vessels not having evidence
of financial responsibility and the Coast Guard to deny entry
or detain at any port any vessel not producing on request
such evidence of financial responsibility.
Notwithstanding the broad definition of discharge" in sub-
section (a)(2) the provisions of this section are not intended
to apply to the discharge of oil from any onshore or offshore
facility, which discharge is not in harmful quantities and is
pursuant to, and not in violation of, a permit issued to such
facility under Section 402 of this Act. The Conferees direct
that the Administrator initiate a study in cooperation with
such nonagency scientists and other experts as are available,
to identify and quantify the impact of the discharge of desig-
nated hazardous substances on the biological, physical and
chemical integrity of the Nation's waters. Such study should
be submitted to Congress no later than 18 months after enact-
ment of this Act together with any appropriate recommenda-
tions. The Conferees hope that during the next two years the
appropriate committees of the Congress will consider the
need for legislation to improve methods of storing, shipping,
and handling hazardous substances which cannot be removed
from the water. If such legislation is enacted, the Conferees
agree that the liability provisions of this section will be
reviewed and necessary changes proposed by the Committees
on Public Works.
B. Purpose and Implications of Section 311
1. Introduction
The goals of Section 311 are spill prevention, spill mitigation and
establishment of associated liability for the mitigation costs. Enforce-
-------
-6-
ment through civil penalties are tools of this section, but not goals
in and of themselves.
The statute addresses spill prevention by authorizing the President
to issue regulations "establishing procedures, methods, and equipment
and other requirements for equipment to prevent discharges of oil and
hazardous substances" [Section 311(j)(l)(C)]. The enforcement of this
provision is a civil penalty of up to $5, 000 per day administered by
the Coast Guard for transportation related sources and by EPA for
non-transporation related sources Section 311(j)(2).
The key to the spill clean-up system is the requirement in Section
311(b)(5) that any person in charge of a vessel or facility from which
a discharge of oil or a hazardous substance in a harmful quantity occurs,
must "immediately" notify the designated Federal agency. Failure to
give notice is a criminal offense punishable by up to $10, 000 or 1 year
in jail or both. Section 311(c) authorizes the President "to act to remove"
any spilled oil or hazardous substance, and to promulgate a "National
Contingency Plan" to coordinate the Federal clean-up effort. That
Plan promulated by the Council on Environmental Quality gives the
Coast Guard the lead responsibility for Federal clean-up efforts in
coastal waters and the Great Lakes, and EPA the lead responsibility
for inland waters. In addition, any discharge of oil or hazardous
substances in harmful quantities entails a civil penalty assessable
by the Coast Guard Section 311(b)(6) . Discharges of "non-remov-
able" hazardous substances in harmful quantities are also subject to
an additional civil penalty assessable by EPA Section 311(b)(2)(B) .
-------
-7-
i
Finally, Section 311(f) defines the liability of owners and operators of
vessels and facilities to reimburse the Federal Government for removal
costs. Liability limits are established, and a defense to liability is pro-
vided where the owner or operator "can prove that a discharge was caused
solely by (a) an act of God, (b) an act of war, (c) negligence on the part
of the United States Government, or (d) an act or omission of a third
party without regard to whether any such act or omission was or was
not negligent. " Where a third party caused the discharge, he may be held
liable for removal costs subject to the same liability limits [Section 311 (g)J,
and where the owner or operator of a vessel or facility from which a
discharge occurs acts to remove the oil or hazardous substance, he may
recover the removal costs from the Government if he shows that one of the
four defenses to liability existed [Section 311 (i)]. Any monies recovered
from persons responsible for a spill are deposited in a revolving fund
which is used to finance the Federal government's spill clean-up efforts
[Section 311(k)]. Finally, Section 311(p) requires owners or operators of
vessels of over 300 gross tons to have evidence of financial responsibility
in an amount up to the maximum liability for a spill under Section 311(f).
2. The Designation of Hazardous Substances
Section 311(b)(2)(A) requires EPA to promulgate regulations "desig-
nating as hazardous substances, other than oil ..., such elements and com-
pounds which, when discharged in any quantity..., present an imminent and
substantial danger to the public health or welfare, including... fish, shell-
fish, wildlife, shorelines, and beaches. " Although the phrase "in any
quantity" might be thought to restrict the designation of hazardous sub-
stances to those which are harmful in even the smallest quantities.
-------
-8-
this was clearly not the Congressional intent. Senator Dole, who was
responsible for this language, explained that "The threat to health and
welfare [of hazardous substances] depends on many factors such as
the characteristics of the water into which the substances are discharged;
the concentrations of the substances discharged; and the nature of the
substance discharged. " [Cong. Rec., daily ed. Oct. 7, 1969, at S12063. ].
This view is borne out by Section 311(b)(4), which requires the President
to determine "those quantities of ... any hazardous substance the discharge
of which, at such times, locations, circumstances and condtions, will
be harmful to the public health or welfare... "
Within the meaning of this language, the list of hazardous substances
could include any substance which may be harmful in some circumstances
when discharged in sufficient quantities. But this would include any
substance, since any substance may be harmful if discharged in sufficient
quantity into a sufficiently small body of water. Thus there must clearly
be some room for a reasonable administrative definition of what constitutes
a sufficient potential of harm to the environment in order to qualify a
substance for designation as a hazardous substance. With such a definition,
it can be suggested that Congress recognized that the list of hazardous
substances could "cover a tremendous range of chemical elements and
compounds with various characteristics." [115 Cong. Rec.,, (Oct. 7, 1969)
(Sen, Dole)].
3. The Determination of Removability
Section 311(b)(2)(B)(i) requires the Environmental Protection Agency
to include in its designation of hazardous substances "a determination
whether any such designated hazardous substance can actually be removed. "
-------
-9-
- At least two problems are presented by this provision. In the first
place, the statute defines removal in terms so broad that virtually any
substance could be considered "removable." Section 311(a)(8) defines
"remove" and "removal" as removal of the oil or hazardous substances
from the water and shorelines or taking of such other actions as may be
necessary to minimize or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare..
(emphasis added). This broad definition -- which includes such actions
as filtering a downstream water supply or warning its users -- is
necessary to give a broad scope to the Federal Government's "removal"
actions under Section 311(c). To impose a correspondingly broad liability
under Section 311(b)(2)(B) would render that provision meaningless,
since some type of action to "minimize or mitigate damage" can be
taken in most cases for virtually any hazardous substance. A distinction
between the definition of "removal" for purposes of liability for Federal
clean-up costs, and the definition for purposes of the penalty for spilling
"nonremovable" substances, can be made on the basis of Section
311(b)(2)(B)(i), which phrases the test for penalty purposes in terms
of whether the substance can "actually" be removed. Under this test
a substance might not actually be removable and the discharger thereby
subject to penalty while at same time the discharger remains liable for
actions necessary to minimize or mitigate damage, short of actual
removal.
Another problem with the determination of removability is the variety
of circumstances that can influence whether a spilled substance can be
physically removed from the water in any particular situation. If the
notification is prompt, if the weather is calm enough to permit surface
skimming, if the body of water is small enough to allow filtering, or if the
-------
-10-
circumstances are such as to allow the spill to be contained in a dike,
then a substance might be removed from the water in whole or in part,
although the same substance spilled in different circumstances or different
quantities could not be removed, or could only be removed to a lesser
degree. There is some recognition of the problem in the legislative
history of the 1972 Amendments; the House Committee Report suggests
that "the Administrator can specify conditions in a graduated approach
under which the substance is removable or not removable, in whole or
in part. " [House Report No. 92-911, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., at 117. J How-
ever, it is not clear how a "graduated approach" would work for deter-
mining whether a spill was subject to the penalties of Section 311(b)(2)(B).
The best solution is to base the "removability" determination on some
general, overall assessment of average or typical conditions, leaving
to individual penally proceedings the job of determining the actual degree
of removal that was possible under the circumstances of a particular spill
as a factor bearing on the amount of penalty to be assessed*
4. The Determination of Harmful Quantities
Section 311(b)(4) requires a regulation to "determine < r- those quanti-
ties of oil and any hazardous substance the discharge of which, at such
times, locations, circumstances, and conditions, will be harmful to the
public health or welfare ..." Section 311(b)(3) prohibits the discharge
of oil and hazardous substances "in harmful quantities" except "where
permitted in quantities and at times and locations or under such circum-
stances or conditions as the President may, by regulation, determine
not to be harmful. " It is believed that this non-harmful concept provides
->
the basis for exemption of discharges which are made in compliance
-------
-11-
with the NPDES permit specified under Section 402 of the Act and
other permitted discharges.
The language dealing with harmful quantities presents a problem in
interpretation. The degree of harm which a given substance may pose
to the environment can vary greatly depending on a number of circum-
stances including size of the body of water into which it is spilled, the
flushing characteristics of the body of water, its temperature, the
size of the spill and the rapidity with which the substance is released
into the water at the spill site. Must the "harmful quantity" regulation
present a formula whereby all the relevant circumstances of a particular
spill are taken into account, with the actual harmful quantity being
calculated separately for each spill according to the formula? Or is it
sufficient if the Environmental Protection Agency, in formulating the
regulation, takes all the possible "times, locations, circumstances,
and conditions" into account in order to construct a model spill situation,
in the basis of which a single harmful quantity is stated?
Ideally, it might be best if the regulation were to state a formula,
on the basis of which the harmful quantity in each particular spill situa-
tion could be computed, taking into account all the pertinent factors.
However, because the pertinent factors are so varied and numerous,
such a formula - if one indeed exists - would have to be enormously
complicated. And yet the statutory scheme demands simplicity.
Section 311(b)(5) requires any person in charge of a vessel or
facility, as soon as he has knowledge of a spill of a harmful quantity,
to "... immediately notify the appropriate agency of the United States
-------
-12-
Government. " A criminal penalty attaches to any failure to comply with
this requirement. The emphasis on rapidity of notification is essential
to the operation of the statute, since rapidity in the Federal Governmentns
response can be crucial to a successful spill mitigation operation. And
yet, personnel at a spill site are seldom in a position to apply a complex
"harmful quantity" formula. It may be assumed that frequently the
amount spilled and the rate of release is not known immediately.
Moreover, where the spill is transportation-related, there is essen-
tially no feasible way that the personnel at the site can have immediate
or adequate knowledge of the size and flushing characteristics of the ,
receiving body of water. Thus, any regulation which requires a calcu-
lation at the spill site under a formula that takes into account all the
relevant circumstances, would render the notification requirement
unworkable.
The present wording of Section 311(b)(3) and (4) derives from the
Section 11 of the 1970 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, which required a "harmful quantity" determination for oil taking
into account "times, locations, circumstances, and conditions." Under
that statutory language, the Secretary of the Interior (EPA's predecessor)
promulgated a regulation which defined harmful quantities of oil to include
quantities which:
(a) Violate applicable water quality standards, or
(b) Cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface
of the water or adjoining shorelines or cause a sludge or
emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water
or upon adjoining shorelines.
-------
-13-
[35F.R. 14306 (Sept. 11. 1970), 40C.F.R. 110.3.1 These regulations
establish an across-the-board test (the creation of a film or sheen) which
is not dependent on the particular circumstances of the spill, but rather
is designed to provide a workable requirement for spill notification.
Congress obviously knew about the "sheen" regulation but did nothing
to change it in the 1972 Amendments; instead, it re-enacted the pertinent
statutory language, adding only the requirement that a harmful quantity
determination also be made with reference to hazardous substances.
Thus, it is a fair inference that an across-the-board harmful quantity
determination, similar to the oil regulation, may be made with respect
to each hazardous substance rather than a determination that would
require an elaborate calculation of a separate harmful quantity for each
spill. A single harmful quantity for each hazardous substance is the
only way to render the notification provision of the statute workable.
A technical complication does exist, however, and that is, that the
predominately soluble hazardous substances do not lend themselves
to being quantified by a physical/chemical basis which is readily
observable like the oil determination. Therefore, the legal and
technical limits indicate that a numerical quantity be determining
/
for each substance.
5. Rates of Penalty
As the foregoing discussion indicates, both the determination of
harmful quantity and the determination of actual removablity must be
made in advance, across-the-board, with reliance on typical spill situa-
tions. Thus, for any reportable spill the penalty provisions of Section
311(b)(2)(B) (spills of nonremovable substances) and Section 311(b)(6) (spills
-------
-14-
in harmful quantities) will apply even though the circumstances of the
particular spill may permit a substantial degree of actual removal or
substantial mitigation of potential harm, or both. In these circumstances,
there would be discretion in the administrative proceedings to adjust
the penalty to reflect the particular circumstances of the spill involved.
Section 311(b)(2)(B) permits adjustment of the penalty on, at least, the
basis of "the toxicity, degradability, and dispersal characteristics"
of the spilled substance, while Section 311(b)(6) permits adjustment of
the penalty on the basis of the "garvity of the violation. " Under both
provisions, the administrative agency would have discretion to consider,
as one of the factors affecting the size of the penalty, whether a sub-
stantial degree of mitigation, in fact, occurred.
C. Relationship to Other Provisions of Federal Law
1. Other sections of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA)
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 also
provide for:
(a) Gathering of information on current water quality-Section 305 ;
(b) Guidelines for evaluation of the nature and extent of pollution
from non-point sources-Section 304(e) ;
(c) Establishment of water quality criteria reflecting the latest
scientific information-Section 304(a) ;
(d) Setting of water quality standards-Section 303 ;
(e) Establishment of "national standards of performance" based
on best available control technology-Section 306 ;
-------
-15-
(e) Establishment of "national standards of performance" based
on best available control technology-Section 306 ;
(f) Setting of effluent guidelines and limitations to assure that water
quality standards can be attained-Sections 301, 302, and
304(b) ;
(g) Publication of a list of toxic pollutants, setting of standards
for these materials and establishment of "pretreatment
standards" to apply before their introduction into public
treatment plants-Section 307 ;
(h) Control of effluents arising from normal operating situations
in industrial and other facilities, by issuance of permits
under a "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System"
Section 402 .
(i) Emergency powers are given to the Administrator to seek
district court relief for incidents of pollution sources which
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the
health of persons or to the welfare of persons , Section 504 .
(j) The identification and removal of toxic pollutants in harbors
and navigable waterways are to be conducted working through
the Secretary of the Army-Section 115 .
Some of the materials of concern under the above Sections are also
of concern under Section 311. However, substantial differences in
approach are required for Section 311 since the focus of all other
sections listed above is on continuous or routine discharges and effects.
Overall, the others address the chronic effects of pollution and the
-------
-16-
discharge of pollutants under specified controlled conditions while
Section 311 is unique in addressing acute effects, the coverage of
uncontrolled, episodic, acute discharges which are non-routine
or abnormal.
2. Ocean Dumping
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,
P. L. 92-532 (Ocean Dumping Law) requires the issuance of a permit
by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency prior to
the dumping of any material from vessels into the territorial sea or
the contiguous zone of the United States. The Administrator is required
to establish criteria for such dumping.
"Dumping" is defined to mean "a disposition of material" (Section 3(f)).
"Material" is defined in Section 3(c) to mean any matter, presumably in-
cluding any hazardous substance; however, "oil within the meaning of
Section 11 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act" is excluded.
It must be recognized that the Ocean Dumping Law and Section 311
deal with very different problems. Permits under the Ocean Dump-
ing Law will specify the quantity, conditions and site of the disposition
of material. It will thus be a controlled disposition. By contrast.
Section 311 is addressed primarily to spills, which are typically
uncontrolled situations. Thus, it may be that controlled disposition
of certain materials would be permitted under the Ocean Dumping
Law on the grounds that minimal harm to the environment in the
immediate vicinity would occur, even though that material is desig-
nated as a hazardous substance on the basis that an uncontrolled
-------
-17-
spill could present an imminent and substantial danger to public health,
public welfare, or the environment on a larger scale.
3. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Several legislative acts and regulations prohibit the distribution,
sale or receipt of a non-registered pesticide. The basic legislation
is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
which is amended by the Federal Environmental Pesticide Act (FEPCA)
of 1972, (86 stat. 973, 7 U.S. C. 136 et seq. P.L. 92-516). Here-
after, these will be referred to as "amended FIFRA". The implement-
ing regulation is 40 CFR Part 162, recently amended by the Federal
Register, Vol. 40, No. 129, Part H, pp. 28242-28286, July 3, 1975.
Among the requirements for registration of a pesticide under amended
FIFRA is that the pesticide, used in accordance with commonly recog-
nized practice, must not cause an unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, taking into account the economic, social and environmental
costs. The registration procedure requires the applicant to file a state-
ment which includes a copy of the labeling, the claims made for the
pesticide, directions for its use, and its complete formula. The
Environmental Protection Agency can require that claims be sub-
stantiated by full description of tests performed and results achieved.
While amended FIFRA is intended to result in planned, controlled
application of registered pesticides, Section 311 has been interpreted
to deal with unplanned, uncontrolled spills. Consequently, there is no
inconsistency in the designation of a registered pesticide as a hazardous
substance.
-------
-18-
4. The Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (PWSA)
The Ports and Waterways Safety Act, (P.L. 92-339, 46 U. S. C.
291 et seq.), includes provisions which directly depend upon the
Environmental Protection Agency's actions concerning hazardous
substances under Section 311. Section 201 of the PWSA provides
for the establishment of standards for the design, construction,
alteration, repair, maintenance, and operation of vessels documented
under the laws of the United States or entering navigable waters, and
which carry oil, flammable liquids, or any liquid cargo designated
as a hazardous polluting substance under Section 12(a) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. (Section 12(a) refers to the 1970 Act
P.L. 91-224 which was amended into Section 311 in the 1972 Act
P.L. 92-500 ). Regulations will be established under Section 201,
PWSA after designation of hazardous substances has been finalized
under P.L. 92-500, Section 311(b)(2)(A).
D. International Implications
The participation of EPA personnel in numerous Intergovernmental
Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) meeting preparatory to the
International Convention for Prevention of Pollution From Ships (1973),
has aided wide exposure and acceptance of the regulation concepts.
EPA's Hazardous Substances Branch has made a detailed comparison
and review of the IMCO/GESAMP* proposed list and rating of noxious
substances (Annex II of the International Convention; Regulations for
the Control of Pollution by Noxious Substances Other Than Oil Carried
in Bulk). Discrepancies between the EPA data base and the GESAMP
* Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of M arine Ebllution -
jointly sponsored by the United Nations specialized Agencies.
-------
-19-
list hazard ratings were noted and the technical back-up was forwarded
to GESAMP for their consideration and review.
On April 15, 1972, the United States and Canada signed The Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement on water pollution control in the Great
Lakes. In Annexes 3 and 7 of this agreement, the two countries
agreed to adopt regulations including programs and measures for the
prevention of discharges of harmful quantities of oil and hazardous
substances into the Great Lakes. It was also agreed that within one
year after the signing, consultations would be held for the purpose of
developing Annex 9 to identify hazardous substances and taking such
other steps as to assure regulatory compatability. The steps are in
process and the goals are expected to be acheived.
E. Public Participation
For many years various governmental organizations have been
concerned with the regulation of the accidential spillage of various
substances. However, regulation of spills for the primary purpose
of protecting against environmental damage, particularly damage to
beneficial uses of water effectively began with a conference on Hazard-
ous Polluting Substance held in New Orleans, La., in September of
1970.
This meeting was sponsored by the U. S. Coast Guard with consi-
derable participation by Deparment of Interior personnel (EPA's
predesessor agency) and its purpose was to encourage public dialogue
and obtain information on the state-of-the-art of hazardous polluting
-------
-20-
substances pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended. In this report, usually referred to as the
12(g) Report, was born the concept of penalizing for environmental
insults. These insults were the recognized aftermath of spilling solu-
ble chemicals for which the usual oil spill type clean-up actions would
be of no help.
Since the New Orleans meeting EPA personnel have participated in
national symposia on spill prevention and control such as those held
in Houston (1972), San Francisco (1974), Denver (1975) New Orleans
(1976), and have co-sponsored a three-day symposium on drafts of
proposed hazardous substance regulations.
The concepts illustrated in these regulations have been evolved
over several years of EPA staff experience. Additional input has been
received through meetings with and requests from foreign governments.
Federal, State and municipal agencies, trade associations, environmental
and professional organizations. A partial list of such contacts follows
to demonstrate the attempt by EPA to get many viewpoints.
(1) Foreign Governments, organizations, groups
U. S. -Canadian Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Article 5
and associated annexes of 1971.
Gordon Conference 1972 (Subject: Oil and Hazardous Materials)
IMCO, Noxious Substances, Annex n of Convention 1973
Sweden - exchange of data on program development & technology
Italy - reviewing regulations and standards with industry and
government
France - receiving information on mitigation technology
Soviet Union - exchange of receiving water quality data and lists
of toxi materials
Great Britain - exchange of program and technical data visitations
GESAMP - interdisplinary and international debate on noxious and
hazardous substances.
-------
-21-
(2) Other Sections of EPA
Office of General Counsel, Office of Enforcement - Division
of Oil and Special Materials Control, Effluent Guidelines
Division, Office of Water Supply, Office of Planning and
Management, Office of Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide
Programs, Office of Solid Waste Management, Office of
Research and Development, and Regional Offices for Oil and
Hazardous Materials.
(3) Other Federal and Related Agencies
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Defense
Atomic Energy Commision
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
Coast Guard
Department of Transportation
Department of Commerce (MARAD and Maritime Commission)
Department of State
Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs
Defense Supply Agency
Government Services Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Food and Drug Administration
National Transportation Safety Board
Joint Army Navy NASA Inter agency Force
Federal Railway Administration (DOT)
Office of Pipeline Safety (DOT)
National Academy of Sciences
Tennessee Valley Authority
(4) State Agencies
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Oregon
North Carolina
Virginia
California
New York
Illinois
Hawaii
Connecticut
Colorado
- (See also Chapter I list of State Agencies with programs)
(5) Municipal Agencies and Jurisdictions
Chicago Metropolitan SanitaryDistrict
Los Angeles Water and Power Company
New Orleans Sanitary District
New York City Sanitary District
-------
-22-
Oakland Sanitary District
Honolulu Sanitary District
St. Louis Sanitary District
Toledo Chamber of Commerce
(6) Environmental Groups
Environmental Defense Fund
Natural Resources Defense Council
National Wildlife Federation
Sierra Club
(7) Trade Associations
Manufacturing Chemists Association
National Agricultural Chemist Association
American Railroad Association
American Waterway Operators
Chlorine Institutre
National Tank Truck Carriers
American Insurance Institute
American Federation of Firefighters
Fire Chiefs Association
Water Quality Assurance Groups
Soap and Detergent Association
American Petroleum Institute
Pharmaceutical Institute
Indepdent Liquid Terminals Association
Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association
National Solid Waste Management Association
Transportation Association of America
(8) Professional Organizations
American Water Works Association
Consulting Engineers Council
International Water Pollution Control Association
Water Pollution Control Federation
American Institute of Chemical Engineers
(9) Meetings, Conferences and Seminars
New Orleans meeting on Hazardous Polluting Substances - 1970
Washington, D. C. Conference on Prevention and Control
of Oil Spills - 1971
Houston Meeting on Spill Control of Hazardous Substances -
1972
Gordon Conference Oil and Other Hazardous Materials - 1973
Hazardous Substances Regulations Conferences - 1974
Transportation Association of America - 1975
-------
-20-
4. Summary of Selected Toxicity Criteria
In summary, the proposed selection criteria for hazardous sub-
stances are as follows: any element, compound, or mixture thereof,
,'
possesses sufficient danger potential to be designated as a hazardous
substance, if it is lethal to:
(a) One-half of a test population of aquatic animals in 96 hours
or less at a concentration of 500 milligrams per liter (mg/1)
or less; or
(b) One-half of a test population of animals in 14 days or less
when administered as a single oral dose equal to or less than
50 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of body weight; or
(c) One-half of a test population of animals in 14 days or less
when dermally exposed to an amount equal to or less than 200
mg/kg of body weight for 24 hours; or
(d) One-half of a test population of animals in 14 days or less
when exposed to a vapor concentration equal to or less than
20 cubic centimeters per cubic meters (volume/volume) in
air for one hour; or
(e) Aquatic flora as measured by a 50% decrease in cell count,
biomass, or photosynthetic ability in 14 days or less at con-
centrations equal to or less than 100 milligrams per liter (mg/1).
In addition to meeting one or more of the above acute lethality
criteria, a candidate substance must have a reasonable potential for
being discharged, i.e., spilled into a water body. Factors considered
-------
-19-
typical four-day exposure time for aquatic animals. These two
major differences in bioassay procedure indicate that the threshold
level for plant life should be lower than that for animal life and result
in a more restrictive selection of substances toxic to aquatic plant life.
In spill situations exposure of humans and wildlife, other than
aquatic species, to pollutants can occur by way of ingestion from
drinking water, skin contact, or inhalation of either vapor or spray.
Previously, toxicity tests have involved a variety of substance admini-
stration routes, including intraperitoneal, subcutaneous, intravenous
and intramuscular. The oral administration, acute dermal, and
inhalation data are considered by the Agency as the most applicable
to the establishment of imminent and substantial danger to humans
and wildlife from spilled pollutants.
Environmental Protection Agency publications 40 CFR Part 162 and
Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 129, Part II, pp. 28242, 28286, July 3,
1975, specify that those materials found to be "highly toxic" represent
a significant danger potential to public health and/or wildlife. Members
of this category are defined as those materials which have mammalian
toxicity as expressed by an oral LD50 equal to or less than 50 mg/kg;
an inhalation LC50 equal to or less than 20 ppm as a vapor, or equal
to or less than 0. 2 mg/1 as a dust or aerosol; or a dermal LD50 equal
to or less than 200 mg/kg. These previously recognized and defended
criteria are considered as selection criteria also for designation of
hazardous substances in the proposed rule.
-------
-18-
important role by providing habitat for fish and other aquatic fauna.
Substances which are relatively non-toxic to fish but highly damaging
to aquatic plants thus can cause damage to the aquatic community
comparable to damage resulting from materials that are highly toxic
to fish. Consequently, a material shown to have phyloloxic action
to aquatic algae and vascular plants as measured by ILm, (median
inhibitory limit) of 100 ppm or less is considered to have the potential
to pose a substantial danger to the aquatic environment when spilled.
It should be noted that although no substance on the current proposed
list of hazardous materials is listed because of only its phytotoxic
action, this criterion is maintained to permit future addition of sub-
stances which may be shown to be detrimental to this segment of
aquatic ecosystems and therefore would pose substantial danger to
public welfare including shorelines and beaches.
The use of the value of 100 mg/1 for the limiting value for phytotoxic
action rather than the threshold of 500 mg/1 proposed for acute toxicity
to aquatic animal life is supported by significant variations in the
experimental procedure used to evaluate the effect level. The pre-
scribed end-point in aquatic animal bioassay is the death of test
organisms whereas the aquatic plant bioassay effect can be a measure
of metabolic rate (as in the case of photosynthetic activity) or decreased
reproduction (cell count and biomass), both of which may be reversible
processes following passage or dilution of the pollutant. The second
major variation in experimental design is the exposure time. The
prescribed exposure time for plant life is 14 days, or 3. 5 times the
-------
-17-
twice as great as the concentration which kills half a test population
of the same species in 96-hours (see Vol. II reference 3, p. 107).
Consequently, a 96-hour, 500 ppm aquatic toxicity limit is supported
as a significant criteria for substance deletion on the basis of the
achievable pollutant concentration in the reasonable spill situation.
The Agency has evaluated past spill records in conjunction with
fish kill reports. Twenty-two of the elements and compounds earlier
proposed for designation as hazardous substances were reported as
causative agents in recent fish kill reports. Of these, seven have
involved chemicals with 96-hour LC50 values of greater than 100 mg/1
but none have LC50 values consistently greater than 500 mg/1. If the
upper limit were set at 100 mg/1 materials which are known to have
been spilled and which have caused fish kills would not be regulated
and these materials are major in use and size of handling.
Thus, an upper aquatic toxicity selection limit of 500 mg/1 is
supported in the rulemaking in the belief that it is both appropriate
and responsive to the requirement of Section 311 to identify those sub-
stances which "... present an imminent and substantial danger to the
public health or welfare, including, but not limited to, fish, shellfish, ..."
3. Other Selected Toxicity Criteria
While not specifically mentioned in Section 311, aquatic plant life
is of critical importance to aquatic fauna which is part of the "public
welfare". Phytoplankton and periphyton are primary producers of
energy in the aquatic food chain. Aquatic macrophyton play an
3
-------
Figure IV-B
POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION ACHIEVABLE BY DISCHARGE
OVER SIX-HOURS VERSUS STREAM FLOW RATE
10,000
H
M
g
I
1,000
500
100
10
100
1,000 10,000
Flow Rate (cubic feet per second)
100,000
-------
-16-
Using 96-hour LC50 data without further qualification, substantial
harm can only be interpreted as exposure of the aquatic population to
a concentration equal to the LC50 for 96 hours or more. However,
condensation of this imminently dangerour quantity into a plug requiring
less time to pass will result in still higher and potentially more damaging
concentrations. A time of passage range must therefore be defined.
Correlation of data on fish kills reveals that 95% have a duration of
six hours or more (see Vol II reference 3, p. 105). Thus the appro-
priate range of interest is 6 to 96 hours (Vol. II, ref. 3, p 23, 103).
To lend some perspective to the discussion damaging effects from
a spill, consider Figure IV-B in which the concentration (ppm) of
discharged material is plotted against flow rate (cfs) for capacity sizes
representative of various transportation modes. The graph assumes
uniform mixing in the receiving water within a 6-hour discharge time
and illustrates the relationship of pollutant concentration, per pound
/
of material discharged, to stream flow rate.
Assume that a 300 cfs stream is representative of a water body
into which a tank truck or rail car could be accidentally discharged
or that a 5, 000 cfs water body is representative of one into which the
contents of a chemical barge or tanker might be spilled. Figure IV-B
then indicates that the resulting 6-hour concentration of a hazardous
material would rarely exceed 1, 000 ppm. Review and analysis of the
literature indicates that the concentration of a given hazardous substance
necessary to kill one-half of a test population in 6 hours is approximately
-------
-15-
or 96-hour period is widely accepted as the most meaningful test
duration when considering acute effects.
The available data obviously must be adapted or interpreted to
apply to a spill where the concentration of toxic material is not usually
constant. During a spill, the substance enters the water as a large,
concentrated slug and is diluted, or in the case of insolubles, dispersed,
at a rate dependent on the type and size of the water bodye For instance,
in a flowing stream, dilution is proportional to the flow volume and
therefore, the amount of turbulence. In the case of lakes and impound-
ments, the dispersion cannot be characterized by a unidirectional flow
with rapid mixing. Rate of dilution is lower since horizontal dispersion
is usually slower. If a thermocline is present it will also affect the
rate of vertical dispersion.
\
Dilution rate is also dependent on the behavior of the material in
the above cases. Floating substances will be subjected to prevailing
wind drift while sinking materials will be affected by subsurface cur-
rent regimes. Moreover, the combined effects of very slow flushing
rates and limited areas in which aquatic organisms can migrate to
avoid the pollutant generally result in a longer period of exposure.
Many of these same effects may also be seen in estuaries where
the halocline, low freshwater flushing rates, and tidal cycles act to
decrease the dilution rate below that of free flowing rivers carrying
"i
comparable dilution volumes.
-------
-14-
American Public Health Association advocates the LC50 as the stan-
12
dard measure of toxicity to be determined in bioassay work . Re-
liance on anything other than the median lethality concentration would
necessitate the use of data not frequently reported in the open litera-
ture and would lack the value carried by an accepted standard for
measuring relative toxicity.
Natural populations typically oscillate as a result of interactive
forces in the environment. It is uncertain that contamination to the
LC10 or LC20 levels would produce fluctuations with any greater impact
than those natuaral oscillations, whereas there is little doubt that a
50% loss would be substantial. It is also important to note that labora-
tory bioassay results may not be directly proportional to effects in the
field. The potential for variances in water quality and other factors to
alter the effects of a spill reemphasizes the fact that damage cannot
be predicted in any but relative terms. Consequently, the best measure
of potential damage is a widely acceptable relative index of toxicity such
as the LC50.
In order to firmly establish what constitutes substantial harm, the
time interval for which aquatic organisms are exposed to a pollutant
must be specified, in addition to specification of the magnitude and type
of effects considered. This matter is discussed in detail in reference 3,
pages 11-23 through 27, where it is pointed out that the four-day or
-------
-13-
been the most frequently observed environmental impact of chemical
spills. The death of an important organism is clearly substantial harm,
while sublethal effects arising from an acute discharge may or may
not be substantial, depending upon their level and duration Addition-
ally, sublethal effects have been studied for only a few substances
and generally accepted standard testing procedures have not been
agreed upon,, This question is discussed in more detail in Volume II
of reference 3, beginning on page 20. The general, conclusion reached
was that lethality should be recognized as the toxic effect of prime
interest in regulations to implement Section 311,
Having concluded that attention is best focused on lethality to aquatic
life, it is necessary to specify the magnitude at which the effects become
substantial. This specification is required because individuals within
a given species will differ in their ability to withstand toxic agents. The
variance in toxic response is one of normal distribution about a median
response level. This means that the death of the first fish in a given popu-
i
lation may not signal impending expiration for the remaining individuals
In fact, the pollutant concentrations where the first death occurred in a
fish population employed for toxicological research have been reported
to differ by a factor of two to three from those at which the last death
occurred. While several data points are generated during the bioassay
analysis (10-100 percent mortality levels) only the 50% mortality level
-LC50 -is typically reported in the literature. Indeed, the
-------
-12-
known to be toxic to any life form under any possible condition. The
criteria chosen and the basis for them are explained below.
The concept of imminent and substantial danger applies to both
public health or public welfare, including fish, shellfish and wildlife.
A material which is acutely toxic to a life form specified, or to one
having close relation to public health or welfare, is the type of hazard
which Congress intended to eliminate. The degree of danger presented
by the exposure of an organism to a particular substance is depen-
dent on many factors including the concentration of the substance, the
age and general health of the target organism, the amount and kind of
pre-existing environmental stress, and the duration of the exposure.
(Of all the variables involved, the concentration,of substance, the test
species involved, and the duration of exposure are generally available
from the literature.)
2. Aquatic Toxicity
a. Magnitude of Effects
Data on the effects of various pollutant levels to aquatic life have
been collected for a variety of substances and are reported in terms of
the TLm or LC50. (The median tolerance limit, TLm, is that concen-
tration capable of inducing a given effect in 50% of the sample population
in the time specified, often 96 hours. The LC50 represents the median
lethal concentration in a specified time interval.)
Fish kills and other signs of distress in the aquatic community have
-------
-11-
history. Rejected because, taken alone, the spill potential
concept does not address the "«,.«, substantial danger* ,., " con-
cept of Section 311.
A number of materials on the list published August 22, 1974 (39
FR 30466) were eliminated from the final list even though they meet
the toxicological selection criteria discussed in Section C, 4 below.
They were rejected for designation because they were judged to have a
low potential for spillage. (The concept of "spill potential" is discussed
at greater length in Section C, 5. of this chapter.)
/
C. Rationale and Basis for Proposed Toxicity Selection Criteria
! Introduction
Section 311(b)(2)(A) states that hazardous substance regulations
should list "<,.. elements and compounds which «,,, present an. imminent
and substantial danger to the public health or welfare ... ", Specifying
all possible combinations of chemical compounds toxic to any life form
at any concentration level under all environmental conditions is obviously
impossible and also runs counter to the "... substantial danger ..."
provision. Consequently decisions must be made, at least implicitly,
as to what constitutes imminent and substantial harm to public health or
welfare. These decisions constitute criteria for selection of various
materials from the much larger set of all elements or compounds
-------
-10-
lists. Rejected because lists include explosives, compressed
gases, and other substances which do not necessarily constitute
a significant water pollution threat.
Use of historical records of accidents involving chemicals.
Rejected because no current reporting network provides sufficient
information or breadth of coverage to insure a representative
data base upon which a decision can be made.
Base listing on open-ended classification such as inorganic acids,
pesticides, and salts. Rejected because it does not specify the
"elements and compounds" designation requirement of Section 311
nor recognize wide variances in toxicological effects within generic
groups.
Expand selection criteria to include carcinogenic, mutagenic,
teratogenic, bioaccumulative, nutrient, high oxygen demand,
and radioactive substances. Rejected because of limited infor-
mation on short-term exposure effects, lack of accepted test
procedures, and difficulty in relating short-term exposures,
as found in spill situations, to the chronic exposure data.
Base listing solely on a rating of potential for discharge ("spill
potential") with evaluation of factors such as production quantity,
mode of transport, handling or storage practices and past spill
-------
9-
this potential selection criterion has not been utilized in the present
proposal. Instead, bioconcentrative properties are evaluated
separately and used in adjusting rates of penalty providing added
incentive to prevent spillage of these materials* (For further dis-
cussion of bioconcentration, see Section D of this chapter*)
Exertion of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and biostimulation
are also associated largely with chronic or continuous discharges but
can conceivably result from acute spills. The critical BOD level is
mainly a function of the site of the spill since dispersive character-
istics, nutrients, microorganism and ambient dissolved oxygen (DO)
are factors in determining the development of DO-related problems.
Similarly, acute stress arising from the release of biostimulants will
depend on the existing nutrient balance in the receiving water and other
site specific variables. For water bodies in general any attempt to
forecast harm resulting from spills of materials posing the hazards
of increased BOD or bio stimulation would be excessively probabilistic
in nature. Further discussion of the above criteria, as well as genetic
and eutrophic effects may be found in Section D of this chapter.
The following alternatives for the selection of hazardous substances
were also considered but rejected prior to publication of an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (39 FR 30466) in August 1974:
* Utilization of Department of Transportation hazardous material
-------
-8-
brief in duration and not easily defined as substantial harm in the con-
text of nonwithdrawal use. Toxicity via skin absorption and propensity
to cause skin and eye irritation can lead to substantial harm. However,
little quantitative data are available on the threshold levels at which
these effects occur, hence critical concentrations cannot be identi-
fied for most substances. Further, these effects are usually the result
of direct contact with pure materials or concentrated solutions rather
than contact with more typical relatively dilute aqueous solutions which
characterize spill situations.
D. Summary of Rejected Criteria and Alternative Approaches
Many different criteria and approaches were considered in the
development of these regulations. Those which have been defered to
a lower priority, for the present, are summarized below.
Bioconcentration is a hazard associated with a number of relatively
persistent materials. Damage caused by bio concentration has been
noted in instances which were related to continuous discharges. A heavy
diet of aquatic life containing some bioconcentrative materials over
a prolonged period can cause harm in higher life forms. However,
bioconcentration is to a degree reversible, given sufficient time and
cessation of exposure, because mechanisms for excretion, degradation
or other inactivation are known to exist for many such materials. The
probability of demonstrable, substantial harm occurring from biocon-
centration as a result of a spill is thought to be quite low. Consequently,
-------
-7-
The concentration levels at which these effects become significant,
i. e., represent ".. an imminent and substantial danger to public health
or welfare... ", are thus the possible thresholds for designation of
materials as hazardous. The threshhold levels between effects
associated with nonwithdrawal and withdrawal uses often differ by
orders of magnitude. Only a single framework can be employed in
establishing a set of consistent criteria for all water uses* Factors
bearing on the selection of a single framework include:
The greater availability of data on levels of harm for nonwith-
drawal uses vs. those available for withdrawal uses;
. The higher degree of protection afforded withdrawal uses as
a result of various levels of pre-treatment and water quality
monitoring such as water treatment plants for municipal and
industrial supplies;
The fact that present civil law is better suited for recovery
of damages to withdrawal use waters than to nonwithdrawal
uses because of the greater ease in demonstrating damages; and
The added difficulty in assessing probable harm to withdrawal
uses a. priori as a result of additional probabilistic factors
(e. g., location of intake, degree of pretreatment).
All of these points suggest the use of the nonwithdrawal framework
for setting thresholds. The effects which can impare nonwithdrawal
uses differ greatly in significance. Color and odor may occur at low
levels, but the reduction in amenities which may result is typically
-------
-6-
3. Water Uses
There is no single, definite quantity of pollutant which results in
harm at all locations and at all times,, Rather, the harm caused by
introduction of any pollutant into water is a continuous function of re-
ceiving water characteristics and depends on the concentration of
pollutant in the water body, with the overall damage resulting related
to the previous uses of that water, as has been pointed out in some
detail in Chapter I. In summary, damage can be separated into that
associated with either withdrawal uses or nonwithdrawal uses.
Uses common to the first category include potable water supply,
irrigation, and industrial water supply which may be adversely affected
by individual substances characterized by oral toxicity to humans and
livestock, taste and odor phytotoxicity, corrosivity, and flammability.
Uses common to the second category, including navigation, recreation,
commercial and sports fishing, and aesthetics, are threatened by sub-
stances which are characterized by toxicity to aquatic life; susceptibility
to bio concentration or the ability to taint fish flesh; toxicity via skin
absorption; propensity to cause skin and eye irritation; exertion of bio-
chemical oxygen demand; biostimulation; and odor, color, or other
properties which lead to a reduction in amenities.
-------
-5-
For example, kerosene contains as a major constituent straight
and branched aliphatic hydrocarbon isomers with carbon numbers mostly
in the range of C to C . They form three or more members of
11 16
a homologous series differing by a CH groupf and therefore, kerosene
2
qualifies as an oil. Vegetable oil is an edible oil general] 3^ composed
of mixtures of triglycerides. Because vegetable oils contain isomers
of triglycerides composed of three or more saturated and unsaturated
straight-chain fatty acids differing by two CH groups in ] ength, they
2
qualify as an oiL
Subject to these criteria, PCB's and toxaphene do not qualify as
oils. Both PCBs and toxaphene are composed of a multitude of isomers,
but the homologous series increment consists of a Cl atom, instead
of a fixed carbon-containing increment. However, a mixture of benzene,
toluene and isomers of xylene satisfies both criteria to qualify as oil.
2. Navigable Waters
The basic definition of "navigable waters" can be found in proposed
40 CFR Part 116. Further clarification of questions concerning navigable
waters of the United States, and of authority of various federal agencies
over them, may be found in FWPCA Section 502(7); in Executive Order
#11735 dated August 3, 1973; in the National Oil and Hazardous Sub-
stances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 1510); and in the
Regional Contingency Plans published by the ten EPA Regions.
-------
-4-
from the proceeding member by a fixed increment of certain constituents.
For example, CH OH (methanol), C H OH (ethanol), C H OH (propanol)
3 25 37
and C H OH (butanol) form an homologous series where each sucessive
4 9
member differs from the preceeding member by the increment CH .
2
If the material does not fulfill both of the above requirements,
then it does not qualify as an oil but becomes a candidate for hazardous
substance designation. The criteria must be applied together but do
not forbid the separate designation of isomers or homologs of an oil
as potential hazardous substances.
The major categories of oils are recognized as (1) petroleum,
mineral or hydrocarbon oils derived from crude petroleum, (2) mixed
fatty acids and fatty oils derived from vegetable or animal fats or
similar materials, and (3) essential oils derived from plants, usually
not esters but more often terpene hydrocarbons. Materials in category
(1) are members of a homologous series in which each successive
member has one more CH group in its molecule than the preceding
2
member. Fats are composed of fatty acids which are long-chain
aliphatic acids, both saturated and unsaturated. Members of category
(2) differ from each other by two CH groups. Compounds of category
2
(3) contain carbon atoms in multiples of five so related to each other
as to allow dissection of their structures into isoprene-like fragments.
Oils of all three categories possess a multiplicity of isomers.
-------
Figure IV-A
AATIQNALE FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN OILS AND MATERIALS
THAT MAY BE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
N
YES
IS THE
MATERIAL
PETROLEUM
DERIVED?
YES.
. CANDIDATE FOR
« HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE
IS THE
CHEMICAL
STRUCTURE
DEFINED?
L-r
NO
AN OIL OF ANY FORM
i IF it contains both:
1. MIXTURES OF ISOMERS
2. MEMBERS OF A HOMOLOGOUS SERIES
YES
NO
AN OIL OF ANY KIND
a IF it contains both:
1. MIXTURES OF ISOMERS '
2. MEMBERS OF A HOMOLOGOUS SERIES
IS THE
CHEMICAL
STRUCTURE
DEFINED?
IS THE
MATERIAL i
EXTRACTABLE?
(Organic Solvent) :
Lr
YES
CANDIDATE FOR
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE
NO
CANDIDATE FOR
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE
-------
-3-
in determining whether a discharger may be subject to civil penalties
in addition to clean-up liabilities under the hazardous substances regu-
lations, or only be subject to clean-up liabilities under the oil provisions
of the law.
2
Further guidelines proposed by Crump-Wiesner and Jennings in
1975 contain additional considerations, paraphrased below, for use in
those cases where the previous criteria did not to provide sufficient
distinction between oils and other complex materials. For instance,
no specific chemical structure can be written to characterize multi-
component substances such as PCB's, toxaphene, or mixtures of
organic compounds. The analysis must be carried further for these
substances, as explained below and illustrated in Figure IV-A.
If the chemical structure is not defined, a material would qualify
as an oil if it conforms to both of the following criteria:
1. contains mixtures of isomers
2. contains three or more members of a homologous series which
differ by a fixed carbon-containing increment
An isomer is defined as a molecule having the same number and
kind of atoms as another molecule, but differing from it in respect
to atomic arrangement or configuration. A homologous series is a
series of organic compounds in which each successive member differs
-------
-2-
(EPA Report #440/9-75-009) contains the "hazard profile sheets" for
each substance being considered a hazardous substance and provides the
basic data used by EPA in selecting the list of elements and compounds.
B. General Considerations
1. Oils versus Non-oils
Subsection 311(b)(2)(A) provides that:
"The Administrator shall develop, promulgate and
revise as may be appropriate, regulations designating
as hazardous substances, other than oil as defined in
this section, such elements and compounds which, when
discharged in any quantity into or upon the navigable
waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines or
the waters of the contiguous zone, present an imminent
and substantial danger to the public health or welfare,
including, but not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife*
shorelines and beaches."
One significant question arising from the wording of this passage,
is how to discriminate between oils and non-oils. A concise approach
has evolved to supplement definitions found in the legislation. According
to a rationale proposed by Thompson in 1971, the distinction between
a potential hazardous substance and an oil is made on the basis of
whether the substance is soluble in an organic solvent such as chloro-
form or carbon tetrachloride and whether it possesses a defined chemical
structure. If the chemical structure is not defined, then the substance
is a candidate for designation as a hazardous substance, other than
oil, under the same section. The differentiation is important because
oils are, by law, removable whereas hazardous substances may be
determined to be nonremovable. Nonremovability is the basic factor
-------
CHAPTER IV
DESIGNATION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
A. Introduction
Explosive growth of the chemical industry in the past few decades
has been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the quantity and
frequency of shipment of hazardous substances by all modes of transport.
Each year more than 500 new commercial chemicals are developed.
Each year approximately two billion tons of hazardous substances
which could cause a pollution problem are manufactured and entered
into commerce. Growing concern over these risks on the part of the
Federal government, private industry and the general public resulted
in several safety-related legislative acts including the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA). This chapter is
primarily concerned with a portion of Section 311 in the 1972 Amend-
ments which requires promulgation of regulations designating specific
elements and compounds, other than oil, as hazardous substances.
Prior to detailed discussion of the "selection criteria" used in com-
piling the proposed list of designated hazardous substances some topics
of background interest should be covered. The following section deals
with these considerations in a manner complementing the discussions
found in Chapter III of EPA Report #440/9-75-005-b. While a certain
amount of repetition is necessary for clarity, neither this chapter nor
the referenced chapter is intended to stand alone as full coverage of
all topics. In addition, the supplement to this Development Document
-------
-24-
REFERENCES TO CHAPTER El
1. Report of the Committee on Public Works, United States
House of Representatives, House Report No. 92-911,
pp. 117-118, March 11, 1972.'
2. Report of the Committee on Public Works, United States
Senate, Senate Report No. 92-414, pp. 65, 67, October 20^
1971.
3. Conference Report (to accompany S. 2770), Senate Report
No. 92-1236, pp. 133-134, September 28, 1972C
-------
-23-
(10) Legislative Interests
House Public Works Committee
Interstate Legislative Committee on Lake Erie
Illinois State Commerce Commission
(11) Miscellaneous groups and Individuals-at-Large
On August 22, 1974, the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
for Designation and Determination of Removability was pub-
lished in the Federal Register. In this notice, the public was
encouraged to supply information and comments on the proposal.
Eighty-four organizations and individuals responded. These
comments were analyzed and appropriate changes are reflected
and discussed in the proposed rulemaking package.
-------
-21-
in making this evaluation include: 1) past spill history; 2) annual
production; 3) use and distribution patterns; 4) value of the sub-
stance.
5. Spin Potential
When historical data are not available on spills of a given hazardous
substance the ability to predict the number of spills expected in a
fixed time interval is clearly of interest to the Agency. The great
variety of potentially hazardous materials leads to a desire to focus
on the smaller subset of those having a "reasonable" potential for being
discharged, i.e., spilled into a water body. Two parameters related
its care in its handling and therefore to the number of spills likely
for a given substance ("spill potential") are its cost and the quantity
produced.
In the interest of discovering and quantifying any such relationship,
cost and production data were assembled for those materials voluntarily
reported spilled during 1972 and 1973 through the Office of Hazardous
Materials Spill Information Retrieval System (OHM-SIRS) a computer-
ized reporting network, through a similar information retrieval system
operated by DOT and through EPA fish kill reports. Possible correla-
tions were then sought through a large variety of graphs relating pro-
duction or cost and the number of spills reported for a given substance.
The most significant correlation arises from a plot of the logarithm
of production range vs. the logarithm of the number of spill events
-------
-22-
per million pounds of production. According to Figure IV-C, for a
material produced at the rate of 1,000, 000 pounds per year, one spill
will be reported for each 2, 000, 000 pounds produced. For a material
produced at the rate of 10, 000,000,000 pounds per year, one spill will
be reported for each 17, 000,000 pounds produced. The rate at which
spills occur decreases as production volume increases, even though
the overall number of spills for a high volume material exceeds the
number of spills recorded for a low production volume material. The
slope of the straight line found in Figure IV-C equals approximately
4
-2 x 10 pounds per spill event. (Of the various spill data sources,
OHM-SIRS information appears the most reliable and was used separ-
ately for the graph. Figure IV-C.)
At present, the spill reports reaching OHM-SIRS or similar net
works are voluntary in nature or result from fortuitous discovery of
spills by parties other than the discharger* Consequently, those spills
presently recorded doubtless represent only a small fraction of the
total. More exact determination of the fraction reported must follow
finalization of 40 CFR Parts 116 through 118* because only then does
reporting of discharges in excess of a "harmful quantity" become com-
pulsory.
Table IV-1 below lists those chemicals from the designation list
of proposed 40 CFR Part 116 on which production quantity information
is available but for which no spills have been reported through the
-------
ion
i n
10
_
s
0>
X
& IK*
S
O
£?
8
u
^
8
£» io8
H
c3
3,
s_r
10?
.
-«6
-\ T Figure IV-C
\
\
\ SPILL RATE vs. PRODUCTION RANGE*
\
N ^
\
\
S
\
\
N
* \ T
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\T
\
V
V
s
\
\
\
\
1 \
~ \ T
V
\
\
s
\
\
\
1
\ "
v
\
\ T
" - " V :
\
\^
\
s
II' 1 \
10'4 10'3 IO"2 IO"1
Annual Number of Spills per Million Pounds Produced
*Using spill data from the Oil and Hazardous Materials Spill Information
Retrieval System (OHM-SIRS) for the years 1972 and 1973.
-------
23-
OHM-SIRS network. The purpose of the Table IV-1 is to indicate
predictions possible based on the preceding graphical scheme of
Figure IV-C.
TABLE IV-1
Materials from Proposed 40 CFR Part 116 With Verified
Production Quantities but no OHM/SIRS Spill Information
Material
acetaldehyde
acetic anhydride
acetone cyanohydrin
acrolein
aldrin
allyl chloride
aluminum sulfate
ammonium acetate
ammonium chloride
ammonium sulfate
amyl acetate
Production
Quantity (Ib)
1.45 x
2.24x
5.40x
5.5 x 1
1.05 x
1.84x
1.50x
1.03 x
5,32 x
4.16 x
9
10
9
10
6
10
7
0
7
10
8
10
9
10
6
10
7
10
9
10
7
I.I xlO
# Spills /Yr Predicted
/Million Ib # Spills /Yr
2.
1.
1.
2.
8.
1.
2.
4.
2.
1.
8,
43 x
75 x
20 x
55 x
50 x
06 x
38 x
50 x
63 x
13x
20 x
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-3
-3
-1
-2
9
"2
3
-i
-2
-3
-2
3.
3.
0.
I.
0.
2.
3.
0.
1,
4.
0,
5
9
65
4
89
0
6
46
4
7
90
-------
-24-
TABLE IV -1 (Continued)
Material
aniline
arsenic trioxide
benzoic acid
benzoyl chloride
benzyl chloride
beryllium chloride
boric acid
butyl acetate
butylamine
calcium
hypo chlorite
captan
chlorobenzene
chloroform
cupric sulfate
hydrogen cyanide
Production
Quantity (Ib)
8
4.10x10
7
1.60x 10
8
1.55 x 10
7
3o4x 10
7
8.04x 10
7
1.70x10
8
1.40 xlO
7
9.57 xlO
7
2.62 xlO
7
8.06 x 10
7
1.3x 10
8
4.85 x 10
8
2.35 xlO
7
8.67 x 10
8
2.72 x 10
\
# Spills /Yr
/Million Ib
-3
6.00 xlO
-2
6.25x 10
-2
1.22 xlO
-2
3.60 x 10
-2
1.93x10
-2
6.00x10
-2
1.30x10
-2
1.70 x 10
-2
4.40x10
-2
1.93 xlO
-2
7.30x 10
-3
5.30x 10
' -3
9.00x 10
-2
1.83x10
-3
8.10x10
Predicted
# Spills /Yr
2.5
1.0
1.9
1.2
1.6
1.0
1.8
1.6
1.2.
1.6
0.95
2.6
2.1
1.6
2.2
-------
-25-
TABLE IV -1 (Continued)
Material
sodium, cyanide
DDT
dicamba
diethylamine
sulfton
diuron
ethion
ethylenediammine
aluminum fluoride
sodium fluoride
formic acid
fumaric acid
hydroquinone
kelthane
lindane
Production
Quantity (Ib)
7
4o5 xlO
7
6.0x 10
6
6. Ox 10
6
8.8x 10
5
8x 10
6
6x10
6
3x 10
7
6.21 x 10
8
2.64 x 10
7
1.38x 10
7
3<19x 10
7
5cl4 x 10
7
1 , 23 x 10
6
4, 0 x 10
6
1x10
# Spills /Yr
/Million Ib
-2
3.05 x 10
"2
"1
1.27 xlO
-2
9.60 xlO
1
1,02 xlO
-1
1.27x10
-I
2.10x10
-2
2,33 x 10
3
8.20 x 10
-2
7,00 x 10
-2
3.80 x 10
2. GO x 10
~2
V.60 x 10
-5
1.70 x 10
4.65 x 10
Predicted
# Spills i/Yr
1.4
1.4
0,76
0,84
0.82
0.76
0.63
1.4
2.2
0.97
1.2
1.3
0.93
0.68
0.46
-------
-26-
TABLE IV -1 (Continued)
Material
malathion
maleic anhydride
monoethylamine
monomethylamine
naled
naphthenic acid
nickel sulfate
nitrobenzene
nitrophenol
pentachlorophenol
phosgene
phosphorous
phosphorous
oxychloride
phosphorous
pentasulfide
phoshporous
Production
Quantity (Ib)
7
3.5 xlO
8
2.29x 10
7
2.81 xlO
7
2.87x10
6
2 x 10
6
1.7x10
7
4.08 x 10
8
5.51 x 10
7
3.36 x 10
7
4.7x 10
8
6.37x10
9
Iol9x 10
7
6.68.x 10
8
1.25 x 10
8
1.25 x 10
# Spills /Yr
/Million Ib
-2
3.55x 10
-3
9.20x 10
-2
4.20x10
-2
4.10x 10
-1
2.80x 10
-1
3.18x10
-2
3.15x 10
-3
4.90x 10
-2
3.65 xlO
-2
2.85 x 10
-3
4.20x 10
-3
2.80x 10
-2
2.23x 10
-2
1.42 x 10 '
-2
1.42 x 10
Predicted
# Spills /Yr
1.2
2.1
1.2
'1.2
0.56
0.54
1.3
2.7
1.2
1.3
2.7
3.3
1.5
1.8
1.8
trichloride
-------
-27-
.TABLE IV-1 (Continued)
Production # Spills /Yr
Material Quantity (Ib) /Million Ib
6 -J
quinoline 2.7x10 2.27x10
7 -2
resorcinol 2.6x10 4.40x10
8 -3
sodium 3.21x10 7.20x10
9 ~3
sodium borate 1 . 05 x 1 0 3. 05 x 1 0
7 -2
sodium hydrosulfide 9.9x10 1.67x10
6 -1
sodium methylate 5.2x10 1,42x10
7 -2
sodium phosphate, 4. 16x10 3. 13x10
dibasic
7 -2
sodium phosphate, 5.26 x 10 2, 55 x 10
monobasic
9 -3
sodium silicate 1* 32 x 10 2,58 x 10
8 -2
sodium sulfide 1. 75 x 10 1,11 x 10
6 -J
2,4,5-T (acid) 4.9x10 1.46x10
7 -2
tannic acid 4. 0 x 10 3. 20 x 10
8O
*° o
tetraethyl lead 3. 02 x 10 7. 50 x 10
7 -2
toxaphene 5. 0 x 10 2. 70 x 10
7 -2
trichlorophenol x 2.8x10 4.20x10
Predicted
# Spills /Yr
0.61
id
2.3
3,2
1.7
0.74
1.3
1.3
3,4
1.9
0,72
1.3
2.3
1.4
1.2
-------
Production # Spills/Yr
Quantity (Ib) /Million Ib
7 -2
2.55x10 4.5x10
7 -2
1.46x10 6.7x10
7 -2
8.94x10 1.80x10
Predicted
i Spills/Yr
1.1
0.98
1.6
-28-
TABLE IV-1 (Continued)
Material
trimethylamine
xylenol
zinc sulfate
After publication of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
which included a tentative designation list, (Federal Register, Vol. 39,
No. 164, Part IV, pp. 30466-30471, August 22, 1974), several public
comments were received concerning expression of the concepts of
"research quantities" and spill potential in general. As a result,
these concepts have been reexamined and clarified.
Identification of a single, specific production quantity indicative
of wide commercial usage, versus exclusively research -related use,
proves very troublesome. It now appears more appropriate to consider
research quantity as one of several factors involved in the overall eval-
uation of spill potential. (In the Advance Notice, exclusively research '
related use was originally suggested as an independent reason for elim-
inating a substance from further consideration before consideration
of toxicity. )
data were available concerning the mode of transportation, han-
dling practices and storage practices for many substances. Therefore,
-------
-29-
these considerations are no longer included in the assessment of
potential for discharge.
Factors currently proposed (40 CFR Part 116) in determining spill
potential are:
I o Past history of spillage
2c Production quantity
3. Use and distribution patterns
4,, Value of the substance
A flow diagram found in Figure IV-D illustrates the order in which
the factors mentioned above are considered in the overall assessment
of spill potential. Further explanation is provided below»
Spill records presently available are checked for candidate sub-
stances meeting at least one lethality criterion. Those substances
having a previous history of spillage are maintained as proposed hazardous
substancest Because the reporting of spills of substances other than
oil is not yet required, the spillage of many substances has undoubtedly
gone unreported. Consequently, those spills presently recorded do
not represent an inclusive representation of all substances which
have a reasonable potential for discharge and additional factors must
be considered.
Records of spills accumulated by EPA and DOT show that the mater-
ials spilled most frequently aret in general, the ones that are most
abundant in commerce. That is, a distinction may be made between
heavy usage bulk chemicals and other less widely used and distributed
-------
Figure IV-D - SPILL POTBTTIAL
Spill History
1
Known
1
On List
1
1
Unknown
1
I
Annual Production Annual Production
1
Sole use as
a pesticide
On List
Unit
than
less than or
pounds or ur
I
Use Limited to:
le billion equal to or greater
iknown than one billion Ib,
On List
Other Uses Use Unknown
1. Research
2. Analytical reagents
3. Food additives
4. Medicinal
5. Veterinary medical
J
Drop
1
I
Drop
1
Price less Unit Price Unit Price
or equal to unknown greater than
$1 per pound
1
[11 per pound
i
On List
On List
Drop
-------
-30-
chemicals. An analysis of production quantities, usage, and selling
price indicates that chemicals produced in excess of one billion pounds
annually are commonly used in highly diversified products and pro-
cesses. As such, they are handled and transported in large quantities
and multiple locations. Such chemicals also have a typically low selling
price and could therefore receive a lower priority of handling concern.
Accordingly, candidate substances which fall into this category are
judged to have a relatively high spill potential and are proposed for
designation as hazardous substances (40 CFR Part 116) within the
meaning of Section 311.
Materials which are produced in quantities less than one billion
pounds annually or for which annual production is not known, are further
examined for use and distribution patterns, and unit price. Substances
with usages limited to areas such as research, medicinals, food addi-
tives, or analytical reagents are not further considered for designation
at this time. These materials are subject to limited production and are
less frequently stored or transported in bulk. Such substances are
generally of high purity and are relatively high-priced. As such, they
are subject to careful handling which makes spillage much less Likely.
Substances known to have uses other than those mentioned in the
preceeding paragraph, but which have a high commercial market value,
are also considered to pose a limited spill risk. Additional safeguards
in the manufacture, handling, and processing of such valuable substances
appear to minimize the possibility of spillage,, Spill data gathered
-------
-31-
during 1973 through the OHM-SIRS reporting system is plotted versus
cost in Figure IV-E. The graph clearly indicates that the number
of spills reported for high-priced materials is far smaller than the
number for low-priced materials. While this graph does not correct
for the influence of production quantity, it supports the use of a cost
cutoff value as a reflection of potential for spillage. This approximation
simplifies the regulation by shortening the list while maintaining a high
level of environmental protection. The cost cutoff chosen for use at
this time is one dollar per pound.
Substances for which no definite use can be established, other
than an assumed but undocumented research-related use, are eliminated
from further consideration at this time. Receipt of documentation on
the uses of such materials may lead to reconsideration of their spill
potential in the future.
Because of their intentional use and distribution in the environ-
ment, chemicals used primarily as pesticides are believed to have
a high hazard even for low probability of discharge to the water and
are maintained as candidate substances regardless of production volume
or selling price.
As an example of the general process used to evaluate a substance
for designation as hazardous, consider the compound sulfuric acid.
Since its toxicological properties are well documented and meet the
aquatic toxicological selection criterion, .the potential for spillage of*
-------
o
p.
50
45
40
35
30
u
.s
3
20
15
10
Figure IV-E '
NUMBER OF SPILLS vs. COST
OF MATERIALS SPILLED*
\~^
10
20 30 40
Spills per Year
50
60
70
*Using spill data collected through the OHM-SIRS reporting
system during the year 1973.
-------
-32-
this chemical is examined.
Sulfuric acid is the highest volume product in the chemical industry,
with 59,000, 000,000 pounds produced in 1971. Further, its production
and use are steadily increasing. From the order of consideration shown
in Figure IV-D, the fact that sulfuric acid is produced in quantities
exceeding 1, 000, 000, 000 pounds per is year taken as sufficient indica-
tion that this chemical is likely to be spilled. Consequently, this sub-
stance is listed in proposed 40 CFR Part 116. (Other data are avail-
able to support this decision. Department of Transportation and
Environmental Protection Agency records show a continual increase
in accidents involving sulfuric acid through the years 1971, 1972 and
1973. While production volume is considered the decisive factor in
this example, the large number of manufacturers and distributers, as
well as the low cost of the commodity are contributive factors.)
An example of a material that does not qualify as a hazardous sub-
stance because of low spill potential, using Figure IV-D, is ammonium
gluconate. This compound was tentatively included in the Advance
Notice because of toxic properties of the ammonium ion. Subsequent
analysis reveals that production figures are not available, that the
chemical has only limited distribution and use as an emulsifier in the
food industry, and that it has no record of past spillage. The analysis
results in an evaluation of low spill potential and this substance is not
designated in proposed 40 CFR Part 116.
-------
-33-
Early efforts at evaluating data which lead to designation of ele-
ments and compounds suggested the use of a priority ranking. This
alternative was considered but rejected because of the incomplete data
base and because of the changing priorities which may result from new
products being manufactured and new markets being created,, Attention
has been maintained of these priority lists as the selection criteria
14
were developed .
b. Materials Deleted Because of Low Potential for Discharge
A number of other substances listed in the August 22, 1974 Advance
Notice shown in Table IV-2 appear to have little probability for discharge
following the revised logic found in Figure IV~D. They are therefore
deleted from the designation list of proposed 40 CFR Part 116. Receipt
of persuasive evidence to the contrary during the proposed rule comment
period would permit reconsideration of this deletion,,
-------
-34-
TABLE IV-2
Materials Deleted Because of Low Potential for Discharge
Ammonium Ferrocyanide
Ammonium Formate
Ammonium Gluconate
Ammonium Malybdate
Antimony Triiodide
Arsenic Tribromide
Arsenic Trifluoride
Arsenic Triiodide
Beryllium Hydroxide
Beryllium Phosphate
Beryllium Sulfate
Brucine
Cadmium Fluoborate
Cadmium Nitrate
Cadmium Sulfate
Catechol
Chromous Carbonate
Chromous Oxalate
Cobaltous Acetate
Cobaltous Chloride
Cobaltous Citrate
Cobaltous Iodide
Cobaltous Nitrate
Cobaltous Perchlorate
Cobaltous Succinate
Cobaltous Sulfate
Cupric Acetylacetonate
Cupric Bromide
Cupric Gluconate
Cuprous Iodide
Ferric Glycerophosphate
Ferric Phosphate
Ferrous Oxalate
Hydroquinone
Lead Bromide
Lithium Fluoride
Mercuric Ammonium
Chloride
Mercuric Bromide
Mercuric Chloride
Mercuric Iodide
Mercuric Oxide
Mercurous Chloride
Mercurous Iodide
Molybdic Trioxide
Nickel Acetate
Nickel Bromide
Nickel Fluoride
Nickel Iodide
Nickel Perchlorate
Phosphorous Pentafluoride
Pyrogallic Acid
Selenic Acid
Selenium Oxychloride
Tannic Acid
Vanadium Oxytrichloride
Zinc Ammonium Sulfate
Zinc Permanganate
Zinc Propionate
Zirconium Ammonium
Fluoride
-------
-35-
D. Selection Criteria Considered and Why Rejected at Present
As summarized in part D of Section II of this chapter, several
other criteria were considered,. These are discussed below to
clarify the intent of the Agency and to allow more efficient comment
by the the public.
! Bioconcentration
The terms "bioconcentration", "bioaccumulation", and "biomagni-
fication" are all used to refer to the phenomenon by which living organ-
isms incorporate an element or compound to a body level exceeding
the level of environmental exposure. The three terms are defined by
4
Kneip and Lauer as follows:
Bioconcentration refers to the ability of an organism or a popu-
lation of many organisms of the same trophic level to concentrate
a substance from an aquatic system.
Bioaccumulation refers to the ability of an organism to not only
concentrate, but to continue to concentrate essentially throughout
its active metabolic lifetime, such that the "concentration factor",
if calculated, would be continuously increasing during its lifetime.
Biomagnification is the term which should be used when a substance
is found to exist at successively higher concentrations with increasing
trophic levels in ecosystem food chains.
5
Polikarpov has defined the concentration factor as the ratio of
the concentration of a material in a biological species to the con-
-------
-36-
centration of the material in the water or the preceding link in the
food chain.
With this definition of the concentration factor, materials which
bio concentrate, bioaccumulate, or biomagnify can be defined as those
substances which have the ability to display a concentration factor. For
the purpose of designating substances as hazardous, this definition is
adequate since the effects or the potential to produce damage vary only
in the degree of effect and number of trophic levels affected and are
independent of the route of exposure or mechanism of uptake. The
term bioconcentration will be used since the definition is the most
general and is inclusive of the other two. The general terminology
is valid for addressing materials since an initial concentration must
precede accumulation or magnification. Simply stated, an organism
exposed to a concentration of bioconcentrative material will, in time,
display a higher tissue level of the material. This definition intention-
ally excludes cumulative effects which may be observed when irreversible
damage is inflicted by a toxic material that is not retained by the organ-
ism but is detoxified, metabolized, or excreted.
For a large percentage of toxic materials, the affected organism
has a metabolic capability by which sublethal doses are excreted or
detoxified. In the case of bioconcentrative substances, the detoxifi-
cation-excretion mechanism is slow and often incomplete with the
observed concentration occurring in specific tissues and organs or
-------
37-
generally distributed in all body cells.
The bioconcentrative materials fall into two groups and can be
classified according to their retention mechanism.
One group is the heavy metals such as mercury, cadmium, and
lead which have a high affinity for sulfhydryl functional! groupsf disul-
fide bonds, amino acids, purines, and porphyrins found distributed in
all tissues. The metals can, therefore, act at a variety of biochemical
sites. Sulfhydryls and disulfide are important elements in maintaining
the tertiary structure of many structural proteins and enzymes r In
specific enzymes, the sulfhydryls have a direct catalytic or binding
function at the active site. In vitro experimentation has shown that
soluble forms of heavy metals are potent, irreversible inhibitors of
most enzymes. The mode of action is usually that of formation of
strong metallosulfur bonds with the sulfhydryls and disulfides or, in
the case of some metallo-enzymes, substitution of the metal moiety.
Direct enzyme inactivation results when the reactive sulfhydryl is at
the active site. Protein denaturation occurs when the sulfhydryls and
disulfides involved in maintaining tertiary structure are modified by
association with the metal ion. In either case, the inactivated or
denatured protein becomes non-functional. The result can be partial
or total blockage of a metabolic pathway or control mechanism or the
6-8
loss of structural integrity at the cellular or sub-cellular level
Normal excretion of an absorbed material requires solubilization
and transport to an excretory organ. In the case of bioconcentrated
-------
-38-
heavy metals such as mercury, excretion occurs at only very slow
rates. The slow excretion rate coupled with a relatively active uptake
mechanism results in observed concentration factors. For mercury,
aquatic life concentration factors have been calculated to vary between
24 4
1 x 10 and 1x10 depending on the organism .
The persistent organic materials typified by DDT, toxaphene, and
endrin are the second class of bioconcentralive materials., Their
mechansim of retention and effects is much different from the heavy
metals. A universal feature of these materials is their high solubility
in non-polar solvents as opposed to their extremely low water solubility.
The solubility characteristics account for that portion of the biocon-
centration problem dealing with initial uptake and retention. The net
effect is that of partitioning between the more polar nature of body
fluids in the case of oral ingestion, or water in the case of direct
sorbtion and the apolar nature of fatty tissue. As a result of the par-
titioning, very low concentrations in the blood or water eventually
result in large concentrations in fatty tissues or lipid cellular fractions.
Concentration factors for various chlorinated hydrocarbons are found
2 5
to range between 1 x 10 and 4x10 depending on the material and
trophic level evaluated (reference 4).
Most proteins or lipids, particularly the metallic micronutrients,
have significant concentration factors at some tijphic level. Since
-------
-39-
these data would qualify required nutrients as bioconcentrative sub-
stances, only those elements and compounds for which no nutritional
requirements has been generally established could reasonably be
selected by the bioconcentration criterion. In any event, evaluating
even the small amount of bioconcentration data available is a difficult
task since no standard bioassay or testing procedure has been adopted
by which the concentration potential of a material can be consistently
assessed. However* and effect such as bioaccumuiation is typically
noted after lengthy or lifetime exposure of test populations. Such
chronic, long term exposures cannot presently be reconciled with the
acute nature of spill discharges which are the concern of Section 311.
In summary, the lack of information, lack of standardization of
available information and continuing related controversy about syner-
gistic/antagnistic effects of multiple pollutants have resulted in a
decision to exclude bioconcentration as a selection criterion at this
time.
2. Genetic Effects
Genetic effects, as used here applies to a broad range of more
specific effects observed involving malfunctions of the genetic process
either in mitosis or meiosis. These effects are commonly referred
to as carcinogenesis, teratogenesis, and mutagenesis. When the
effects are chemically induced, current thinking in some quarters is
that the inducing agent casuses a chemical modification of DNA nucleo-
-------
-40-
tides. A few chemicals are suspected of producing genetic effects based
on casual relationships established either in the laboratory or with
observation of exposed populations.
Some efforts have been made to bioassay for carcinogenic activity
using test animals or tissue cultures. Most of these assays involve
particularly sensitive strains of animals or cultures. Exposure routes
are usually direct, rather than waterborne, and are continuous for
long periods of time. The extrapolation of this chronic data to the
problem of acute spills into water appears tenuous at this time.
An alternate approach involves the gathering of circumstantial evi-
dence. Following exposure to the suspected genetic agent, plant or
animal cells are examined for "chromosome aberrations". Chromo-
some aberrations can be loosely defined as gross alterations in the
quaternary structure of the chromosomes. The assayed effect is con-
sidered circumstantial because the production of the aberrations is not
always associated with an observed whole-body genetic effect. In addi-
tion, many of the structural alterations are readily reversible, pre-
sumably by nucleic acid repiar mechanisms.
The problems in extrapolating and quantifying the scarce data that
are available are further complicated by existence of another school
of thought on the cause and mechanism of genetic malfunction. Many
studies have linked certain defined malignant tumor induction to viral
-------
-41-
agents. This seems quite plausible in light of the well defined mechan-
ism by which viruses utilize the host cell genetic machinery to repro-
duce., A combination of the two approaches has produced 3, theory
that the chemical agent either predisposes or sensitizes the host cell
to virus infection.
In summary, while genetic effects caused by spills should be further
investigated because of their danger potential* lack of adequate defini-
tion and quantification of the cause-effect relationship precludes their
inclusion as a basis for designating materials as hazardous substances
at this time.
3. Eutrophication Considerations
Concern has been expressed that a large spill-type discharge of
nutrients into an impoundment has the potential to create eutrophic
conditions and thus present an Imminent and substantial danger to
aquatic life.
Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus added singly or in combin3.tion
to water from lakes of nine different fertility levels resulted in maxi-
mum standing crops of an introduced test algae directly proportional
only to phosphorous levels and had no obvious correlation with carbon
9,10
or nitrogen « (Such laboratory data were substantiated when the
diversion of sewage from Lake Washington decreased phosphorus in-
put by 72%, nitrate by 20% and carbon by 25%f A concomitant decrease
-------
-42-
in algae biomass followed the same pattern as phosphorus to a total
of 80% decrease.)
Studies on Lake Erie show a total annual pollutant biochemical
oxygen demand input with a carbon equivalent of 75, 000 tons. In con-
trast, the lake bicarbonates (20-25 ppm carbon) equal 10-12. 5 million
tons of carbon or about 150 times the amount from an entire year's
input of sewage. At peak growing season, the biomass of 4. 9 million
tons contains 1. 8 million tons of carbon, a value far exceeding the
amount potentially controllable in pollutant inputs. Obviously, carbon
available in bicarbonates, not to mention the additional free CO from
2
the atmosphere and from microbiological decomposition of organics,
far exceeds the demands of algae production. The ratio of carbon in
bicarbonates to the lake's total phosphorus is 800:1. If the carbon/
phosphorus ratio in algae is about 40 (Table IV-3), then there is about
20 times more bicarbonate carbon available than is required to com-
pletely deplete the water of phosphorous. Similarly, Lake Erie has
a 6-fold surplus of nitrogen, yielding a nitrogen/phosphor us ratio of
seven. These calculations show that it is phosphorus and not carbon
which is the growth limiting nutrient.
TABLE IV-3
Elemental Composition - Freshwater Algae
C * 49.51-70. 17
O = 17.40-33.20
-------
-43-
H = 6.57-10.26
N = 1.39-10.98
P = 1.35-2.76
Based on the preceding calculations, the probability of an isolated
spill-type discharge of phosphorus-containing nutrient in sufficient
quantity to produce eutrophic danger levels would seem remote. How-
ever, one must keep in mind that nutrients are continually cycled,
particularly in water bodies with slow flushing rates such as lakes.
Because of the phoshporus and nitrogen cycles, the input of nutrients
is an additive phenomenon. Since many of our natipn's lakes are near
the dangerous level already, one should consider whether a spill could
possibly trigger a disasterous algal bloom, particularly in smaller
6
lakes. Shagawa Lake, in Minnesota, has a surface area of 10. 68 x 10
square meters and a mean depth of 6. 7 meters. Calculation shows
2
that the critical loading rate of 0.16 g/meter /year could be reached
for a lake of this size with a 3, 800 pound discharge of pure phosphorus,
or 18, 000 pounds of Na HPO Considering the additive effect, it is
2 4
possible that a truck or rail car capacity spill of phosphate could
promote an algal bloom.
A somewhat larger lake such as Qneida in New York with a mean
8
depth of 6« 8 meters and a surface area of 2. 067 x 10 square meters
-------
-44-
would be endangered by a 423, 000 pound spill of nutrient phosphate.
This example would seem significant in that the New York State
Barge Canal system traverses the lake.
However, the potential environmental danger posed by spills of
phosphorus or compounds containing phosphorus has been addressed,
though in a different fashion, by the proposed regulatory package.
Pure phosphorus, phosphoric acid and the common sodium salts
of phosphoric acid haVe been selected for designation because they
also exhibit toxic effects from acute exposure on selected aquatic
species. Moreover, the "harmful quantities", or minimum quantity
for compulsory notification and civil penalty purposes, determined for
the phosphorous -containing materials mentioned are in all cases no
greater than 500 pounds. These include a harmful quantity of one
pound for pure phosphorus, to be contrasted with the 3, 800 pound
discharge calculated to result in algal bloom on Shagawa Lake and
with the 18, 000 pounds of sodium phosphate, dibasic, calculated to
produce an algal bloom in Shagawa Lake.
Finally, since phosphorus has been shown to be the growth limiting
nutrient in eutrophication, designation of the common or important phos-
phorous-containing materials brings the general eutrophication phenom-
-------
-45-
enon under regulatory control. While the level and effectiveness of con-
trol will be undergoing continuous review, there does not now appear to
be a need for a separate selection criterion based on eutrophication
phenomena.
4c Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Dissolved oxygen is essential to the well being of much of the life
in the aquatic environment. Oxygen consumption by direct oxidation
of spilled chemicals or indirectly, as a result of biochemical utiliza-
tion stimulated by a spilled chemical, is thus of concern. The follow-
ing discussion illustrates the complexities which might be encountered
in using a fixed level of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) as a selection
s
criterion for designating a substance as hazardous under Section 311.
a. Effects of Low Levels of Dissolved Oxygen
A number of interesting passages from a standard text by McKee
11
and Wolf provide some appreciation of the complexity of problems
involving oxygen demand. (Numbered references to original literature
in the text have been deleted for clarity. For these, see reference 11
pp. 180-181)
"The content of dissolved oxygen in water at equilibrium
with a normal atmosphere is a function of the temperature
and salinity of the water, the ability of water to hold oxygen
decreasing with increases in temperature or dissolved
solids.. c
"There is a great deal of literature pertaining to the mini-
mum dissolved oxygen concentration necessary to sustain
-------
-46-
healthy aquatic life, especially fish, and the concentration
below which fish will be killed by short-term exposure...
No general statement can be made to give the dissolved
oxygen concentration required to support fish life, owing
to the fact that the oxygen requirements of fish vary with
the species and age of the fish, with prior acclimatization,
with temperature, with concentration of other substances
in the water, and with several other factors...
"The lethal effect of low concentrations of dissolved oxygen
appears to be increased by the presence of toxic substances,
such as excessive dissolved carbon dioxide, ammonia, cyan-
ides, zinc, lead, copper, or cresols. With so many factors
influencing the effect of oxygen deficiency, it is difficult to
estimate the minimum safe concentration at which fish will
be unharmed under natural conditions...
"Several factors aside from the deoxygenating effects of
pollutants influence the concentration of dissolved oxygen
in surface waters. There is a diurnal variation owing to
the photosynthetic action of algae during daylight hours
and their respiration at night. Indeed, heavy fish mor-
talities have arisen from the oxygen demand caused by
the decomposition of algae. There is also a variation of
oxygen with the depth of water, especially in lakes and
stagnant ponds. For this reason, fish may avoid the
deeper, cooler waters and be forced to remain in shallow
warm areas. Dissolved oxygen concentrations near the
bottom muds of lakes and sluggish rivers may approach
zero...
"The Aquatic Life Advisory Committee of ORSANCO [Ohio
River Valley Water Sanitation Commission] has recommended
that the minimum permissible oxygen concentration for a
well-rounded warm-water fish population be as follows: The
dissolved oxygen content of warm-water fish habitats shall be
not less than 5 mg/1 during at least 16 hours for any 24-hour
period. It may be less than 5 mg/1 for a period not to exceed
8 hours within any 24-hour period, but at no time shall the
oxygen content be less than 3 mg/1. To sustain a coarse fish
population, the dissolved oxygen concentration may be less
than 5 mg/1 for a period of not more than 8 hours out of any
24-hour period, but at no time shall the concentration be lower
than 2 mg/1...
"Oysters show considerable resistance to oxygen deficiencies,
according to Mitchell. Only when exposed for more than a week
to very low concentrations of dissolved oxygen were oysters
killed, and hence a temporary decrease in available oxygen is
not considered by Mitchell to be a significant factor to oyster
culture...
-------
-47-
"Summary. On the basis of the available information des-
cribed above, it is not feasible to attempt to suggest an optimum
dissolved oxygen content of water for domestic, industrial,
stock and wildlife, or recreational uses. For fish and other
aquatic life, the recommendations of the Aquatic Life Advisory
Committee of ORSANCO (as quoted above) appear to be logical. "
This summary by experts in the area quoted illustrates the lack of a
clear-cut, unchallengeable cutoff in BOD such as is desirable for regula-
tions as widely applicable as those proposed under Section 311. In
particular, choice of the type of deleterious effect which is most appro-
priate for a given purpose is frequently a source of misunderstanding.
This problem is discussed in Section C, 2, a and Section D, 4,b below.
bo Significance and Margin of Error in BOD Testing
/
McKee and Wolf found the ORSANCO recommendations plausible
but not irrefutable. There are still other fundamental difficulties
concerning the significance and margin of error resulting from con-
ventional BOD analyses. These are illustrated in the following passages
from reference 12, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater, 13th ed., p. 489
"o. * The biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) determination
described herein constitutes an empirical test, in which
standardized laboratory procedures are used to determine
the relative oxygen requirements of wastewaters, effluents
and polluted waters. The test has its widest application
in measuring waste loadings to treatment plants and in
evaluating the efficiency (BOD removal) of such treatment
systems. Comparison of BOD values cannot be made unless
the results have been obtained under identical test conditions..,
"The test is of limited value in measuring the actual oxygen
demand of surface waters, and the extrapolation of test
results to actual stream oxygen demands is highly question-
able, since the laboratory environment does not reproduce
-------
-48-
stream conditions, particularly as related to temperature,
sunlight, biological population, water movement and oxygen
concentration...
"Complete stabilization of a given waste may require a
period of incubation too long for practical purposes. For
this reason, the 5-day period has been accepted as standard.
For certain industrial wastes, however, it may be advisable
to determine the oxidation curve obtained. Conversion of
data from one incubation period to another can only be made
if such special studies are carried out. Studies in recent
years have shown that the exponential rate of carbonaceous
oxidation, k, at 20 C rarely has a value of 0.1, although
it may vary from less than one-half to more than twice
this value. This fact usually makes it impossible to cal-
culate the ultimate carbonaceous demand, L, of a sample
from 5-day BOD values unless the k value has been deter-
mined on the sewage, wastewater or stream under con-
sideration. It appears from recent work that the expo-
nential interpretation of BOD rate curves is a gross over-
simplification; the analyst should not be surprised if a good
exponential fit is not obtained..
"There is no standard against which the accuracy of the BOD
test can be measured. To obtain precision data, a glucose-
glutamic acid mixture was analyzed by 34 laboratories, with
each laboratory using its own seed material (settled stale
sewage). The geometric mean of all results was 184 mg/1
and the standard deviation of that mean was + 31 mg/1 (17%).
The precision obtained by a single analyst iiThis own labora-
tory was + 11 mg/1 (5%) at a BOD of 218 mg/1. "
Note that even in the case of an artificial standard, which is much
better characterized and well-behaved than a real sample, the spread
of values obtained from replicate tests is wide. This alone suggests
that setting a single cutoff value could open the door to equivocation
on enforcement actions, assuming such a criterion would withstand
previous judicial review.
Overall, many questions remain unanswered relative to the signi-
ficance of BOD testing in surface waters and concerning precision and
-------
-49-
accuracy of standardized BOD tests. Consequently, a selection criterion
for designation of hazardous substances based on BOD is not appropriate
at this time.
It should be recognized that this view is, in fact, compatible with the
dissolved oxygen water quality criteria stated in reference 13, since the
latter are aimed at chronic, longer-term situations and also at different
levels of effect on aquatic species. The following quote from reference
13, pp. 131-132, illustrates this difference in basic outlook which, quite
logically, leads to different answers.
".. .in evaluating criteria, it is not important to know how long an
animal can resist death by asphyxiation at low dissolved oxygen con-
centrations. Instead, data on the oxygen requirements for egg deve-
lopment, for newly hatched larvae, for normal growth and activity,
and for completing all stages of the reproductive cycle are pertinent.
Upon review of the available research, one fact becomes clear: any
reduction of dissolved oxygen can reduce the efficiency of oxygen up-
take by aquatic animals and hence reduce their ability to meet the
demands of their environment. There is evidently no concentration
level or percentage of saturation to which the oxygen content of natural
waters can be reduced without causing or risking some adverse effects
on the reproduction, growth, and consequently, the production of fishes
inhabiting those waters.
Accordingly, no single, arbitrary recommendation can be set for
dissolved oxygen concentrations that will be favorable for all kinds of
waters, or even one kind of fish in a single kind of water. Any re-
duction in oxygen may be harmful by affecting fish production and the
potential yield of a fishery.
The selection of a level of protection is a socioeconomic decision,
not a biological one. Once the level of protection is selected, appro-
priate scientific recommendations may be derived from the criteria
presented in this discussion, c.. "
".. .Despite the statements in previous paragraphs that there is no
single oxygen concentration which is favorable to all species and eco-
systems, it is obvious that there are, nevertheless, very low oxygen
concentrations that are unfavorable to almost all aquatic organisms.
-------
-50-
Therefore, a floor of 4 mg/1 is recommended except in situations
where the natural level of dissolved oxygen is less than 4 mg/1
in which case no further depression is desirable. The value of
4 mg/1 has been selected because there is evidence of subacute or
chronic damage to several fish below this concentration...."
In contrast, the mandate of Section 311 is establishment, before the
fact, of general standards applying to spills which will protect natural
waters from the acute, short-term effects of such spills. What con-
stitutes substantial harm under Section 311, i.e. lethality versus various
sublethal effects, was discussed earlier (Section C,2,a). It was con-
cluded that the effect level most appropriate to spill situations was direct
lethality to a substantial fraction of the population of an appropriately
sensitive aquatic species.
5. Radioactive Materials
Abnormal levels of radioactivity in water may be deleterous to
human health through direct consumption and through consumption of
agricultural or aquatic life that has accumulated radioactivity from
water. Surface and ground waters vary considerably in radioactive
background levels, with the higher levels arising from natural sources
generally associated with deep well waters and springs.
Radioactive materials must be dealt with by dilution, with water
or stable isotopes, or by storage, since radioactivity cannot be neutral-
ized or cancelled by known chemical or physical methods.
The great number of radioactive isotopes known differ considerably
in the danger they represent due to variations in rate of decay and the
-------
-51-
types of particles or radiation given off. The biological effects of radia-
tion are classified as somatic and genetic. Genetic effects, possibly
affecting an individual's decendants, are obviously chronic in nature.
Somatic effects may be either chronic or acute. The primary focus
of regulations concerning spills of hazardous substances is on acute
effects since first, a spill is implicitly an acute event. Second, long-
term discharges are dealt with under other sections of the law, as
listed in the "applicability" section of proposed 40 CFR 118 and pro-
posed 40 CFR 119.
The effects of acute radiation exposure are reasonably well under-
stood but levels of exposure necessary to produce acute effects (much
higher than of concern for typical chronic water pollution control-type
purposes) are already regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Extensive discussions were held with the EPA Office of Radiation
Programs (ORP) and, through them, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
relative to criteria for discharges of radioactive materials. In addition
to the objections to Section 311 regulation of radioactive materials men-
tioned above, no agreement was reached relative to criteria applicable
under generalized environmental conditions such as are implicit in the
toxicity selection criteria. The NRC insistence on specific location-
dependent decisions as to what constitutes imminent and substantial
danger calls for a different approach to notification and response than
-------
-52-
is appropriate for nationally applicable regulations for spills of other
hazardous substances.
Due to the existing public awareness of possible hazards of radio-
active material spills and present extensive regulation of their avail-
ability, handling and transport it has been decided not to include a
selection criterion based on radioactivity at this time.
-------
-53-
REFERENCES TO CHAPTER IV
1. 'C.H. Thompson, "Oil versus Other Hazardous Substances", Pro-
ceedings of Joint Conferences on Prevention and Control of Oil
Spills, pp. 209-217, Washington, D. C. (1971); American Petro-
leum Institute.
2. H. J. Crump-Wiesner and A. L. Jennings, "Properties and Effects of
Non-Petroleum Oils", 1975 Conference on Prevention and Control of
Oil Pollution, p. 29, (March 25-27, 1975), San Francisco, Calif.,
[EPA/API/USCG Joint Sponsorship].
3. G.W. Dawson, M. Stradley, andA.J. Shuckrow, Methodologies for
Determining Harmful Quantities and Rates of Penalty for Hazardous
Substances, EPA Report #440/9-75-005, a-d.
4. TcJ. Kneip and G. J. Lauer, "Trace Metal Concentration Factors
in Aquatic Ecosystems", Progress in Analytical Chemistry, Plenum
Press, New York (1973).
5. G.G. Polikarpov, Radioecology of Aquatic Organisms, Reinhold
New York (1966).
6. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Special Report to the
Secretary's Pesticide Advisory Committee, "Hazards of Mercury",
Environmental Research, 4(1), (March, 1971).
7. L. Friberg, M. Piscator and G. Nordberg. Cadmium in the Environ-
ment , Vol. 153, C.R. C. Press, Ohio, (19711!
8. National Academy of Sciences, Lead -- Airborne Lead in Per-
spective, Washington, D.C., (1972).
9. R.A. Vollenweider, Scientific Fundamentals of the Eutrophication
of Lakes and Flowing Waters, with Particular Reference ; to Nitrogen
and Phosphorous as Factors in Eutrophicationi! OECD, DAS/CSI/
68-27 (1968).
10. A.F. Bartsch, Role of Phosphorous in Eutrophication. EPA-
R3-72-001 (1972T -
11. J.E. McKee andH.W. Wolf, Water Quality Criteria. 2nd Ed. ,
California State Water Quality Control Board, Publication No. 3- A
(1963).
12. M.J. Taras, ed., Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater, lath ed. , American Public Health Association,
New York, (1971).
13. R. Cc Rooney, ed., Water Quality Criteria, 1972, National Acad.
Scic/Natl. Acad. Engr. , EPA Keport #R3~73-UU3, March, 1973.
14. Hazardous Substance Branch Files, Memo to Record, Jan. 5, 1976
from C. R. Gentry
-------
CHAPTER V
DETERMINATION OF ACTUAL REMOVABILITY
Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (33 U.S. C. 1251 et seq.) requires the Environmental Protection
Agency to promulgate regulations to control the spill-discharge of chem-
icals. Section 311(b)(2)(B)(i) states:
"The Administrator shall include in any designation
under subparagraph (A) of the subsection a deter-
mination whether any such designated hazardous sub-
stance can actually be removed. "
A variety of circumstances can influence the physical removability
of a substance from the water in any particular situation. Removal
could theoretically be possible if notification is prompt, if the weather
is calm enough to allow filtering, or if the spill can be contained by
a dike. However, the same substances spilled under different cir-
cumstances or in different quantities could be removed only partially or
not at all.
The economic incentive for spill prevention found in the Act is based
upon removal liabilities, thus implying that oil or oil-like substances
are actually removable. Most substances proposed for designation do
not have properties like crude oil, i. e. they do not form a dense mass
on the surface enabling physical removal under certain conditions.
Those few which do bear a limited resemblance to oils are generally
handled in a manner similar to gasoline (defined as oil for the purposes
of Section 311, in accord with the oil vs. non-oil discussion of Chapter
IV). It is generally recognized that gasoline is difficult to remove, i»e.»
-------
-2-
may not be actually removable in many situations. Due to the danger
of fire or explosion, it is frequently considered better to allow such
materials to evaporate or otherwise dissipate rather than bring in spark-
producing equipment (such as pump motors).
Oil spills are primarily a surface phenomenon^ Except for a small
amount of initial dissolution or emulsification in the water column, oil
generally floats. The visibility and floatation properties of oils facil-
itate detection as well as its actual removal after a spill. In contrast,
the majority of designated substances, other than oils, do not have
physical or chemical qualities which facilitate detection or advance
determination concerning removability vs. nonremovability. The sol-
ubility of many of the inorganic salts on the designation list precludes
maintanence of a discrete surface mass when they are spilled, as would
be the case for oil.
Although oil has certain toxic effects on aquatic life, localization
of oil to the surface tends to restrict the extent of its harmful effects.
Its coating action, as on waterfowl feathers, fish gills, and beaches
constitutes a large proportion of its deleterious effect. The higher
solubility of a considerable number of the materials listed in proposed
40 CFR Part 116 means that their effect is not confined to coating.
The legislative requirement for advance determination of actual
removability to be made as a part of designation, in essence, restricts
the technical basis for the removability determination to data on phy-
sical or chemical properties of the substance. The properties which
-------
-3-
are indicative of the behavior of a substance in an aqueous system
include solubility, specific gravity, viscosity, surface tension,
hydrolytic reactions, ability to form colloids, melting point, boiling
point, and vapor pressure.
The need for a determination in advance, precluding field in-
vestigations, also limits the decision alternatives to "yes" or "no",
rather than to degrees of removability,, A decision matrix was con-
structed to insure systematic consideration of available data on
physical and chemical properties (Figure V-A). The terms used
are discussed in the Legend to Figure V-A, which follows. The
terms and matrix are constructed so as to be compatible with the
final decision that oils are actually removabe (included in the text
of Section 311).
-------
change to
insoluble
form
not \
removable 1
not \
[yes)I removable 1
N not
no)(removable
not ^
yosH removable
FigtoreVrA
DETEMINATICN MATRIX
-------
-4-
LEGEND TO FIGURE V-A
Solubility
To be considered as an insoluble substance, the material must be no
more soluble than crude oil. Although crude oils vary greatly in their
solubility, and initial decision value of 1,000 mg/1 may be assigned. The
solubility decision point thus screens out many salts as well as polar
organic compounds. Solubility data are generally quite abundant.
Phase Change
This consideration is designed to permit evaluation of materials
which are initially solubilized, but react to form insoluble derivatives.
Those substances which do so are further considered. Data utilized in
the decision are hydrolysis reactions and concentrations of other ionic
species in natural waters.
Floats
Insoluble materials are next examined for specific gravity (density).
Materials which are less dense than water (sp. gr. = 1. 0) are considered
to be floaters and oil-like in their behavior if they have a specific gravity
of less than 1. 0. Specific gravity data are generally available.
Cohesive Mass
Floating materials can spread over the surface of the water at dif-
ferent thicknesses. Controling physical properties appear to be viscosity
and interfacial surface tension with the water. Unfortunately, viscosity
data are limited and interfacial surface tension data even more rare.
Some representatives viscosity values are shown in Table V-l.
TABLE V-l
Physical Properties of Removability
Viscosity Temperature
Chemical (in centipoise) (degrees C.)
Benzene 0.65 20
Ethylbenzene 0.70 17
Cyclohexane 1.02 17
Carbon disulfide 0. 36
Carbon Tetrachloride 0.739 40
Dichlorobenzene 1.2
Diamylamine 0.6
Xylene 0.7 20
-------
-5-
Although some interfacial surface tension values were found for
pure compounds, no comparative value could be found for crude oil.
In addition, the degree of influence of the surface tension in determining
the cohesiveness and removability of a surface film is, as yet, inde-
terminant. The tabulated values can be compared to the viscosity
of light South Louisiana crude oil which has been reported as 3.84 -
4. 32 centipoise at 40 degrees Centigrade. Thus, the spreading rates
of all example substances appear to be 3. 7 to 7. 0 times that of the
light crude oil.
Sinks
Sinking materials are described by a specific gravity value greater
than loO. The evaluation of "cohesive mass" in the case of sinking
materials is subject to the same arguments and data limitations as
found in the proceeding paragraph.
Stress Remains
Another intrinsic property of each substance which must be considered
in determining actual removability is aquatic toxicity. This properly must
be evaluated in the final decision because no removal technique will be 100%
effective in recovering a discharge material. Less than complete removal
of highly toxic or bioaccumulative substances will result in continuing,
residual stress on the aquatic environment. Although removal actions would
be of definite value in reducing the impact, a determination that such substances
are "actually removable" would be inappropriate.
The local conditions surrounding a particular discharge are of consider-
able importance to removability determination. However, due to the need
for a decision in advance, data relating to this would have to be replaced
by assumptions based on a conceptualized water body, assuming there
were enough physical data available to make the key evaluation, that of
"cohesive mass" for each substance, as described above. The limited vis-
cosity data suggest, but are too incomplete to prove, that several, chemicals
sharing some properties with crude oils, such as volatility and low solubility,
probably are not nearly as cohesive as most crude oils. This cohesiveness
is a prime factor in making most crude oils removable. . Since data limitations
make a conclusive, final, "cohesive mass" evaluation impossible for most of
the designated substances, there is little point in extrapolating another
-------
-6-
order of magnitude by proposing a series of conceptualized water bodies.
In summary, no chemical currently proposed for designation as a hazardous
substance is "actually removable" in a clear and unequivocal manner on the
basis of currently available physical and chemical data. That is to say, all
proposed hazardous substances, other than oil, are deemed nonremovable.
Section 311(b)(2)(B)(iii) provides two penalty catagories for spills of
nonremovable hazardous substances:
". . the owner or operator of any vessel, onshore
facility, or offshore facility, from which there is
discharged any hazardous substance determined not
removable under clause (i) of this subparagraph shall
be liable, subject to the defenses to liability provided
in subsection (f) of this section, to the United States
for either one or the other of the following penalties,
the determination which shall be in the discretion of
the Administrator:
" aa) a penalty in such amount as the Administrator
shall establish, based on the toxicity, degradability, an
dispersal characteristics of the substance, but not less
than $500 nor more than $5,000; or
" bb) a penalty determined by the number of units dis-
charged multiplied by the amount established for such unit
under clause (iv) of this subparagraph, but such penalty
shall not be more than $5, 000, 000 in the case of a discharge
from a vessel and $500,000 in the case of a discharge from
an onshore or offshore facility, "
The determination that all designated substances are nonremovable
gives the Administrator full latitude in assessing lower penalties where
spills occur in spite of the exercise of adequate caution and prevention
procedures. Conscientious post-spill mitigation efforts could also be
considered in arriving at penalty reduction. On the other hand, maxi-
mum penalties can be assessed if proper precautionary steps are not
taken. These assessments will be made in those incidents where the
Administrator can show gross negligence on the part of the discharger.
-------
CHAPTER VI
DETERMINATION OF HARMFUL QUANTITY AND RATES OF PENALTY
A. General Considerations
Pollution resulting from the spillage of oil and hazardous materials
has emerged as a major national problem* Estimates have been made
that 15, 000 such spills occur annually in the navigable waters of the
1
United States, of which more than 3, 000 involve non-oil materials .
These spills range in size from small quantities to millions of gallons
and threaten many important waterways. Due to the present lack of
compulsory spill reporting, the full magnitude of the problem of haz-
ardous substance spills is not known, as was discussed in Chapter I.
i
Congress enacted Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 in an attempt to remedy this situation. Speci-
fically, Section 311(b)(2)(B)(iv) provides for establishment of rates of
penalty per "... unit of measurement based on the usual trade practice... "
for spills of nonremovable hazardous substances, and Section 311(b)(4)
requires determination of a quantity of hazardous substance which "...
may be harmful to the public health or welfare... ". [(Spills of a "harmful
quantity" or more must be reported to the U. S. Coast Guard to avoid
criminal penalties under Section 311(b)(5)). ] Each of these subsections of
the Act represents an attempt to reach the goal of better spill prevention
measures, the primary defense against damage resulting from, hazardous
2
substance spills . The two regulations and their basis are discussed
together because of their interdependence.
-------
-2 -
Two prerequisite regulations have been published in the Federal
3
Register as Advanced Notices of Proposed Rulemaking. These deal
with the designation of hazardous materials and the tentative deter-
\
mination of their actual removability.
The Agency undertook development of at least four different ap-
proaches which could be used to derive harmful quantities and rates of
penalty. This effort was initially undertaken by EPA staff and later
supplemented by a contract study. The outcome of this program will
be reported following a discussion of the major issues.
Close examination of Sections 311(b)(2)(B)(iv), 311(b)(4) and related
s
subsections reveals two major areas of concern in fulfilling legislative
mandates. These areas are, (1) determination of "... a unit of measure-
ment based upon the usual trade practice... " and (2), ^ priori determination
of harm defined in the law as "«. e those quantities of oil and any hazardous
substance the discharge of which, at such times, locations, circumstances
and conditions, will be harmful to the public health or welfare of the United
States, including but not limited to, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private
property, shorelines and beaches.. ". A more manageable problem, also
.
discussed in more detail below, involves how to deal with mixtures and
solutions of designated hazardous substances*
An integral part of the penalty structure outlined in Section 311 is
the designation of a unit of measurement. Rates of penalty are then
bounded in the range of $100-§1,000 per unit of measurement. On the
-------
-3-
surface, this framework simplifies the task of selecting a unit of
measurement common to each hazardous substance. However, for
the vast majority of hazardous substances there is no common unit
of measurement. The Agency had discussed this with the American
Pharmaceutical Institute and the Manufacturing Chemists Asso-
ciation who generally concur. Materials are shipped in a variety of
containers which span a wide range of sizes. Also, plant operators
may construct reactors, storage tanks and other vessels of any desired
size.
A unit of measurement for transportation related spill sources
derived from the average shipment size and annual shipping patterns
would be subject to fluctuation with changing markets. More importantly,
for many substances bulk shipments represent most of the total volume
shipped. Many bulk shipments including bulk vessel sizes, are regu-
lated by the Department of Transportation. Consequently, DOT regu-
lation and policy changes could abruptly alter the size of a statistically
derived unit of measurement and thus the rate of penalty. (A case in
point is the recent shift from small package shipments of parathion to
the granting of an exemption permitting tank truck shipment,) It can
be said with some certainty that unlike oil (where the 42 gal barrel is
a unit common to the trade, i. e. oil industry) hazardous substances do
not lend themselves to this type of quantification.
Due to these conceptual difficulties, a different approach was adopted
-------
-4-
concerning common features of hazardous substances. In essence, their
common feature is the capacity to cause environmental damage. The
minimum quantity of each substance causing substantial harm is thus a
common unit and the "harmful quantity" determined for each has been
defined as its unit of measurement. That unit would be common to any
trade involved in the production, distribution or use of the substance
which has a spill or must design and operate a program to protect the
environment from spills of those quantities.
The amount of harm resulting from discharging any pollutant into water
is dependent upon the concentration of pollutant in the receiving water and
on the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the water
/
prior to the spill. A priori determination of "harmful quantities" as
mandated by Section 311(b)(4) requires probabilistic evaluation of damage
or harm to representative water bodies. This was done for oil in 40 CFR
Part 110. That regulation is unique for oil and takes advantage of receiving
water standards as well as oil's physical characteristics. There simply is
no clear scientifically defensible threshold such that spillage of more than
a given amount of a hazardous substance constitutes harm at all times and
locations while lesser amounts of the contaminant are totally harmless at
all times and locations.
For purposes of the work reported here and in the proposed regu-
lations based on this work, the concentration where harm is considered
probable and substantial is taken as that concentration causing death
of 50% of a population of an aquatic species of median sensitivity within
-------
-5-
96 hours (96 hr LC50). The considerations leading to this choice are
outlined in Section B below and discussed in detail in reference 4.
Section 311 is very specific in its instruction to designate elements
and compounds as hazardous substances. This has led to the develop-
ment of methods for defining harmful quantities based on pure compound
characteristics. The presence of additional materials in a mixture may
affect toxicity through synergism, antagonism,, addition or other inter-
active mechanisms. For these mixtures individual bioassays would be
required to specify meaningful toxic levels. Such an approach is obviously
not practicable since it is not feasible to designate harmful quantities for
all conceivable mixtures. Consequently, the approach proposed for dealing
with spills of mixtures or solutions is to assume that damages are
additive based on the rates for individual constituents. For a mixture
or solution of substance X, substance Y and substance Z, etc., the
weight of substance X spilled is divided by the harmful quantity of pure
substance X, the weight of substance Y spilled is divided by the harmful
quantity of pure substance Y, and so forth. Next the fractions derived
in this fashion are added. If the total equals or exceeds one, then the
harmful quantity of the mixture or solution has been equaled or exceeded
in the spill.
The methods set forth in this document and the proposed regulations
based on them are intended to deal with spill conditions in a way that
leads to encouraging notification of hazardous substance spills and facili-
-------
-6-
tating equitable enforcement. These intermediate goals are intended to
lead to the overall program goal of spill prevention.
Several technical alternatives were developed and considered for
defining harmful quantities and establishing penalty rates. In each
alternative, substances were characterized toxicologically, primarily
on the basis of selected bioassay data representative of the hazard posed
by the substance when spilled into the aquatic environment, Cog. 96 hour
LC50.
Using the bioassay data as a starting point, four individual method-
ologies were completed or developed under EPA contract #68-01-2268.
The final report is listed as reference 4. Each methodology has three
identifiable segments: (1) a mechanism for deriving harmful quantities,
(2) a rationale for the base rate of penalty, and (3) a scaling function to
vary rates of penalty on the basis of the chemical and physical (hence
dispersal) properties of individual materials. Also, each method has
been designed in modular fashion to allow the formation of hybrid com-
binations from preferred segments. Each of the four basic methodologies
is summarized below. Summaries of two additional hybrid methods
synthesized from segments of the basic four then follow. Complete
descriptions of the four basic methodologies may be found in reference
4, and the hybrids will be described in detail in a later section.
The first "basic" approach, the Resource Value Methodology, de-
-------
-7-
fines substantial harm as $5, 000 worth of environmental damage. That
is, harm is deemed substantial when water with a recreation and societal
value in excess of $5, 000 is degraded to levels impairing its value for
those uses. The $5,000 value is selected from section 311(b)(6) where
that value is used as the upper limit of a civil penalty for having discharged
a harmful quantity. Base rates of penalty are set at the value of the dam-
age potentially resulting from a spill of a given material* Penalties are
varied on the basis of the probable duration of adverse impacts and the
physical-chemical properties which enhance or restrict movement of
the material in the environment.
The second approach, the IMCO Methodology, employs the same
basic definition of substantial harm and rationale for base rates of
penalty as the Resource Value Methodology, but focuses on four groups
of hazardous materials rather than the more than three hundred indivi-
dual materials. Each of the four groups or categories is defined in
accordance with the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organi-
zation (IMCO) system for noxious substance classification*. Toxico-
logical data representative of each category as a whole is employed
to derive harmful quantities for all members of the category. Penalties
are varied over one order of magnitude through use of adjustment
factors designed to reflect the ability of a material to spread in the
environment.
*"1973 IMCO Conference on Marine Pollution from Ships", hearing before
the committee on Commerce, U. S. Senate, serial No. 93-52 November 14,
1973, USGPO.
-------
-8-
-^
The third approach offered, the Unit of Measurement Methodology,
defines substantial harm for an IMCO grouping of materials indirectly
through selection of a unit of measurement which is sufficiently large
^
to be associated with probable harm in the event of a spill. The
smallest bulk unit is defined as the harmful quantity for the most toxic
IMCO group. Similar quantities are selected for the remaining groups
of materials through comparison of their relative toxicities and then
rounded to the nearest actual container size. Penalties are varied on
the basis of the persistence and physical properties of individual
materials.
The final approach, the DOHM Methodology, defines substantial harm
by developing an idealized plug-flow stream model and employing a flow
rate selected from statistical data on stream flow in the United States.
The base rate of penalty is equated to the estimated cost of prevention
(the expenditure, per gallon spilled, which would have prevented the spill
from occurring). Quantitative operators are employed to vary the rate
of penalty by a factor of two as a function of toxicity, degradability, and
toxicity-to-solubility ratio.
y
In one hybrid, referred to as the Resource Value/Unit of Measure-
ment Combination Methodology, the determination of harmful quantity
is made in a manner similar to that proposed under the Resource Value
Method. However, a substantial harm threshold value of $100 was
-------
-9-
selected to correspond with the Congressional limits of $100-$!, 000
per unit of measurement. This substantially reduces the "harmful
quantities" for a given material over those in the contractor reported
Resource Value Method. At the same time it is recognized that much
larger quantities of a material are needed to raise concentrations of
hazardous materials to the critical level in a given body of water
because of the dynamics of dispersion. Hence, a "locational factor"
derived from a mathematical water body model is applied to adjust
the harmful quantity to a more realistic basis than the "instantaneous
mixing to the critical concentration" assumption originally employed
in the contractor reported Resource Value Method.
A further adjustment is made in the rate of penalty to reflect the
duration of harm caused by spillage of a particular hazardous substance
and to reflect dispersal properties of a given material based on its
physical/chemical properties. These adjustments allow the material
with a maximum value from the product of these two factors to be
assigned a rate of $1,000/HQ while that with a minimum value is
assigned a rate of $100/HQ. The rates for all materials between
these two extremes are interpolated linearly.
The method finally chosen for use in harmful quantity and rate of
penalty regulations was the second hybrid, an IMCO/Unit of Measurement
combination methodology. In general, hazardous materials are profiled
and categorized in the same fashion as in the IMCO method described
above. The smallest common commercial unit or container size (one
-------
-10-
*,
pound/454 grams) was then defined as the harmful quantity and unit
of measurement for all materials in the most toxic category. Other
categories were thereafter assigned harmful quantities on a proportional
basiSc If the upper aquatic toxicity limit of a category was ten times
higher than the preceding category, then the harmful quantity was set
as ten times larger, and so forth. The base penalty rate was set as
$1,000 per unit of measurement. This penalty rate is reduced by up to
one order of magnitude by use of a physical/chemical/dispersal adjust-
ment factor so that the final penalty rates of each catagory fall within
the range of $100-$!, 000 per unit of measurement in accordance with
Section 311(b)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.
B. Choice of Toxicological Data Base
1. Acute Versus Chronic Toxicity
Acute toxicity data appear most appropriate as a baseline for
use in studying the effects of hazardous material spills. Spills are
primarily an acute phenomenon and consequently should be represented
\
by acute toxicity relationships. Since 96 hours has been widely accepted
in aquatic biological investigations as the threshold of acute exposure
times, bioassays whose results are expressed as 96-hour LCSOs appear
most appropriate for work addressing acute spills* More detailed
4-6
discussions of acute versus chronic effects are available
2. Receptor Species
The selection of a given species for a priority listing of pre-
-------
-11-
ferred species is necessitated by the variance in sensitivity displayed
among species of the same trophic level, genus, or family. Several
investigators have found 3-4 fold differences in response between species
when tested under identical conditions with the same toxicant. Other
data suggest orders of magnitude difference for some substances. The
relative order of sensitivity between species also differs with the sub-
stance tested.
It has been suggested that due to to their abundance and relative im-
portance, freshwater species should be selected from the following fam-
ilies. Centrachidae (sunfish, bass, crappie); Salmonidae (trout, char,
salmon); Cyprinidae (true minnow) excluding carp and goldfish; and
Catostomidae (suckers). The obvious choice for any given situation
would be the species common to the water body of interest. Unfortun-
ately, there is no species common to all waters of the United States.
Consequently, it was determined that a median sensitive species should
be employed to be representative of the important species found in
different environments throughout the country.
With this in mind, the bioassay data were reviewed to establish a
priority list of freshwater species. Input data for critical concentrations
can then be selected giving preference to the high priority species. On
the basis of this review, Lepomis macrochirus (bluegill sunfish) was
selected as the priority freshwater species. These members of the
-------
-12-
Centrachidae family typically display a median level of sensitivity.
They are widespread throughout the United States and are important
both for their recreational fishing value and as a food source for larger,
\
predatory sport fishes. Bluegills are easily kept and reared and there-
fore are commonly used in laboratory work. Consequently, bioassay
data on this species are prevalent. Lower priority species were ranked
according to their prevalence in the United States* and the availability
of bioassay data. When only limited data were available, acute toxicity
levels for other species were accepted.
Fewer options are available when selecting critical concentrations
,
for marine waters. Bioassay data on marine organisms are quite
limited. Oysters and other economically important species are given
top priority for marine waters. Abundance and importance in estuarine
systems are the primary criteria here rather than sensitivity since a
lack of data prevents selection of a median sensitive receptor.
3. Other Considerations
It is known that critical concentrations may also change with other
parameters such as temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and hardness*
While investigators often employ different test conditions or do not
report test conditions at all, an attempt has been made to select bio-
assay data obtained under similar conditions to ensure comparability.
-------
-13-
The effect of variations in test conditions also differs with the sub-
stance of interest. For many industrial organic compounds potential
differences arise from variations in temperature, turbidity, and dissolved
oxygen content, among other factors. For inorganic materials such as
cyanide and ammonia, pH can be especially important. With heavy
metals, hardness and organic chelate content become very important
in addition to the factors mentioned previously because of the potential
precipitation and subsequent removal from solution of the toxic agent.
Because variations in water quality are site specific, a middle
ground was necessary to indicate when the potential harm could be sub-
stantial for most natural waters. A set of preferences were set up for
use whenever multiple data points were available. When data were
available on species with similar sensitivity, highest priority was given
to test results in waters similar to conditions existing in most natural
waters. The pH range favored was 6. 5-8. 0 while hard water was given
priority over soft water. In most cases, no other specifications were
necessary since use of the 96-hour TLm for bluegill or fathead minnows
severely limited the number of alternative data points.
In summary, median sensitivity species, bluegill and fathead
minnow have been selected as representative of important species found
in different freshwater environments around the country. Since very
-------
-14-
little salt water bioassay data are available, data on oysters and other
economically important species are favored for marine waters.
It should be noted that the preference for data on median sensitive
species, when available, represents a change in emphasis from the
criteria used for deciding whether a substance was to be designated as
hazardous in proposed 40 CFR Part 116. There the term ". 0 appropri-
ately sensitive ..." species was used so as to enable designation of
materials as hazardous if firm toxicological data exist for other species
but none happens to be available on bluegill or fathead minnow. Since
the effort here is not to select materials but to attempt an evaluation
of harm throughout the nation, median sensitive receptor data are
preferred in all cases but in its absence bioassay data on other species
may be acceptable.
C. Detailed Description of Hybrid Methodologies
1. Resource Value/Unit of Measurement Combination
a. Description of Method
The determination of harmful quantity is made in a manner similar
to that proposed under the Resource Value Method. However, a substan-
tial harm threshold value of $100 was selected to fall within the Congres-
sional limits of $100-1000 per unit of measurement. (The substantial
harm threshold in the contractor developed Resource Value Method was
$5, 000). Reduction of the harm threshold therefore substantially reduces
-------
-15-
the "harmful quantity" for a given material over that in the contractor
developed Resource Value Method. This reduction was thought to be
desireable by the Agency operating elements to facilitate more rapid
and complete notification of spills.
It is recognized that much larger quantities of a material are
needed to raise concentrations of spilled hazardous materials to the
critical level in a given body of water than are indicated by the worst
case assumption of "instantaneous mixing to the critical concentration"
because of the dynamics of dispersion in any real water body. For the
purpose of penalties and the determination of units of measure based on
the harmful quantity it was determined that these quantities should be
raised. Hence, a "locational factor" derived from a mathematical water
s
body model is applied to adjust the harmful quantity to a more realistic
4
harm basis . When used in the following equation the locational factor
increases harmful quantities in lakes and the coastal zone to approximately
four times the base value and increases harmful quantities in rivers
and estuaries to approximately twenty times the base value.
By this hybrid method, the harmful quantity is now defined as:
"$100 x CC
Vwb x
HQ = | LOG
wb
where:
HQ = Harmful quantity
Vwb = Value of the water body type of interest
CC = Critical concentration of compound x
x
Loc = Locational factor for the water body type
wb
-------
-16-
However, since the rate of penalty set by Congress is defined as
$100-1000 per unit of measurement (defined as the harmful quantity
in this method), a further adjustment is made in the rate of penalty
to reflect the duration of harm caused by spillage of a particular haz-
ardous substance (Anf factor) and to reflect dispersal properties of a
given material based on its physical/chemical properties (Disp factor).
That is to say, the material with a maximum value for the product of
(Anf x Disp) is assigned a rate of $1000/HQ while that with a minimum
value is assigned a rate of $100/HQ. All points between these extremes
are interpolated linearly.
i
The factors and their products can be characterized as presented below:
Anf Disp p = Anf x Disp
Maximum . 25 16 35 .3375
Minimum .06 .27 .0162
Thus, if we define,
ROP = mp + b
Where,
ROP = rate of penalty
m = slope of relation
p = Anf x Disp
b = intercept of relation
Solution of simultaneous equations,
1000 = »3375m +b
100 = .0162m + b
reveals that m = 2801 and b = 54, 7. This means that the rate of penalty
can be described as
ROP = 2801 + 54. 7
(Detailed explanations of the locational factor, annuity factor (Anf) and
-------
-17-
dispersibility factor (Disp) are found in subsections b, c, and d re-
spectively. )
The two simultaneous linear equations quantify the idea that the more
persistent a hazardous substance is in the environment, the longer that
material degrades the public domain, and therefore the higher the rate
of penalty which should be exacted for a spill. Secondly, the physical/
chemical properties of some materials are of a nature which causes more
environmental damage per threshold value-worth of water, than do
others. These more damaging characteristics thus also warrant a higher
rate of penalty, as quantified above. The final results, as shown in
Figure VI-A, is a continuous gradation in rate of penalty from $1, 000
s
per harmful quantity for the most damaging and persistent materials
s
to a minimum of $100 per harmful quantity for the least damaging and
least persistent.
b. Locational Factor
i. General
The volume of water included with a given isoconcentration surface
as a result of a spill of a miscible substance expands to a maximum and
then declines as dispersion continues. (In this case the concentration
of interest is the "critical concentration" for each specific hazardous
substance. However, to avoid repeating detailed calculations on each
material, a general scheme involving the ratio of actual to worst case
[maximum] volume has been devised.) A model has been developed
7
based on the mathematical techniques of Wnek and Fochtman . This
model permits consideration of such water body parameters as current
-------
1,000 r
Rate of
Penalty
'\.
($/HQ)
500 -
100
,0675 -
,2025
.3375
(Anf x Disp)
Figure vi-A Rates of Penalty as a Function of Adjustment Factors
-------
-18-
velocity, depth, angle of bottom slope near shore, non-constant disper-
sion coefficients, thermobars, and haloclines, as appropriate.
Further details concerning modifications and the results of a large
number of computer calculations using this model are tabulated in refer-
ence 4. Comments below are directed to interpretation of these results.
Tabulated results from the hydrodynamic models, shown in reference 4
indicate that wide variation in such parameters as pollutant critical
concentration, water depth,and angle of descent of the shore lead to
relatively small variations in the locational factor for any single water body
type. This fact, plus the accuracy to be expected in mathematical modeling
and recognition that the geometry of many water bodies is not well charac-
terized, led to the selection of a single locational factor value to represent
each type of water body. The values selected are as follows: rivers and
estuaries, locational factor (Loc) = 0. 36; lakes and coastal zones,
Loc = 0. 18. The exact basis for each choice will be detailed below.
While the lower limit of aquatic toxicity necessary to qualify a sub-
stance for inclusion on the list of hazardous substances is an LC50
less than or equal to 500 ppm, the majority of the materials listed fall
in a much lower range (7 materials between 250 and 500 ppm, 20 materials
between 250 and 100 ppm). This finding, plus the relative insensitivity of
locational factors to concentration mentioned earlier, has led to the choice of
-------
-19-
the single concentration level of LC50 = 100 ppm for further consider-
ation. (Examples of the degree of approximation involved are seen in
the following series of average Loc factors at various concentrations:
for lakes with angles of descent of 10 degrees to 45 degrees and depths
of 10 to 200 feet, Loc (50 ppm) = 0. 143 versus Loc (100 ppm) = 0. 180;
for the coastal zone with currents of 0.2 to 0. 5 knots and depths of
100 to 500 feet, Loc (25 ppm) = 0,162, Loc (50 ppm) = 0. 169 and
Loc (100 ppm) = 0.176; for rivers, Loc (50 ppm) = 0. 0271 versus
Loc (100 ppm) = 0. 0359.)
ii. Lakes
In arriving at a final single locational factor for lakes, some data
from reference 4, Table D-l, p. Ill-146, was excluded. In particular
the 1, 000 foot depth column appears unrepresentative. Only at isolated
points in Lakes Michigan, Superior, Tahoe, and the like, do freshwater
lake depths equal or exceed 1, 000 feet. In comparison with the total
freshwater volume of the country, such locations represent a far smaller
proportion of the total than the 17% of the total data represented by the
1, 000 foot depth line in the table. Similarly, the sixty degree angle of
decent row in the reference 4 table is not representative of the majority
of freshwater lakes and three of six entries are incomplete. Consequently,
the 1, 000 foot depth also was excluded. The five degree angle of descent
row was excluded primarily due to suspicions raised concerning the
efficiency of the model at this combination of parameters because the
Loc factor is apparently invariant at depths greater than ten feet. Average
-------
-20-
Loc (100 ppm) values calculated from the remaining data equal 0. 1802,
or approximately 0. 18.
iii. Coastal Zone
The data of reference 4, Table D-2, p. Ill-147, a quite reasonable
and well-represented range of currents and depths found in the twelve
mile zone. Depths within twelve miles of the Pacific coast, the Hawaiian
Islands and Alaska appear to justify retention of the 1, 000 foot column.
All data in Table D-2 of reference 4 were used in calculating an average
Loc (100 ppm) = 0.188, or approximately 0. 19.
iv. Rivers and Estuaries
Personal communication with the authors of reference 4, revealed
that use of the mathematical model of Appendix D, p. Ill-135 for estu-
aries, with various amendments, yields results either virtually identical
to those of the coastal zone or virtually identical to those for rivers,
depending on the choice of parameters for a given computer run. In
either case the authors were faced with more unknowns than equations.
Consequently, unless a great deal of additional work is to be undertaken,
choice between these two extremes must be based on external considera-
tions. Since many of the prime characteristics of estuaries are attributable
to flow and definite, channelized currents, the results for rivers were
tentatively adopted.
-------
-21-
The model and amendments used to represent rivers in Table D-3,
p. Ill-160 of reference 4, result in an overall trend toward lower locational
factors with increase in flow rate. The values do not decrease monotonically.
The more representative single value, in the absence of further information,
would seem to be that obtained by simply averaging Loc (100 ppm) values
calculated from all data presented,, This average is equal to 00036. (As a
matter of interest, since only the Mississippi and a couple of other rivers
exceed a median flow rate of 10, 000 cubic feet per second, the average Loc
(100 ppm) for the range of flows from 100 to 10,000 cubic feet per second
was also calculated and found to equal 0. 036.)
v. Conclusion
The most
be the use of the
and the coastal
straightforward approach to locational factors appears to
value, to two significant figures, of Loc = 0.18 for lakes
one and Loc = 0.036 for rivers and estuaries.
c. Annuity Factor (Anf)
In many cases spills will devalue a water body for only a finite period
of time. Use of an annuity factor alone is intended to give a penalty rep-
resenting the value (interest) lost to society if the resource were considered
an investment yielding six percent interest per year, or, more precisely,
an annuity which at six percent per annum over infinite time, equals the
present worth of the resource.
Individual potentially hazardous substances were assigned to more
-------
-22-
general material classifications, as shown in the left-hand column of
Table VI-1. The average time span for recovery from a spill of
each class of material was then estimated.
TABLE VI-1
IMPACT PERIODS ASSIGNED TO MATERIAL CLASSIFICATIONS IN
DERIVING THE Anf FACTOR (PERIODS GIVEN IN YEARS)
Water Body Type
Material Classification Lake River Estuary Coastal
Organic - Degradable 213 1
Persistent 214 2
Bioconcentrative 535 2
Inorganic - Bioconcentrative 525 2
Nonbioconcentrative 213 1
No material is credited with an impact duration of less than one year.
While acute lethality may be exhibited in hours, repopulation, particularly
at higher trophic levels, takes far longer. Similarly, a minimum impact
period of three years has been assigned for estuaries where non-mobile
shellfish species require the extra time to reach maturity.
Using annuity tables, present worth factors can be associated with
the impact periods defined above, at 6%. The "P" factor is then derived
by the ratio of the present worth factor for a finite period of years to pre-
sent the worth factor for 100 years or essentially an infinite period of
time (16.7). Further details are found in reference 4, p. 11-52.
-------
-23-
Annuity factors associated with the selected impact periods are
shown in Table VI-2. The impact periods and Anf factors differ in
some respects from the values found in the corresponding tables of the
BNW draft final contractor report. These alterations reflect reconsider-
ation of the impact periods assigned to certain material categories by
personnel of the Hazardous Substances Branch* EPA. The basic differences
between the two versions are seen in the "bioconcentrative" and "organic,
persistent" categories. In the view of the Agency, certain inactivating mech-
anisms exist which, in effect, remove a large portion of the substances
in the categories mentioned from recirculation in a given ecosystem.
Perhaps the leading example of this is the phenomenon of inactivation
by adsorption on bottom sediments of a water body.
TABLE VI-2
Impact Periods/Anf Factors
Water Body Type
Material Classification
Organic -
Inorganic
Degradable
Persistent
Bioconcentrative
- Bioconcentrative
Nonbio cone entr ati ve
Lake
0.11
0.16
0.25
0.25
0.11
River
0.06
0.06
0.16
0. 16
0.06
Estuary
0.16
0.21
0.25
0.25
0. 16
Coastal
0.06
0. 11
0.11
Ocll
0.06
do Dispersibility Factor (Disp)
The second adjustment factor, Disp, must consider physical/chem-
ical properties of the material such as specific gravity, solubility,
and volatility, as well as the resources which could be damaged in
a given type of water body. In order to assign factors the materials
-------
-24-
were classified based on their predicted response to spillage in water.
A panel of scientists and experiences field operators was then asked
to assign factors for spillage of each classification of material into
each type of water body. The inquiry procedure is given in reference
4. Miscible substances were identified with a Disp of 1. 0 to act as
the base comparator for the four water types. Other classifications
were then rated on the basis of their tendency to spread more or less
than a miscible substance and to affect the most critical sector of the
host environment.
For the purpose of the classification process, the definitions given
in Table VI-3 were used.
TABLE VI-3
Dispersibility Factor Class Definition
miscible - liquid substances which can freely mix with water in any
proportion
mixer - solid substances which have a solubility greater than 1, 000
grams of solute per 1, 000 grams of water
precipitators - salts which dissociate or hydrolyze in water with sub-
sequent precipitation of a toxic ion
insoluble volatile floaters - materials lighter than water with a
vapor pressure greater than 10 mm Hg and a solubility
of less than 1,000 ppm or materials with solubility less
than 10, 000 ppm and vapor pressure greater than 100
mm Hg
insoluble nonvolatile floaters - materials lighter than water with
a vapor pressure less than 10 mm Hg and solubility
less than 1,000 ppm (solubility of less than 1 gram
of solute per 1, 000 grams of solution)
soluble floaters - materials lighter than water and of a solubility
greater than 1, 000 ppm (solubility greater than i gram
of solute per 1,000 grams of solution)
-------
-25-
soluble sinkers - materials heavier than water and of a solubility
greater than 1, 000 ppm (solubility greater than 1 gram
of solute per 1, 000 grams of solution)
insoluble sinkers - materials heavier than water and of a solubility
less than 1, 000 ppm (solubility less than 1 gram of solute
per 1,000 grams of solution)
The results of the panel's independent scoring are tabulated in Table VI-4,
TABLE VI-4
RELATIVE "Disp" FACTORS FOR VARIOUS WATER BODY TYPES
Water Body Types
Lake River Estuary Coastal
Miscible 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Mixer 0.84 0.80 0.84 0.78
Precipitator 0.73 0.71 1.3 0.55
Insoluble Volatile Floater 0.31 0.31 0.27 0.35
Insoluble Nonvolatile Floater 0.74 0.62 060 0 94
Insoluble Floater 0.86 0.86 0.82 0,86
Insoluble Sinker 0.59 0.58 1.35 0.43
Soluble Sinker 0.83 0.85 1.05 0.59
Several specific interpretations arise from Table VI-4. In general,
miscible substances were felt to have the maximum potential for spreading
in the vulnerable parts of the environment. The three exceptions were
sinking and precipating materials in estuaries where shellfish are a
major factor in the value of the resource. Floating substances received
somewhat higher ratings than sinkers in coastal waters because of the
surface transport processes which would bring spills into the beach
-------
-26-
and estuarine zone.
e. Specific Example of Method
Consider the case of a spill of 2, 000 pounds of aniline into a river.
The data necessary to calculate the harmful quantity of this material
under these circumstances is listed below.
i
CC = 11 ppm ( = 11 milligrams per liter)
V = $200 per acre-foot
wb
Loc = 0.036
wb
$ 100x 11 mg/1 x Z
HQ =
07036
where Z is a units conversion factor,
Z = (1233 cu. meters/acre-ft)(10 liters/cu. meter)
-6
x (10 kilograms/milligram)
HQ =19 kilograms (42 pounds)
Since aniline is a nonpersistent organic compound, its Anf factor
= 0. 06 and Disp factor = 0. 85. The product, "p", then equals 0. 051.
This value is then inserted into the following equation:
ROP (per HQ) = [2801p + 54.7] = $198
or, ROP (per Ib) + [$198/42 Ib] = $4.70
The final penalty for the spill would then be 2, 000 x $4. 70 = $9400.
-------
-27-
f. Strengths and Weaknesses of Method
A particularly attractive feature of this method is the graduation
of rates of penalty throughout the range of $100 to $1000 per harmful
quantity. Also, this method gives more explicit consideration to the
combination of hazardus substance persistence in the environment and
dispersibility based on physical/chemical characteristics versus dis-
persion based on mixing properties of a given type of water body.
The method shares the problem of a questionable data base concern-
ing the value of water with all other methods drawing on the Resource
Value Method. Another possible ground for objection is the potential
difficulty in explaining to the nongraphically or nonmathematicallly oriented
the carefully designed, quantitative scheme for spreading rates of penalty
throughout the range mandated by Congress. Finally, some question
arises as to whether the data base (value of water, correction factors)
justifies the relative sophistication of the method used to spread the
rates of penalty.
g« Basis for Rejection of Method
The prime difficulty with the method and reason for its rejection
is the reliance on water value data carried over from the Resource
Value Method.
-------
-28-
2. IMCO/Unit of Measurement Combination Method
a. Description of Method
The IMCO/UM Combination Method has been chosen for deter-
mination of harmful quantities and rates of penalty and therefore, was
explained in considerable detail in the notice of proposed rulemaking
published in the Federal Register which this technical document supports
(proposed 40 CFR Parts 116 through 119). However, additional details
are useful concerning derivation of the P/C/D (physical/chemical/
dispersal) adjustment factor. Also, in the interests of clarity, modi-
fications made in the basic IMCO system are recounted below:
i. Since the basic IMCO system (done in 1971) is designed
more for a marine environment than fresh water, hazardous materials
already categorized must be reexamined in terms of fresh and salt
water hazard potential and the latest available data.
ii. Materials not previously considered by IMCO must be
categorized.
iii. Small modifications must be made to further clarify
"additional factors in the hazard profile" and to descretly handle
multiple hazards. To this end, the guidelines for catergorization
have been modified to read as found in Table VI-5.
-------
-29-
TABLE VI-5
EPA GUIDELINES FOR CATEGORIZING HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES*
Category A includes substances which are:
a. bioaccumulated and liable to produce a hazard to aquatic
life or human health (Rating +), or
b. highly toxic to aquatic life (Rating 4}s or
c. moderately toxic to aquatic life (Rating 3) and also liable
to produce tainting of sea food (Rating T), or
d, bioac cumulated with a short retention of the order of one week
or less (Rating Z) while also being moderately toxic to aquatic
life (Rating 3) and causing severe reduction of amenities
(Rating XXX).
Category B includes substances which are:
a. bioaccumulated with a short retention of the order of one week
or less (Rating Z), or
b. liable to produce tainting of sea food (Rating T), or
c. moderately toxic to aquatic life (Rating 3).
Category C includes substances which:
a. are practically nontoxic to aquatic life (Rating 1), or
b. are highly hazardous to human health (oral intake), (Rating 4), or
c. cause deposits blanketing the seafloor with a high biochemical
oxygen demand (Rating BOD) and produce moderate reduction
of amenities, or
d. are moderately hazardous to human health (oral intake),
(Rating 3), and also cause a slight reduction of amenities
(Rating X).
*The terms used in the categorization are completely defined in
context in reference 4 and in the Senate-Commerce Committee
Hearing Report Serial No. 93-52, November 1973.
-------
-30-
iv. The final necessary modification arises due to the con-
cept of harmful quantity of Section 311(b)(4) which is not found in the
basic IMCO system. A mechanism must be devised for deriving a
consistent set of harmful quantities based on quantitative differentiation
between categories. To this end, aquatic toxicity (96-hr. LC50) was
selected since it is the only criterion common to all categories in the
the basic IMCO system and is the only one which permits a quantitative
comparison of categories. Otherwise, subjective evaluation between
different hazard potentials becomes necessary (e.g. bioaccumulation
vs. reduction of amenities).
The smallest container normally used in common commerce for
a typical category A material, say an inorganic cyanide, is a one
pound (454 gram) bottle. Consequently, this amount has been chosen
as the "harmful quantity" of all category A materials. Other cate-
gories are thereafter assigned harmful quantities on a proportional
basis (Table VI-6). Basically, if the upper aquatic toxicity limit
of a category is ten times higher than the preceding category, then
the harmful quantity is set as ten times larger, and so forth.
-------
-31-
TABLE VI-6
EPA CATEGORIES FOR HARMFUL QUANTITY (HQ) DETERMINATION
Representative Harmful Quantity
Category Range lb(kg)
A LC50*
-------
-32-
c. Other Modifications to Contractor Report (ref. 4)
In addition to the changes made in the basic IMCO system as
mentioned in the preceeding section, it will be found that certain
differences exist between the IMCO categories assigned to some
materials in reference 4 and those appearing in the proposed
regulations. Although the report served as a basis for the deri-
vation of EPA categories, the data base for each material was
reexamined by the Agency prior to establishing the regulatory
categories. The reasons for variations between the two categori-
zation operations are as follows.
i. Certain unpublished data were made available directly
to the contractor and where these data differed from published data
to the degree that a category variation was indicated, the Agency
preferred to use the published information. Those substances are:
Allyl alcohol
Allyl chloride
Calcium dodecylbenzenesulfonate
Isopropanolamine dodecylbenzenesulfonate
Sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate
Triethanolamine dodecylbenzenesulfonate
ii. According to the IMCO guidelines for categorization,
materials which are known to bioaccumulate and create a hazard to
humans or aquatic life are placed in Category A. The contract report
reflects the determination that salts of arsenic, lead, and selenium
were bioaccumulative materials. However, examination of
-------
-33-
information does not support the finding that these substances
have been known to affect either man or aquatic life by reason
of bioaccumulation processes through the aquatic ecosystem.
Harmful quantities and penalty rate categories for these were
therefore established on the basis of aquatic toxicity.
iii. In some cases, the available data base sup-
ported different categories for fresh and salt water based on
bioassays with species from both. Because the proposed rules
do not differentiate between the two, it was necessary to select
one category. In these cases the agency selected a category
based on an evaluation of the relative soundness or prepon-
derance of data. Those substances are:
dichlobenil
diquat
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrofluoric acid
Methyl parathion
Phosgene
Phosphorous oxychloride
Phosphorous trichloride
Fluoride salts
2, 4, 5-T acid
iv. Four substances were apparently categorized
incorrectly in the contract report. Based on the same data,
the following materials were placed in alternate categories.
-------
-34-
Butyric acid
Mono ethylamin e
Monomethylamine
Naphthalene
v. Because the categorization process requires that a
single data point be used to indicate the degree of aquatic toxicity,
it was sometimes necessary to select one of several available bio-
assay studies. In these cases, agency categories reflect a preference
for one particular study over that chosen by the contractor. In general,
EPA categories reflect a preference for turbid or hard water condition
bioassays over the test species preference used by the contractor.
Substance recategorized on this basis are:
Ammonia and Ammonia salts
Chromium salts
Sodium hydrosulfide
Strychnine
Sulfur monochloride
2,4, 5-T esters
Tetraethylpyrophosphate
Trichlorofon
c. Approach for Determination of Rates of Penalty
Section 311(b)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act requires the Administrator to
establish "a unit of measurement based upon the usual trade practice"
for each designated substance. A rate of penalty is then to be
established for each such unit of measurement in order to compute
civil penalties under Section 311(b)(2)(B)(iii)(bb) of the Act. Agency
-------
-35-
study and discussions with industry have not revealed such units
common to trade practice. A common unit of measurement for the
manufacturer is frequently different from that of the user of the same
material. The price of many chemicals is also based upon the quantity
purchased, resulting for instance, in differing costs per pound for one
pound versus ton lots.
Transporters of chemicals frequently employ units different from
those of either manufacturer or user. Such units also vary depending
upon the mode of transport employed. Waterborne commerce frequently
utilizes tons while highway and rail carriers use 1,000 pound units,
tons, or gallons. As a consequence, the Agency proposes that the units
employed be multiples of simple mass units (kilograms and pounds).
Also, in the absence of any common units of measiirement, the smallest
normally used common commercial unit of one pound (0. 454 kg) is
adopted as the "unit of measurement for materials in the most toxic
EPA category and is assigned a base penalty rate of $1, 000 per unit.
Other EPA categories are assigned a larger unit of measurement
found as a direct proportion between the upper aquatic toxicity limit
of the less toxic category and the upper aquatic toxicity limit of cate-
gory A substances. The aquatic toxicity ranges for various hazard
categories and the units of measurement derived from the appropriate
rates are found in Table VI-70
-------
-36-
TABLE VI-7
U NITS OF MEASUREMENT (UM) AND BASE RATES OF PENALTY
EPA UM = HQ Representative Maximum Rate
Category Ib (kg) Range of Penalty ($/lb)
A 1 (.454) LC50*<1 ppm 1000
B 10(4.54) 1 ppm
-------
-37-
The physical/chemical/dispersal (P/C/D) classification scheme
uses the class definitions and ratings proposed in reference 4 for
adjustments to rates of penalty under the Resource Value Method
rather than a similar version used in that reference by extending
the IMCO system. (The latter used different definitions [13 cate-
gories instead of 8] and a different panel of experts.)
Since the approach finally adopted in determining harmful quan-
tities of hazardous materials does not distinguish between the four
water body types (reference 4, Volume n, Table IV-5, p. 50),
the values within each "material classification" were averaged over
all four types of water bodies. These averages were then arranged
in ascending order by a panel of experts to reflect the relative se-
verity of environmental damage attributed to each category. Finally,
the eight categories were assigned decimal factors (0.1 to 1. 0)
spreading the range specified in Section 311 (b)(2)(B)(iv). Naturally,
the most damaging materials are assigned the highest rate of penalty,
the next most damaging the second highest rate, and so forth.
-------
-38-
TABLE VI-8
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL/DISPERSAL (P/C/D) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
P/C/D P/C/D
Material Classification Category Rank Factor
Insoluble Volatile Floater IVF 1 0.10
Insoluble Nonvolatile Floater INF 2 0.23
Insoluble Sinker IS 3 0.36
Soluble Mixer SM 4 0.49
Precipitator P 5 0.62
Soluble Sinker SS 6 0.75
Soluble Floater SF 7 0.88
Miscible M 8 1.0
Legend;
IVF (insoluble volatile floaters) - materials lighter than water with a
vapor pressure greater than 10 mm Hg and a solubility of less
than 1, 000 ppm or materials with vapor pressure greater than
100 mm Hg and solubility less than 10, 000 ppm.
INF (insoluble nonvolatile floaters) - materials lighter than water with
a vapor pressure less than 10 mm Hg and solubility less than
1, 000 ppm (i. e. solubility of less than 1 gram of solute per
1, 000 grams of solution).
IS (insoluble sinker) - materials heavier than water and of solubility
less than 1, 000 ppm (solubility of less than 1 gram of solute
per 1, 000 grams of solution).
SM (soluble mixer) - solid substances which have a solubility greater
than 1, 000 grams of solute per 1, 000 grams of water.
P (precipitators) - salts which dissociate or hydrolyze in water with
subsequent precipitation of toxic ion.
-------
-39-
SS (soluble sinker) - materials heavier than water and of solubility
greater than 1, 000 ppm (solubility of greater than 1 gram
of solute per 100 grams of solution.)
SF (soluble floater) - materials lighter than water and of a solubility
greater than 1,000 ppm (solubility of a greater than 1 gram
of solute per 1, 000 grams of solution).
M (miscible) - liquid substances which can freely mix with water in
any proportion.
In summary, the final rates of penalty, in dollars per unit of
measurement arising from all possible combinations of toxic category
and P/C/D factor are seen in Table VI-9 below.
TABLE VI-9
s
FINAL RATES OF PENALTY
(in $/Unit of Measurement)
P/C/D Classes
Unit of
EPA
Category IVF
A
B
C
D
100
100
100
100
INF
230
230
230
230
IS
360
360
360
360
SM
490
490
490
490
P
620
620
620
620
ss
750
750
750
750
SF
880
880
880
880
Measure -
M ment (Ib)
100
100
100
100
1
10
100
500
For convenience. Table VI-10 shows the final rates of penalty,
in dollars per pound, for all combinations of toxic category and
P/C/D factor.
-------
-40-
TABLE VI-10
FINAL RATES OF PENALTY (in $/lb)
P/C/D Classes
EPA
Category
A
B
C
D
IVF
100
10
1.0
.20
INF
230
23
2.4
.46
IS
360
36
3.6
.72
SM
490
49
4.9
.98
P
620
62
6.2
1.2
SS
750
75
7.5
1.5
SF
880
88
8.8
1.8
M
1000
100
10
2.0
Prevention and mitigation of the effect of spills are the long-
term goals of this proposed rule. The harmful effects of spills
may be reduced in many cases by such actions as warnings to
affected water users, spill containment, spill treatment, appro-
priate final disposal of debris from a spill or clean-up operation,
environmental restoration and monitoring of hazardous substance
levels. Details and further suggestions may be found in the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (40 CFR Part 1510). In particular, the "General Pattern of
Response Actions" has been specified in 40 CFR Part 1510.53.
For those materials considered to be hazardous, disposal will
require special precautions in addition to guidelines published
as 40 CFR Part 24. Complete documentation of spill response
activities and plans for prevention of similar occurrences in the
future would be most protective of the long -term interests of both
the private sector and the public.
-------
-41-
d. Discretionary Choice of Civil Penalty System.
Section 311(b)(2)(B)(iii) provides two civil penalty systems
to discourage the discharge of non-removable hazardous sub-
stances. The decision on which penalty system should be applied
was left to the discretion of the Administrator.
Concern has been expressed that the potential economic impact
, »
of penalties which might be assessed under Section 311(b)(2)(B)(iii)(bb)
could be so great that major transportation modal shifts might occur,
along with changes in plant siting. The Agency has no evidence at
this time which would suggest that these changes are necessary or
desirable. Consultation with the Department of Transportation has
suggested that available transportation expertise is being utilized but
that remedial civil penalties would enhance the protection of the en-
vironment.
It is proposed that the Administrator's discretion in regard to
penalties for spills of nonremovable hazardous substances be used
to control economic impact while providing strong incentive for miti-
gation of spill threats to public health or welfare, based upon the
following principles:
i. Economic incentive in the form of penalties will motivate
additional care for prevention of discharges;
ii. Economic incentives in the form of penalties will motivate ad-
ditional action to mitigate damages resulting from discharges;
-------
-42-
iii. Penalties should be assessed for nonremovable hazardous
substances (40 CFR Part 117) discharged in amounts equal
to or greater than harmful quantities (40 CFR Part 118);
iv. Penalties should normally be assessed in the range of
$500 to $5, 000 on an individual discharge incident basis;
v. When assessing civil penalties, the substances' properties
as well as the extent of action taken by the discharger to
prevent or mitigate damage will be considered;
vi. The higher penalty system as provided in 311(b)(2)(B)(iii)(bb)
will be used only when the Agency can show gross negligence
on the part of the discharger;
vii. If the (bb) penalty calculates to be less than $5, 000 then the
(aa) penalty of $500 to $5, 000 per discharge will be used;
viii. Case-by-case assessment of the discharger actions pro-
vides the most equitable penalty basis while ensuring the
greatest motivation for protection of the environment.
e. Examples of Penalty Determination
i. Assume 2, 000 Ib. of acetic acid is spilled and that
in the judgement of the responsible Federal Officer, the discharger
displayed gross negligence by refusing to take mitigating actions.
Therefore the civil penalty assessed for the spill is determined
by the proposed penalty rate multiplied by the number of units
discharged. Referring to the accompanying rates of penalty table
in Part 119. 5, the material is found to be in Category C. In this
-------
-43-
category, the unit of measurement is 100 pounds. The base
rate of penalty is, therefore, $1, 000/100 Ibs. Since the P/C/'D
adjustment factor for acetic acid is 1.0, the final penalty rate
is $1,000/100 Ibs or $10/lb. The final penalty for this spill
would be $10/lb x 2, 000 Ibs = $20, 000.
;
ii. Assume 10, 000 Ib of calcium oxide is spilled, but
that in this case the responsible Federal Officer finds the dis-
charger's attempts to mitigate effects of the spill adequate for
the conditions present. Consequently, the penalty recommended
to be assessed will fall in the range of $500 to $5,000 per dis-
charge, based on the factors mentioned previously. (By way
of contrast, the penalty which might have been assessed in case
of inadequate response or mitigation by the discharger is cal-
culated as follows. Referring to the table of Part 119. 5 one finds
the material belongs to Category D with a P C/D factor of 0.49.
The base rate of penalty is $1, 000/UM or $2/lb. The adjusted
rate of penalty would have been 0.49 x $2/lb = $0. 98/Ib and the
final penalty would have been $0. 98/Ib x 10,000 Ib = $9,800.)
iii. Assume 500 Ib of a solution containing 50% by weight
sodium hydroxide and 50% by weight water is spilled. Further,
assume that the Administrator determines that gross negligence
was the cause of the spill. Only half of the total poundage spilled
-------
-44-
is a designated hazardous substance. Effectively, 250 Ib have
been spilled. Sodium hydroxide is a member of Category C (UM=
HQ = 100 Ib). The P C/D class of the material is "SS", for which
the adjustment factor is 0. 75. Therefore, the rate of penalty is
0.75 x $1,000/UM = $750/UM or 0.75 x $10/lb = $7.50/lb and
the penalty would equal $7. 50/lb x 250 Ib = $1, 875. However, for
those spills in quantities leading to a total penalty of less than
$5, 000 under the penalty rate scheme of 311(b)(2)(B)(iii)(bb), the
Administrator will assess a penalty in the range of $500 to $5, 000
per spill event according to the guidelines given earlier.
f. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Method
*
The method outlined above is considered the most satisfactory
alternative among the six considered. Principally, it does not rely
on the inadequate data base presently available for the valuation
of water used in the general Resource Value Method penalty rate
determination. The IMCO/UM combination method does possess
the virtue of being compatible with an international convention.
Also, this method satisfies the penalty rate requirements of Section
311(b)(2)(B)(iv). Finally, while certain assumptions are required,
e.g., HQ = UM and that one pound of a category A material is
capable of substantial harm to the environment, these assumptions
are clearly delined and the number of assumptions is minimized.
Thereafter, the structure of the method is internally consistent
and rational. On presentation of convincing evidence, the under-
lying assumptions could be altered without overturning the entire
structure.
-------
-45-
REFERENCES TO CHAPTER VI
1. I. Wilder, and J. LaFornara, "Control of Hazardous Materials
Spills in the Water Environment", Water and Sewage Works, Vol.
119, 82 (1972).
2. G. W. Dawson, A.J. Shuckrow and W. H. Swift, Control of Spillage
of Hazardous Polluting Substances, U. S» Environmental Protection
Agency, FOZ 15090, October 1970.
3. Federal Register, 39, No. 164, part IV, p. 30466, August 22, 1974.
4. G. W. Dawson, M. Stradley and A. J. Shuckrow, Methodologiesfor
Determining Harmful Quantities and Rates of Penalty for Hazardous
Substances, EPA f440/9-75-005, a,b, c, d.
5. Water Quality Criteria, National Academy of Sciences, EPA-R3-
73-033.
6. C. E. Stephen and D. I. Mount, "Use of Toxicity Tests with Fish in
Water Pollution Control", Biological Methods for the Assessment
of Water Quality, ASTM, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1973).
7. W. J. Wnek, and E.G. Fochtman, "Mathematical Model for the Fate
of Pollutants in Near-Shore Waters", Environmental Science and
Technology, Vol. 6, p. 331, (1972).
-------
CHAPTER VII
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE REGULATIONS
A. Introduction
The Assistant Administrator for Planning and Management, in a
memorandum dated February 24, 1975, outlined the requirements for
inflationary impact statements in accordance with Executive Order
11821 and OMB Circular No. A-107. This chapter presents an analysis
of the expected areas of economic impact and quantitates as much as
possible, the magnitude of costs associated with the proposed hazardous
substance regulations. The data on which this analysis is based are
the best currently available. The hazardous substance regulations
involve:
1. Designation of Hazardous Substances
2. Determination of Actual Removability
3. Establishment of Harmful Quantities
4. Determination of Rates of Penalty.
There appear to be three areas of cost impact; one of which is
directly associated with the regulations and two of which are indirect
and incremental increases over current expenditures. The direct costs
are civil penalties to be assessed by the EPA and Coast Guard. The
indirect and incremental costs are those associated with spill prevention
and increased spill response, clean-up, and damage mitigation. These
latter cost impact areas may be more appropriately considered in detail
as they relate to removal and prevention regulations to be published
separately from the regulations noted above. However, the promul-
gation of the subject regulations does create incentive for potential
dischargers to expend funds in these areas and also increases the
-------
-2-
the need to promulgate hazardous substance spill prevention guide-
lines. (Prevention regulations have been promulgated for oil as 40
CFR Part 112 to control non-transportation related facilities),, Only
the incentives of spill prevention costs are considered in this docu-
ment, rather than the actual cost impact of that future regulation.
These indirect impact areas will be approached as an incremental
cost increases over existing industry expenditures,, Because the cur-
rent level of expenditure in these areas cannot be isolated in any
given industry, it is impossible to identify incremental cost of these
impact areas across the total regulated industry. The analysis,
therefore, assumes what could be called a "worst case" situation and
estimates reasonable maximal values for the cost of spill response
and prevention with current levels of expenditure only qualitatively
factored into the estimate,,
The number of spills occurring annually is basic to the deriva-
tion of cost estimates. Data relative to hazardous substances spillage
are limited because there is no required reporting of discharges until
such time that the substances are designated and their harmful quan-
tities are established. The data base used here spans two and one
half years of spill records which were voluntarily reported or for-
tuitously discovered. This may be inconsistent with spill reports
as noted in Chapter I. However, to get a relative assessment of
the cost factors involved, the analysis on this data base is thought
to be sufficient. During this period, 174 incidents involving entry of
a proposed hazardous substances into a surface water body in excess
-------
-3-
of the proposed harmful quantity were recorded. (1) The average is,
therefore, 70 spills per year. Due to the nature of spill reporting,
it is assumed that these records account for only 10% of actual dis-
charges resulting in a predicted spill rate of 700 per year. The estimate
of 10% is drawn from the oil spill reporting experience under the same
section of law in which mandatory reporting requirements produced
10 fold increase over the previously voluntary reporting level. This
same data base is used in the analysis to derive average spill size,
spill distribution, and typical damage mitigation costs which are later
discussed. Additional usage is made of the analogous oil spill data
available from nearly five years of compulsory reporting to the Federal
Government.
The analysis of direct penalty costs is based on the idea that the
Agency intends to use the higher rate of penalty [311(b)(2)(B)(iii)(bb)]
only when it can be shown that the spill resulted from gross negligence
or that the discharger was grossly negligent in mitigating the spill.
This criterion for applying the potentially high penalties has a signi-
ficant effect in controlling the magnitude of civil penalties. Because
of the difficult test of law in determining gross negligence the analysis
assumes few penalty actions under the higher, (bb) penalty option.
In regard to the cost of prevention, the program could closely
parallel the Oil Spill Prevention Program currently being implemented
on a national basis (2). This program, for non-transporation related
facilities, operates from a Spill Prevention Containment and Counter-
>!
measure Plan (SPCC). To assist in understanding the possible impacts,
-------
data from the oil spill prevention program have been considered. It
should be noted, however, that the hazardous substance spill prevention
program is not developed and may not necessarily involve the same
costs or procedures as the oil spill program.
Damage mitigation costs are regarded as liabilities and as such
are insurable risks. These costs will add, in some cases, to the
liabilities currently carried by chemical producers, handlers, and
transporters. Personal injury and property damage liability is an
accepted "cost of business" with chemical handlers. In many cases,
existing insurance coverage will suffice for normal environmental
damage mitigation 'expense incurred by the insured from spill. For
example, the insurance which vessels now carry for oil spill clean-up
liability or for accident casualties will cover hazardous substances
spills with little or no incremental increase in premiums (3),,
When considering the economic impacts, it should be recognized
that the prevention, mitigation, and penalty costs are not necessarily
additive. The owner or operator has a certain degree of freedom
to decide if added prevention costs for his operation are warranted
in light of post spill costs potentially assesseable* He may elect to
withstand the mitigation and penalty costs rather than invest in up-
grading his facility until such time as promulgation of prevention
regulations require it.
-------
-5-
B. Civil Penalties
Briefly, the methodology employed in estimating the magnitude of
civil penalties which may be assessed by the EPA revolves around the
estimated number of spills per year (700), the frequency with which
the penalty will be assessed using Section 311(b)(2)(B)(iii)(aa) ($500-
$5,000/spill) or Section 311(b)(2)(B)(iii)(bb) (penalty rate in dollars
per unit times units discharged), and the probable magnitude of
penalty under each option.
In order to use the (bb) penalty option, the Agency must establish
the quantity of substance discharged. The data base reveals that in
27% of the recorded incidents, it was not possible to estimate the
quantity actually reaching a surface water body. In these cases, fire,
evaporation, or ground sorption accounted for a significant reduction
in the amount of pollutant actually entering the water. Applying the
27% figure to the total predicted number of spills (700) results in 189
spills for which enforcement actions using the (bb) penalty rate option
would be tenuous. Thus, enforcement of a civil penalty would require
use of the (aa) option ($500-$5,000) which may be assessed on a per dis-
charge basis regardless of quantity discharged. The level of penalty
assessment within the statutory range is to be based at least upon the
toxicity, degradability, and dispersal characteristics of the substance.
Assuming an (aa) penalty equal to the average of the statutory range
results in the value of $2, 750/spill. Thus, the total anticipated (aa)
penalty for spills of unknown volume is equal to 189 x $2, 750 =
$520,000/year.
-------
-6-=
According to the above calculation, there remain 511 spills per year
which will be known volume and potentially subject to penalties under the
(bb) clause utilizing the rate of penalty schedule. Because gross negli-
gence has been selected (see chapter on harmful quantities and penalty
rates) as the discriminator between the (aa) and (bb) penalty options
a conservative estimate is to assume that the Agency will enforce
and apply the penalty rate under (bb) in no more than 1% of the spills,
This assumption results in a remainder of 506 spills/year which will be
assessed a civil penalty under the (aa) option. The average penalty
($2, 750) multiplied by the predicted spills (506) yields an anticipated
penalty cost of $1, 391,500/year for spills of known volume in which
gross negligence was not a factor. Therefore, the total civil penalty
estimated to be assessed under (aa) would be $1,922,500 per year.
From the above calculations, there remain a predicted 4. 75 or 5
spills per year in which gross negligence will be a factor and a penalty
assessment under the (bb) clause will be made. A concern expressed
by the transportation industry, particularly the water mode, is that
the maximum penalty under the (bb) option of $5, 000, 000 will be used
and result in financial ruin. The data base shows 16% of all spills
occur from vessels. Taking 16% of the 5 remaining spills results
in a prediction of 0. 80 spills/year from vessels subject to the penalty
rate. Additional analysis of spill records indicates that in only 5%
of the spill incidents was sufficient quantity discharged such that the
penalty computed by the proposed rate schedule exceeded the statutory
limit of $5, 000, 000 for vessels and $500, 000 for other sources. Thus,
-------
-7-
5% of 0. 80 results in an estimated 0. 04 spills/year from vessels which
year from vessels which will result in a $5, 000, 000 penalty. In other
words, the barging industry could anticipate a $5,000, 000 penalty once
in every 25 years or an average of $200, 000 per year. Of the remaining
4. 2 spills per year, 5% or 0. 21 will result in a maximum penalty for
sources other than vessels. Thus, the maximum penalty of $500, 000
for facilities will be anticipated once every five years, resulting in
an average annual impact of $100, 000/year. Therefore, the total pen-
alty arising from assessment of the maximum (bb) penalty should be
$300, 000 per year.
Additional information is required on the probable size of spills
if a total penalty is to be predicted based on assessment of (bb) pen-
alties which, individually, are less than the maximum. The American
Petroleum Institute has provided (4) data demonstrating the relationship
between number of spill events and spill volume for oils reported
during the calendar years 1972 through 1974. Spills of less than 1, 000
gallons represent 83% of the number of spills, yet account for only
5% of the volume of oil spilled. In strong contrast, spills of greater
than 10,000 gallons represent only 4% of the number of spills, yet
account for 78% of the volume of oil spilled. Finally, spills of oil
between 1, 000 and 10, 000 gallons represent 13% of the number of spills,
and account for 17% of the volume spilled.
-------
-8-
Since this data base represents 12, 725 spills over the full three-
year period, with a total spillage of 35, 838, 482 gallons, it provides
a substantial, though far from unequivocal, base from which to extra-
polate. We shall assume the same percentage distribution applies to
hazardous material spills. Then, to determine the cost of penalties
for those spills subject to less than maximum (bb) penalties, we shall
assume the following three penalty levels:
Assumed Penalty Level
Frequency Penalty level Vessels" Facilities and Other
83% Minimal $5,000 $5,000
13% Average $1,000,000 $100,000
4% Large $2,500,000 $250,000
(but less than
the maximum)
Thus, the remaining 4. 75 spills per year are predicted to occur
in the following penalty groups:
0. 83 x 4o 74 = 4. 0 at minimal penalty level
0. 13 x 4. 74 = 0. 6 at average penalty level
0. 04 x 4o 75 = 0. 2 at large penalty level,
Because penalties are dependent on the source of the spill, the pre-
viously cited analysis of vessels and other sources of spills require
that most of 16% and 84% respectively must be considered.
Number of Number of Spills
Penalty Level Vessel Spills From Other Sources
Minimal 0.16x4.0=0.64 0.84x4.0 = 3.36
Average 0. 16 x 0. 6 = 0. 10 0. 84 x 0, 6 = 0. 50
Large 0.16x0.2 = 0.03 0.84x0.2 = 0.17
-------
-9-
Predicted penalties may then be calculated using the previously
assumed penalty levels.
Penalty Level
Minimal
Average
Large
Vessel Spills
5,000
1, 000, 000
2,500,000
Other Than
Penalty Level Vessels
Minimal
Average
Large
5,000
100, 000
250,000
Number of Spills Penalty $/Yr
0.64
0. 10
0.03
Number of Spills
3.36
0.50
0.17
3,200
100,000
75, OOP
$178,200
Penalty $/Yr
16,800
50, 000
42,500
109,300
Thus, total (bb) penalties less than maximum = $248,100/year. The to-
tal predicted civil penalties by EPA is a summation of the above values.
It will be recalled that the values in Table VII-1 are based on the
following assumptions:
700 enforceable spills/year
Enforcement of gross negligence in 1% of cases
Key values derived from existing data are:
27% of spills will involve unknown quantities
16% of spills are from vessels
5% of spills will exceed maximum (bb) penalty
83% of spills are in a minimal penalty range
13% of spills are in an average penalty range
4% of spills are in a large penalty range
-------
-10-
TABLE VII - 1
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PENALTIES
Penalty under (aa)
lo Unknown spill volume 520, 000
2. Gross negligence not a factor 1, 391, 500
totaTlaa) penalty 1, 911,500
Penalty under (bb) - gross negligence
1» Maximum penalty assessed
a. Vessels 200,000
b. Other 100, OOP
total maximum penalties , 300, 000
2. Less than maximum
a. Vessels 178,200
b. Other 109,300
total less than maximum 287, 5UO
total (bb) penalties $587, 500
total (aa) and (bb) penalties 2, 499, 000/year
In addition to the EPA civil penalties, the Coast Guard has authority
to assess a civil penalty of up to $5, 000 for discharges in excess of the
harmful quantity [Section 311(b)(6)]« If successful enforcement for all
of the predicted 700 spills is assumed, along with an average penalty
of $2, 500, the estimated total civil penalty is $1, 750, 000/year.
-------
-11-
Although Section 311(b)(5) provides for penalties in the case of
failure to notify the Government of discharges in excess of the harmful
quantity, these are of a criminal nature and are not included in this
analysis. ^
Thus, the estimated total civil penalties from the three subparts
approximate 4. 25 million dollars per year as a potential consequence
of the proposed regulations.
C. Cost of Spill Response; Clean-up and Damage Mitigation Liabilities
This portion of the analysis deals with the first of the indirect
costs and is based on three factors: first, a projection of the number
of spills per year of hazardous materials that reach water, (700),
second, a projection of the average spill size; and third, the cost of
clean-up and mitigation, based on known costs for specific spills,
for several categories of hazardous materials. This analysis is done
recognizing the determination that all hazardous substances have been
proposed as being not actually removable. Details are given in the
chapter on the determination of removability.
-------
-12-
The first factor required for the analysis is the number of spills
per year. The estimate of 700 derived in the proceeding section is
used here without further development.
The second factor dealing with the average spill size was obtained
by grouping the 174 reported spills into ranges of 50 pound increments
and plotting the frequency of spillage as a function of the spill size
within the 50 pound increments. The resulting curve closely approxi-
mates a normal Gaussian distribution with a mean most probable spill
size of 7, 500 pounds.
The third factor, dealing with typical response costs, is the most
tenuous of the values. Limited experience with documented cost figures
is the primary weakness in developing these estimates. In order to
conveniently handle the large number of chemicals, and because there
are a limited number of spill clean-up techniques, three categories were
devised based on physical-chemical properties and the corresponding
clean-up techniques applicable to each cateogry. The basic categories
are soluble materials, insoluble floaters, and insoluble sinkers or pre-
cipitators. The soluble materials may require neutralization or sorbtion;
harmful effects of the "oil-like" substances (insoluble floaters) may be
ameliorated by existing oil spill techniques; and the harmful effects of
sinkers may be ameliorated by dredging or suction pumping.
-------
-13-
Analysis of 74 spill records for the calendar year 1974 results
in a spill frequency for the three categories.
Number in Percentage
Category Category (n=74) of Total
Solubles 49 66
Insoluble floaters 23 31
Insoluble sinkers 2 3
Applying this frequency distribution to the predicted annual spill rate
of 700 yields the following predicted spill frequency for each category:
Category
Solubles
Insoluble floaters
Insoluble sinkers
Finally, actual case histories are utilized to determine typical
response and clean-up costs for each category.
1. Soluble Substances
Analysis of 19 different acid spills that entered water during the
year 1974, taken from the OHM-SIRS data bank, revealed that common
basic substances were frequently used to neutralize the spills. Commonly
used bases included caustic soda, sodium carbonate, and lime. Recent
issues of the Chemical Marketing Reporter indicate an average price
of about $.10 per pound for bulk quantities of these materials. As a
first approximation, it can be assumed that the neutralization will be
Percentage
of Total
66
31
3
Projected Spills Per Year
Per Category (n=700)
462
217
21
-------
-14-
-^
a one to one relation i. e., 100 pounds of acid will require 100 pounds
of base. Thus, the cost of mitigating an acid or base spill is approxi-
mately $ 10 per pound in terms of material required. The actual cost
of mitigation will, of course, be significantly greater, but actual figures
for a spill of this type are not available. In lieu of actual cost numbers,
a reasonable approximation is that raw material costs constitute 10%
of the total clean-up expenses. Thus, the approximated cost of mitigat-
ing a spill of a soluble acid or base is $1. 00 per pound.
Soluble chemicals which cannot be neutralized constitute the remain-
der of the soluble category. Although actually documented cases of
clean-up are minimal, mitigation by use of ion exchange or carbon
sorbtion is feasible.
In June 1973, a Western Maryland Railway freight train derailed
west of Cumberland, Maryland. Eleven freight cars were involved,
including three tank cars carrying liquid carbolic acid (phenol). Two
of the tank cars ruptured after derailment, spilling 25, 000 gallons of
phenol onto a hillside sloping down from the tracks and toward Jennings
Run, a feeder stream to the Potomac River. The two tank cars contained
a total of 193, 000 pounds of phenol, however, 17, 000 pounds of phenol
remained in the cars after the derailment and rupture. Of the remaining
176, 000 pounds of phenol, 166, 000 pounds was absorbed into the hillside
leaving 10, 000 pounds of phenol which flowed into the waters of Jennings
Run. Efforts to mitigate the spill consisted of construction of a gran-
ular activated carbon filtration unit through which leachate from the
-------
-15-
contaminated soil passed before discharge into Jennings Run. The unit
operated for several months, effectively removing phenol from the
leachate. Biodegradation occurring in the contaminated soil during
the time period also helped in removal of the phenol. Expenditures
by the railroad totaled $80, 000 resulting in a clean-up cost of $0. 45
per pound of phenol spilled. An obvious problem in the above analysis
is that expenditures for a response effort of this sort are not directly
related to the size of the spill. Thus, the derived value per pound
spilled is a function of the spill size. In this case, the cost of con-
structing the filtration unit was the major expense and because of the
magnitude of the spill, the cost per pound figure is probably less than
one would predict for the more typical size spill. Assuming the more
typical spill would involve only one tank car rather than the two in
this case, the cost of mitigation increases to $0. 90 per pound since
the basic cost of constructing and operating the charcoal filtration unit
would be the same. Because the value is nearly that of the previous
estimate for acids and bases, a value of $1. 00 per pound for Category
A substances will be used for computational purposes.
2. Floaters - Oil-Like Substances (Less Dense then Water
with Limited Solubility)
Analysis of 26 different oil spills from transport vessels during
/
the years 1972-1974 revealed that the average cost of clean-up for
these 26 spills was $6. 70 per gallon, or $0. 84 per pound of oil spilled.
The amount spilled ranged from 1430 gallons to 7.4 million gallons,
and the cost per gallon of clean-up in individual cases ranged from
$0. 14 to $9. 52 per gallon, or from $0. 02 to $1.19 per pound. While
-------
-16-
it was generally true that as the volume of oil spilled increased, the
cost per gallon of clean-up decreased (in 6 of 7 cases where the volume
spilled was over one million gallons, the cost per gallon of clean-up
was under $1.00), this was not always the case. Factors such as
terrain or accessibility to spill site; weather, including such elements
as cold temperatures and wind; high water, current or wave action;
natural or floating obstructions and debris in the water; and the avail-
ability of clean-up equipment and personnel all influence the efficiency
and cost of clean-up operations.
The average cost of clean-up per gallon of oil spilled is supported
almost precisely by another case not included in the analysis above.
A tanker casualty in the Delaware River spilled 294, 000 gallons of No. 6
fuel oil (Bunker C) into the water. Clean-up costs amounted to $1, 975, 000,
which included machinery rental and purchase, disposable material pur-
chase, disposal of the collected oils, and restocking of destroyed wild-
life. The cost per gallon of clean-up was $6. 72, or $0. 84 per pound.
While not all spills of materials in this category can be successfully
mitigated by oil spill clean-up techniques, a certain, but as yet indeter-
minate, number of spills will occur at such times and locations that
booms, skimmers, and adsorbents will be effective. The average
cost of $0. 84 per pound will be utilized for floating substances.
3. Insoluble Sinking Substances
The use of dredging or suction pumping to mitigate spills of
chemicals which precipitate or sink to the bottom of a water course
has been demonstrated on several occasions. In 1970, a highway
-------
-17-
accident involving a chemical tank truck resulted in the discharge of
dimethyl sulfate into a slow moving roadside stream. Nearly complete
recovery of the material was achieved by vacuum pumping the chemical
from below the surface of the water.
In September 1974, an electrical transformer was being loaded by
the Department of the Army onto a barge in the Duwamish Waterway
near Seattle, Washington, for shipment to an Air Force base in Alaska.
During the process of loading, a support member failed and the trans-
former dropped onto the dock, cracking open in the process. As a
result, approximately 265 gallons of PCB's spilled onto the dock and
into the waterway, contaminating both the water and the adjacent harbor
area. Spill clean-up was accomplished by vacuum dredging and carbon
filtration of contaminated sediments and water. Although the total cost
of the spill response effort was $148, 183, many of the contributory
costs can be subtracted due to the atypical nature of the response effort
at the Federal level. The primary item which can be subtracted is the
labor cost of divers totalling $73, 849. Because of the experimental
nature of the response effort, divers rather than remote control devices
were utilized to control vacuum dredge lines. Such would not be the
case in a "typical" damage mitigation effort. In addition, travel ex-
penses of EPA, State, and Coast Guard personnel totalling $13,178
are included and are considered excess of the expected Federal res-
ponse to routine clean-up efforts. A more typical expenditure would
be half of the above amount. Thus, the expenditure expected for sim-
ilar spills, would total $67, 745 for 265 gallons. Since the specific gravity
of PCB's is approximately 1.38, the value becomes $67,745
-------
-18-
per 3053 pounds or $22 per pound. Thus, the expected cost for response
to spills of insoluble sinking materials is $22 per pound.
Utilizing the average spill size, predicted number of spills, and
anticipated cost of clean-up or damage mitigation, the following figures
are derived in Table VII-2.
Table VII-2
Cost of Clean up of Hazardous Substances
Cagetory
Solubles
Floaters
Sinkers
Average Spill
Size (pounds)
7500
7500
7500
Predicted
Spills /Yr
462
217
21
Cost of
Clean-up
($/lb)
1.00
0.84.
22.00
Annual Cost
(millions of
dollars)
3.465
1.367
3.465
Total; 8.297
It must be pointed out that the above analysis is on a worst case
basis. The basic assumption is that all of the 700 predicted spills will
result in response/clean-up actions. It is certain thai many spills
will not be amenable to such treatment and that appropriate response
activity may consist only of warning downstream water users and
cursory monitoring of pollutant levels to assure no long-term exposure.
Furthermore, case histories exist which show that response to chemical
accidents is an ongoing activity with many producers and handlers.
Thus, regulations requiring response activities will in all probability
not carry the degree of impactiveness predicted above. The projected
8. 297 million dollars expenditure for response assumes no current level
of expenditure for chemical clean-up. A more accurate estimate would
be some percentage of the projected $8. 297 million effort. Since the
-------
-19-
actual incremental increase is presently indeterminate, the figure
cited above is again a worst case estimate.
D. Spill Prevention
Because implementing regulations have not yet been developed,
the anticipated costs associated with spill prevention are indirect
impacts and extremely speculative at this time.
The owner or operator of a hazardous material handling or manu-
facturing facility need not actually spend any monies on spill prevention
equipment or techniques. He may decide that mitigation of damages
resulting from a spill is more economical than spill prevention expen-
ditures, based on his analysis of the odds of a spill occurring. The
trade-off decision is his until prevention regulations are promulgated.
A capital discount approach provides a rough estimate of the maxi-
mum amount of funds that would be spent solely to avoid penalties and
mitigation. Assuming that capital expenditure for spill prevention are
100% effecitve, that equipment has a 20-year life, and that from previ-
ous analysis that civil penalties and mitigation total costs remain less
than $12, 550, 000 annually, the maximum capital expenditures would
be $12. 550, 000 divided by the cost of capital to the industry. A study
of the cost of capital for a number of industries was performed for EPA
Economic Analysis Division (5). The cost of capital to the chemical
industry for the years 1975 through 1977 was found to be 14%. Thus,
at a 14% discount factor, the maximum capital expenditure for spill
->
prevention is approximately 78. 5 million dollars.
-------
-20-
It should be noted that the The Coast Guard has responsibility
for generation of prevention regulations to cover transportation-
related spills of oil. To date, those regulations have not been
issued. It appears reasonable to assume that the Coast Guard will
also be given responsibility for generation of prevention regulations
to cover transportation related spills of hazardous materials. However,
because of existing authorities concerning the transportation of chem-
icals, there is some question whether the Coast Guard would choose
to move forward on prevention regulations for hazardous materials
relative to transportation sources in the near future.
E. Cost of Insurance
Discussion with various members of the insurance industry, trade
organizations, and Federal agencies has revealed wide variation in the
extent of insurance coverage for hazardous material spills for fixed
facilities and transportation stock,, The trucking industry is the only
transportation mode that requires minimum insurance levels to be
carried. The Interstate Commerce Commission requires a minimum
coverage of $50, 000 for property damage and $100, 000/$300, 000 for
personal liability. These requirements are for third party damage
protection (6).
However, the coverage within the industry varies. It is estimated
that there are 16, 000 truck lines; of these about 100 lines carry large
"umbrella" insurance policies that range between one and five million
dollars. Another 1,000 truck lines carry property damage insurance
-------
-21-
between $100, 000 and $1, 000, 000 and are assumed to carry corres-
pondingly large coverage for personal liability. The remaining 15, 000
truck lines carry the minimum insurance levels required by the ICC.
The insurance coverage for hazardous material spills in the truck-
ing industry, as presently contituted, will cover mitigation expenses
to prevent further property losses. However, environmental mitigation
expenses, in and of themselves, may not be recognized by these insurers
as necessary or valid expenses.
There are no Federal requirements for minimum insurance coverage
for the railroad industry for hazardous material spills. Generally, rail-
roads cover their own damage claims. However, some lines do carry
special insurance policies to cover catastrophic accidents and fires.
Insurance levels for this type of situation may be for $25, 000,000 total
coverage, with a $1-2 million deductible clause written into the policy.
Accident liability for the railroad industry is thus covered either by
the railroad line directly or through a large catastrophe policy with a
substantial deductible clause written in. However, as presently consti-
tuted, it is not likely that a large catastrophe policy would cover environ-
mental mitigation expenses (7).
Insurance coverage for vessel transportation of hazardous materials
appears to be different from that for the railroad or trucking industries.
Present insurance policies for vessels transporting hazardous materials
are indemnity policies whereby the insurance underwriter indemnifies
the vessel owner or operator for all costs the owner or operator must
-------
-22-
pay to cover all liabilities. Most current vessel insurance policies cover
all liabilities encountered, regardless of whether the substance causing
the problem was designated a hazardous substance or not. Thus, existing
insurance for vessels transporting hazardous materials includes all
accidents resulting in pollution incidents and the resulting mitigation
expenditures (3).
Insurance coverage for hazardous material spills at fixed facilities
appears to be generally similar to that for railroad lines, although
there are some exceptions. The largest chemical and petro-chemical
production facilities either totally self-insure themselves (that is, carry
sufficient funds in a floating reserve to cover any pollution incidents),
or self-insure themselves up to a certain limit, such as $1, 000, 000
or $5, 000, 000, and buy insurance coverage for catastrophic events
causing liabilities beyond that point. On the other hand, some smaller
chemical production facilities purchase large insurance policies to
cover any damages or claims resulting from hazardous material
spills.
It should be noted, however, that no insurance company will under-
write a production facility or transportation mode that causes a pollu-
tion incident by knowingly allowing the release (or spill) of a hazardous
material. It has been indicated to this Agency that it is insurance
industry policy not to write insurance to cover fines or penalties that
a policy holder may sustain because of concern that insuring fines
or penalties is neither legal, nor in the public interest.
-------
-23-
Thus, from the examples cited above it seems evident that insurance
coverage can generally be obtained in the hazardous material industry
for both property damage and personal liability. However, coverage
for expenditures for environmental mitigation may pose a problem which
may be overcome through education and experience. We believe it is
in the interest of both the insurance companies and the public to offer
such coverage, and intend to press for inclusion of such coverage in
policies to be written in the future if it is not so included already.
F. Price Impacts
Economic data were collected for about 150 of the most significant
hazardous substances involved. In 1972, total sales for these substances
was approximately $4 billion. The manner in which the costs identified
above will affect the prices of specific chemicals is unknown. In terms
of all hazardous chemicals, spreading the annual costs over total volume
yields a price increase of less than 0. 3%.
G. Energy Impacts
No significant energy impacts are expected. Minor amounts of
energy are expected in most clean-up responses. Spill prevention
technology is varied but not expected to entail intensive energy impacts.
-------
-24-
REFERENCES TO CHAPTER VII
1. R. Sanford, "Statistical tabulation and evaluation of OHM-SIRS
polluting substance spills", Memorandum to Record, Files of Haz-
ardous Substances Branch, CSD, OWPS, OWHM, EPA, Wash.,
D. C., April 2, 1975
2. "Oil Pollution Prevention, Non-Transportation Related Onshore
and Offshore Facilities" 40 CFR Part 112, or Federal Register,
Vol. 38, No. 237, Part H, p. 34164
3. A. L. Jennings, Report on telephone call to Mr. Drew, Federal
Maritime Commission Re: Insurance for vessels under Section
311, Memorandum to Record, Files of Hazardous Substances
Banch, CSD, OWPS, OWHM, EPA, Wash., D.C., July 29, 1975
4. Private comunication, American Petroleum Institute to T. Charle-
ton. Oil and Special Materials Control Division, OWPO, OWHM,
EPA, Wash., D.C.
5. G. Pogue, "Estimation of the Cost of Capitol for Major U. S.
Industries", Contract report for Economic Analysis Division,
Office of Planning and Evaluation, EPA, 1975
6. C. H. Thompson, "insurance Coverage of Motor Carriers for
Spill Clean-up Liability", Memorandum to Record, Files of
Hazardous Substances Branch, CSD, OWPS, OWHM, EPA,
Wash., D. C., July 17, 1975
7. L. R. Williams, "insurance Coverage" [of railroads, according
to Assoc. of Am. Railroads], Memorandum to Record, Files of
Hazardous Substances Branch, CSD, OWPS, OWHM, EPA, Wash.,
D.C., July 21, 1975
-------
CHAPTER VIII
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Introduction
Having invested tens of man years in the development of regulations
on chemical spills, this branch has observed several problem areas which
are only partially solved by the proposed regulations. The purpose of
this chapter is to offer the recommendations of the Hazardous Substances
Branch staff concerning resolution of these problems, if a resolution
appears possible. As such, this section can be likened to a contract
study in which observations and recommendations are presented without
regard to existing Federal or state legislative authority, to current
technical limitations or to the proposed regulatory approach. This
section must, by design, be viewed as the product of the Hazardous
Substance Branch and does not necessarily represent the views of the
Agency as a whole.
B. Environmental Protection Agency
Although the proposed list of hazardous substances contains over
three hundred chemicals, it is considered only an initial list with the
criteria for designation as the vehicle for additional listings. Work
should continue on adding priority chemical substances to the list.
To assist in this effort, Federal and state agencies should forward
reports of all accidental discharges of chemicals to the program
office in order to assemble an improved data base on spill frequency
for materials not currently listed. Agency laboratories should utilize
s^
spill hazard frequency reports as justification for deriving toxicological
-------
-2-
data for those unlisted substances so that addition of chemicals to the
list may be made on the basis of solid, standardized, modern data.
This will require greater cooperation and coordination between reg-
ulatory offices and the research arm of the Agency than is currently
in evidence.
The regulations themselves, when promulgated, will require
Environmental Protection Agency and Coast Guard personnel to
respond to spill incidents in the field. Additional training will be
mandatory for both agencies. The chemical spill situation is unique
and few response personnel are adequately trained at present along
the lines of public health considerations and personal safety. Such
training should constitute a major program emphasis. In addition,
the enforcement of Section 311 provisions will require training and
guidance from Headquarters.
The proposed differentiation between available penalties based upon
gross negligence of the discharger will require the development of
guidelines to both EPA and Coast Guard On-scene Coordinators and
enforcement personnel. In addition, hearing procedures relevant
to the assessment of civil penalties must be consistent from Region
to Region. It is recommended that either guidance or training be
offered to enforcement personnel charged with conduct of the hearing.
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan, as currently drafted, is inadequate for dealing with hazardous
chemical spills. It is, in effect, an oil contingency plan and there-
fore needs extensive updating and expansion to adequately deal with
-------
-3-
hazardous substances and implement the regulations following final
promulgation.
It is recommended that the Agency initiate studies to develop
chemical spill prevention regulations at the earliest possible time.
since the general problem of chemical spills is obviously best dealt
with by preventing their occurence in the first place. The rapid pro-
mulgations of spill prevention regulations will clear up much of the
confusion and concern regarding what the Federal Government expects
of potential dischargers along the lines of spill prevention expenditures
and liabilities.
With regard to response activities, the removal regulations for
hazardous substances required under Section 311(j)(l)(A) should be
developed in the near future, drawing upon current spill response
and damage mitigation technology. Furthermore, EPA Research and
Development should examine methods of damage mitigation to improve
the technological data base.
C. Industry
As structured, the regulations attempt to induce industry to pre-
vent spillage and to respond to spill events when they do occur. Although
the bulk of industry is attuned to these needs at present, emphasis on
protection of environmental health may deserve increased priority.
Thoughts should be directed toward additional operator training as
well as toward individual corporate contingency plans and identification
->
of spill response team members specializing in environmental protection.
-------
-4-
D. States
State agencies have become increasingly concerned over the
problem of chemical spills and are in the process of instituting their
own regulations to deal with the situation. Industry and the Federal
Government share a concern that proliferation of regulations differing
from State to State might overburden interstate commerce of hazardous
chemicals. It is therefore recommended that states support the Federal
effort, with the objective being a consistent set of regulations designed
to address spills of these chemicals from the standpoint of both prevention
and response. One of the principal problems with state authority in
the area is that states have, quite justifiably, addressed all media
instead of just water. The need for Federal legislation to correct
this difficulty is discussed below.
E. Legislative
Controlling a chemical pollutant problem should not be limited to
one medium such as air, land or water only. The crux of the spill
control problem is prevention, which can cover all accidental releases
regardless of media, and response, which can likewise be developed
for all media. A legislative framework designed to prevent hazardous
chemical releases and to protect public and environmental health after
their release should be designed without regard to media. In addition,
the current framework of spill control relies heavily on economic
disincentives for spills in water. Greater administrative discretion
in the assessment of penalties should be incorporated into any amended
-------
-5-
legislation. At the same time, requirements and liabilities for resto-
ration of the damaged environment should be included. Since unpolluted
or relatively unpolluted portions of the environment are valued as a
resource, the rapid return of that resource to its pre-spill condition
should be the primary concern of any legislative spill control program.
F. International
The regulations implementing Section 311 currently are consistent
with international activities in terms of the scientific grouping and
analysis of chemical hazards. Such consistency should be maintained
in future endeavors and activities such as the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement, the Ocean Dumping Convention, the Marine Pollution Con-
vention at IMCO and others.
-------
APPENDIX
SPILL DATA
This Appendix is a tabulation of data on accidents available from
the Oil and Hazardous Materials Spill Information Retrieval System
(OHM-SIRS) computerized files. The interval covered is from August
1970 through July 1975. The listing follows that found in a computer
printout from OHM-SIRS and is chronological, except for approximately
50 entries found at the end of 1974. OHM-SIRS file entries which do not
name the substance spilled, or which do not adequately describe the sub-
stance in some other fashion, have been omitted from this Appendix.
While the column headings are largely self-explanatory, a
few comments are required. When no entry is found in the "waters
affected" column, this means that none of the material involved is
thought to have reached navigable waters. Reports of known dam-
ages are listed but blanks in this column do not necessarily mean
that no damage resulted since field personnel frequently have no
time to estimate damage in the heat of emergency situations. Field
assessments performed as part of emergency response measures
are always difficult and often tend to underestimate the total environ-
mental impact of spills.
Conclusions drawn from the data in this Appendix should also be
tempered with the realization that specific accident reports were
voluntary and are often incomplete due to lack of standardization
among these cooperative parties or individuals. Moreover, due to
the voluntary nature of the reports, there is reason to believe that
only a small fraction (10-20% ') of all such spills were reported.
-------
-2-
A considerable number of substances in this Appendix are not
found on the proposed designation list published on December 30, 1975
as Proposed 40 CFR Part 116, Inclusion of the full range of properly
identified materials, whether currently proposed or not, is appropriate
since this appendix consists of raw data. The analyses and summaries
of Chapters I and VII were derived from these data» taking into con-
sideration only the materials designated in Proposed 40 CFR Part 116,
spilled in excess of the "harmful quantities" specified in Proposed
40 CFR Part 118 and in accordance with the penalties possible under
rates of penalty published in Proposed 40 CFR Part 119.
-------
DATE
i 8/11./70
1
8/21/70
8/22/7.0
1 9/2/70
9/21/70
9/21/70
9/2lt/TO
10/0/70
LOCATION
. Portland, Ore.
Edmore, Mich. .
Portland, Ore.
Chicago, 111
, Staff ordsville,
r ' Ya.
Portland, Ore.
Union Town,' Ky.
V Mississippi
'River, La.
MATERIAL
Boiler Wash Waste
Caustic Soda &
TOC-3
Plating Waste
Alkaline Solu-
tion
Iron, Pickol
Liquor
2-U Toluene Di-
loocyanate
Lime, Rock
Washing Waoteo
Ethylbenzene
Toluene i '
QUANTITY/SOURCE
Company Plant
Plant which manu-
factures electri-
cal parts
M/V Santa Eliana
Onshore Facility
11000 gallons/
MOBA Chemical
Truck
Pipeline Refuse
Dumping
50 gallons /barge
5000 gallons/ '
onshore facility
DAMAGES
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Red Discolora-
tion of River
Unknown
Unknown
*,
Unknown
Unknown
WATERS AFFECTED
Willamette River
Pine River
Willamette River
*
Calumet Riv"ejr ., '
Big Walker Creek
Willamette Rivez>
i
Mississippi River .
COMPANY
RESPONSIBLE
Phillips Petroleum
Corp.
General Electric
Prudential Grace Line
Interloke Steel
MOBA Chemical
Ash Grovo Cement Co.
Cardinal Carrier Co.
Ceigy Chemical Co.
R/JIARKS
10/9/70 ' Vyandotte, Mich. Mercury
Plant
Unknown
Mercury Pond near Vyandotte Chemical Co.
Detroit River
-------
I DATE
10/10/70
j 10/28/70
!
, 10/29/70
1
J
| 11/9/70
t O
' 11/16/70
I 11/19/70
{
11/30/70
I
12/2/70
' 12/6/70
LOCATION
Salem, Va.
MATERIAL
QUAHTITY/SOURCE DAMAGES
WATERS AFFECTED
Etliyl Benzene 2000 gallons/
Onshore Tank
Baltimore, Md» Molaosos '-
Cargo Ship
Fish kill of Roonoke River
13,280 of vari-
ous species
Unknown
Portland, Ore. BlXie-green dye Plant drain
& paper fibers
Rabbit Island, Ethyl Hexanol 60072 gallons/
La. Barges
Blair, Nebraska Ammonia
168000 gallons/
Barge
Unknown
No visible
damage to wild-
life
Unknown
kZ gallons/Ship Unknown
Portland, Ore» , Thick White
Lacquer Substance Loading Barrels of
Substance
COMPANY
RESPONSIBLE
Koppers Plant
M« V. Astorus &
Pacific Mollasses
Molded Container
Corp?
Union Carbide Co.
Gulf Chemical Co.
Willamette River States Steamship Co.
Willamette River
New Martinaville Benzene
W. Va.
Onshore Facility Unknown
REMARK!
Estima.od ^0,000 gallons
re tain.-a in conduits.
Amount of loss thru oral)
undetermined. , t
Detroit, Mich
Salt Pile,
Earth Slide
20,000 tons/
Doekside
Leroy-Genessee
County,. H.Y..
Trichloroethy- 35,000 gallons/
lene tank cars '
Interfered with Rouge Biver-
traffic in
navigation
channel. Tempor-
ary shutdown of
water intakes
Contaminated
veils-taste,
odor . . , '
Mobay Chemical Co«
'Detroit Bulk Rock Coo
Lehigh Valley Railroad
-------
DATE
12/9/70
;
12/9/70
12/10/70
i
i
i
'. l
,
Suspended
solids
White Tallov
QUANTITY /CUUIICK
25,000 gallons/
barge
111 5, 600 gallons/
barge
lUOtf in 9000
gallon waste
1*0,000 tons/
Alessandria
ship
18 MGD/500mg/l
for 2 days
Fore Terminal Sump
UAMAOKJ
Unknown
'
,
Unknown
*
Unknown
1
Unknown
Unknown
COMTANY
lU'IU-ONUllJLK
WATKIK; AWKCTKD
Mississippi Diver
Tennessee River
Gulf of Mexico & Strachan Shipping
Mississippi River Co.
Detroit River
Great Lakes Steel
Effluent
Discharge
Puget Sound, Fore Fore Terminal Co.
Terminal-Port of
Tacoma
HKMA1.K !
Tow b'jit and barges
agrour <1
Majot ity Chromium waste
controlled and treated 1
industrial lagoon
Sugar spilled at site Of
collision and enroute to
shipyard for repairs at ,
Crammercy, La.
1/11/71
, 1/11/71
I
l/lU/71
1/15/71
Alamedix/Borkeloy Sulphuric Acid Pipeline
Cal. '
Marin/Sausalito Photo Chemicals An individual
Cal,
Alameda, Cal. White Substance Storm Sever
Alameda/Hayvard Tomato Juice
Cal,
600 gallons/
Hayvard Airport
Unknown . San Francisco Bay, Colgate Palmolive Co.
- Berkeley Aquatic
Parks
Unknown ' Sea Francisco Bay Unknown
Unknown ' San Francisco Bay Big "B" Ltmtoerteria /'
* -"
Unknown San Francisco Bay Hunts-Wesson Foods
/
-------
COMPANY
DATE
. 2/1/71
2/2/71
2/2/71
2/10/71
LOCATION
Son Francisco
Bay, Cole
Portland, Ore.
Portland, Ore.
Ashkum, 111.
MATliHIAL
Weed Killer
Paint
Galley Garbage
and Refuse
Antifreeze
QUANTITX/30URCK
126 gallons
M/V Freemantle
Star
M/V IiOdestone
15000 gallons/
Train Tank Car
DAMAGE
Unknown
> Unknown
Unknown '
j
WA'i'KUU
Can Francisco Bay
Willamette River
Willamette River
KKMAHKJJ
Atlantic-IUchlMeld
Co.
Blue Star Line,
London, Overs coa
Shipping Co.
Lode-stone Shipping
Co.
Wyondotte Chemical Co.
! 2/10/71
2/10/71'
! 2/21/71
Marion, 111.
San Francisco
Bay, Col.
Cory, Miss.
Diethyl Sulfate 1»000 gallons/
Tank truck
Paint and Paint 8.S. Monarch
Stripping
, Chemicals
Ammonia
Tank Car
One dead muskrat-
Severol distressed
fish. No significant
changes to water
supply noted.
Canco Co.
Unknown
San Francisco Bay Unknown
Unknown
Spilled material entered
ditch »Hch flows to
Crab Oi c hard Creek - a
tributary to Crab Orchard
Lake. . j
RailrotY, officials report
one tank car of ammonia ,
damaged during recent to:,
nadoes but no productywar
lost. The damage was $ixt
in terms of leaking huzai
_ous_aatjsr_ial.Bj_
-------
DATE
3/3/71
3/9/71
*
3/22/71
3/23/71
3/25/71
3/30/71
W71
V6/71
fcM/71
LOCATION
Emeryville, Cal.
Seattle, Wash.
Portland, Ore.
Richmond, Cal.
Cook County/
Bedford Park, 111,
Portland, Ore.
Contra Costa
Cal,
San Fran Bay
Cal.
New York Slough
/"el
MATKIIIAL
Chemical
Point
Sandy Wash &
Oily Wastes
Acidic Pollution
Toluene
I
Concrete mix
and oil
Kerosene
Detergent
Cosmoline
Chlorine Gas
QUANTl'J'r/COUIICK
Unknown
Onshore Facility
Sand & Gravel
Operation
Onshore Facility
No. 2 Port Com-
partment of barge
Wash & storm drains
from plant
Outfall '
Pier 2l»
Unknown .
DAMAUKI
Unknown
None
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown , '
' Unknown '
Unknown ;
Unknown '
WATIOHM AM'KCTItt)
Tcmcsnal Creek
Pugot Sound,
Elliott Buy
Lockheed Shipyard
Willamette River
San Francisco Bay
Chicago Sanitary .
and Ship Canal
Willamette River
Coyote Crscit
San Francisco Bay
San Francisco Bay '
COMJ'ANY
flKil-ONUllJUi HKMAltK!)
Unknown
Shipyard Employee
Pacific Building
Materials Co.
United Chemical Co.
Canal Barge Lines, Inc.
Willamette Hi Grade
Concrete Co.
Unknown
Kal Auto Transport
Dow Chemical Co,
1
i
i
I
I
1*/15/71
Alamoda, Cal.
Molasses
Mollasaes Barge . Unknown
'San Francisco Bay Unknown
Oakland Estuary
-------
COMPANY
WW'K
1*/21/71
l»/28/71
H/29/71
U/30/71
i
5/2/71
i
1
' 5/6/71
:
5/7/71
' 5/8/71
5/12/71 ,
i
' 5/15/71 ; . ;
UM'A'ITOH
Dubuque, lovfu '
Cincinnati,
Ohio
Mobile, Ala.
Los Angeles
Col.
Bee Lake, Mios.
Roanoke, Va.
Meridian, Miss.
St. Lawrence
Co., N.Y.
Wood Co., W.Va.
Conneautville ,
Pa.
MATKIItAti
Refuse
Molasses/water
mixture
Rcei-
dual Creosote
Zinc Cyanide .
Vinyl Chloride,
Tetraethyl
lead, & liquid
sugar
Emulsion type
cleaner
Isopropyl alco-»
hoi
Tank Lining
debris
Sulfuric Acid
nitrogenous
liquid fertilizer
mfAtmTic/r.oiiiwK
City Dump
30gollons/barge
Unknown >
1000 gallons/
Flat Bed Truck . <
RR Tank Cars
250 gallons/
N&W Railroad
2 gallons /RR cars
Vessel
200 gallons/
onshore storage
tank
500 gal/tank farm
DAMACHl
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
WA'I'KUtl AKKKCri'KO
Mississippi Rive]
Ohio Diver
Strewn & Boy Balona Creek -
monitored for - Santa Monica Bay
effects-No
injuries to
people & no
fioh killo sighted.
Soil in creek
Bhowed truce of
lead. Soil Chem-
ically decon-
taminated.
Unknown
No fish kill
Unknown
Wo visible
damage
About 200,000
fish of various
Tcherro Creek
Lick Run
St. Lavrence
Seaway
Ohio River
.Olessaan Feecl Ml
River Tronaportation
Co.
Republic Creosote Co.
Royal Manor House
ware Co.
I C Railroad
H and V Railroad
Southern Railway
. Unknown
Marbon Chemical Co.
types killed
-------
DATE
5/17/71
«
5/18/71'
I
5/18/71
I
. 5/19/71
' 5/19/71
5/19/71
5/2U/71
5/25/71
5/28/71
5/28/71
j LOCATION
Morehead City,
N.C.
K6w Boston,
Ohio
Chicago, 111.
Lemont, 111.
c
Alameda, Cal.
Marietta, Ohio
N
Joliett, 111.
Triadelphia.W.Va.
Raleigh, N.C.
i «
Belle, W. Va. '
MATERIAL
Agricultural
liquid nitrogen
Blast furnace
waste water
Rust'
Oily> Rusty
colored liquid,
water soluble
Methyl Ethyl
Ketono
Epi ohlorohydrin
Sulfuric Acid
Iron floe
Sulfuric acid
Methanol
QUANTITY/SOURCE
1(600 gallons/
tank truck
*
Factory
Tow Barge
Tow Barge
Plant
600 gallons/
Chemical .plant
I
1*300 gallons/
onshore facility
Disturbed deposit
of iron floe
250 gallons/tank
truck
30000 gallons/
DAMAGES
WATERS AFFECTED
Will start Bogue Sound
process of
eutrophication
which could do
long range damage.
Unknown
Unknown
i
Unknown
Unknown
No damage re- .
ported
Unknown
No damage noted
Unknown
i
Ohio River
Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal
Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal
San Francisco Bay
Des Plainea River
Wheeling Creek
No visible damage Kanawha River
COMPANY
RESPONSIBLE
Plymouth Fertilizer
Co.
Empire-Detroit
Steel Coup.
Commonwealth Edison
Unknown
*
Union Carbide Co.
Blockson Works
State Road Commission
Abcton-Cross Co.
E.' I. Dupont Belle PI
REMAP i< 3
stonr sewer-two blocks
from logue Sound-fertili-
zer rsn into sound.
storage tank
-------
.
DATE
5/29/71
,
I ' * '
, 6/2/71
i
| 6/3/71 ,
i ., '
6/U/71
,
i' 6/7/71
!
t
i 6/11/71'
i
'
; 6//U./71
' I
6/15/71
6/16/71
t
LOCATION
Brownvood, Tex.
''' .
« i
Portsmouth,,
Ohio
Picayune, Miss.
'.
Portland Ore.
^
N
Roanoke, Va.
Roanoke, Va.
' Watervilles,
^ Ohio
^t
Portland, Ore. .
si
Oakland, Cal.
,
MATERIAL
Brandy Alcohol
.
'
Endrin
Epoxy
Oil, Sawdust,
caustic soda,
etc. samples
Methoxychlor
waste
Tannery Discharge
t
'
Sodium Hydroxide
Paint ,
Sulfur substance
QUANTITY/SOURCE
5873 gallons/
Tank-truck trailer
. , .
Individual
Onshore facility
Shore facility
Onshore facility
Tannery
750 gallons/
Fiberglass plant
*
Vessel
Unknown . .
,
DAMAGES
A few fish
killcd-streom
devoid of disr>
solved, oxygen in
much of impoundei
volume.
About 3>»00 fish
were killed
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
'_
Large red area '
in river ' ;
i
Unknown !
i
i
Unknown '
. . !
Unknown , ,
WATERS AFFECTED
Pecan Bayou
1
Shawnee Lake
Hobolochit^o Creek
y. »
Little Piney Creek
Maumee River
Klngsley Lumber
dock
Sen Francisco Bay
COMPANY
RESPONSIBLE R 3 '.ARKS
Younger Brothers Inc . " , \
Individual
Crosby Chemical
Linnton Plywood Aosoc.
Calabama Chemical Co. i
i
t
Tannery
,
*
Johns Manville
Fiberglass Inc.
Argo Shipping Corp.
Union Carbide Co, ,
J L
-------
DATJJ
6/17/71
6/20/71
.
6/2U/71
]
6/2U/71
%
!
6/2)4/71
7/1/71
7/8/71
7/9/71
LOCATION
Louisville, Ky.
Farmville, N.C.
t
Imperial, Col.
'
Loroin, Ohio
Jackson, Miss.
N
Ketchlkan,
Alaska
New Orleans, La
Natrium, W.Va,
V
MATERIAL
Concentrated
sulphuric acid
DDT, Parathion,
Aldrin , Chlordoni
' Parathion &
i Thimet & uniden-
, , tified herbicides
foam, fuel oil
water mixture
Cotton defoliant
Caustic soda
. Ethyl Parathion
Phenol
QUANTITY/SOURCE
Tank
Warehouse
»
1000 gallons/
Warehouse
U8576 gallons/
vessel
Truck
Caustic tank
28 gallons/barge
2700 gallons/
surge tank
DAMAGES
Unknown
Plant life in
swampy area
dead
No unusual
number of dead
fish
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown '
,
None reported
5000 dead fish
COMPANY
WATERS AFFECTED RESPONSIBLE REMARK
Ralston-Purlna Plant '
Reuse River Royster Co.
t
New River ' Bisco Flying Co.
Block River American Ship
^ .. Building Yard
s.
Pearl River 1-"" Unknown
Geteway Borough Standard Oil Co.
^
New Orleans Harbor Cichl S/S Co.
Ohio River Mobey Chemical Co.
7/10/71 ' Natrium, W.Va. Phenol
recycle tank
Unknown
Ohio River
Motoay Chemical
-------
IIIMI'AIIY
DATE
7/13/71
j
! 7/19/71
j 7A9/71
i
i
| 7/20/71
7^23/71
i 7/26/71
j
i
5
7/27/71
LOCATION
Saltville, Va.
i
Fairfax, S.C«
. Shreveport, La.
Kelly AFB, T«x. '
Crestvood, Mo.
Johnoon City,'
S.C.
t
Norwalk, Conn.
MATHftlAL
Chlorine
. . ..._,...._
Methyl Parathion
& Toxnphcno
Toxaphene
Phenolic Sub-
ultmcu
Sulfurio acid
Oenelate
'
Nitro-benzene »
Propylolcohol ,
Toluene
QUANTITY/SOURCE
Holding ponds
1
| . ..
225 gallons /tank
3000 gallons/
Bit tank ear
Unknown
1200 gallons
I'each Orchard
i
i
Chemical plant
t
f ' '
' 1 - '
DAMAGES WATEUS AFFECTED RHH'OHHinLK HU4AHKB
15|000 dead Holston River . Olin-Mathieson Co.
fish
Unknown Stream & 2 ponds Unknown
No apparent , Unknown
damage
No vlntble Iioon CrnHt U.f>. A1r Forco
duiuu^a
Unknown Oravoie Creek. Bapo Elixir Chemical Co.
fiuh kill Johnson City '" Cecil Young
Reservior
Chemical satura-. Norvalk Harbor King Chemical Co.
tion as deep as
3(3 in. along
shoreline-No
marine life north
of Rte. 95 bridge.
-------
J
DATE
7/28/71 .
7/28/71
; 7/29/71
i
7/30/71
8/10/71
8/13/71
4 '
8/18/71 ""
LOCATION
Beaumont, Tex.
Michigan
.
Mounds ville ,
W.Va.
Wheeling W.VA.
Rapid City, S.D.
Mary ville, Term.
Elizabethtown,
Ky.
Punxsutawney,
Pa.
MATERIAL
Acrylonitrile
Caustic soda
1 '..
Caustic
Phenol
Chromic acid
Acid
Sulphuric acid '
Copper Cyanide
QUANTITY /SOURCE
630 gallons /barge
Storage tank
,
Chemical plant
Unknown
Unknown
RR cars
12000 gallons/
RR tank car
Pipeline
DAMAGES
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
5,000 estimated
non-gome fish
killed
Unknown . .
Unknown
*
100 to 200 fish
killed
COMPANY
WATERS AFFECTED RKSl-ONSIULE I.V-IAIW
DuPont docks . Union Carbide Co.
\
Tittabawassee River Dow Chemical Co. ~ ~~
'
Ohio River Allied Chemical Corp.
Unknown Unknown
X'
Rapid Creekv '" Unknown
Little Term. River L 0-. N Railroad
. . 111. -Central Railroad
j-
Mahoning Creek Crestline Inc.
-------
DATE
8/19/71
i 8/2U/71
LOCATION
MATERIAL
QUANTITY/SOURCE DAMAGES
Hazel Township, Fluoride-
Pa. Bcrylium
Lagoon spill
Baton Rouget La Phenyl Ethylene 300 gallons/
pump liono on
Both creeks
highly acid
nl |r.|||ll'l-|ll'lt'lr
iVfuiv iiua no
aquatic life,
i
Unknown
I I'M! 'AN f
WATMei AWKCTKD
Black Creek & Hazel Kawecki-Berylco
Creek
Mississippi River Casmar Co.
RI'J!AIIK3
8/25/71
8/26/71
8/26/71
Carville, La.
SistersviUe,
W. Va.
Corpus Christ! ,
Tex.
Fhenyl Ethylene
Toluene
Xylene
Barge '
112 gallons/
chemical plant
Vessel
Unknown
Unknown
No apparent
damage
Mississippi River Cos-Mar Co.
Ohio River Union Carbide Corp.
Cabins Tanker Inc.
8/29/71 Chattanooga, Tenn Believed to be
, Chlorophenol
Unknown
Taste & odors Tennessee River
in drinking -
water .
Unknown
-------
DATE
' 8/31/71
I
] 8/31/71
1
i
9/1/71
i
>, 9/1/71
, 9/1/71
i
'. 9/2/71
9/3/71
. 9/3/71
9/5/71"
LOCATION
MATERIAL
QUANTITY /'JOUUCE
COMPANY
Berks/Birdsboro, Nitric & sulfuric 6000 gallons/
Pa. acid Ruptured RR tank
car
Bcuvor, Fa. Organics & dead Apparent discharge
algae into Raccoon Creek
Troy, Ohio
Toxic Discharge Packing Co.
HAMAOKJ WATKllU AWSCTKD
5000 fish killed Hay Creek
Much dead algae Kacoun Creek &
Ohio River
Estimate 200 Great Miami River
fish killed
HitAKKS
Calumet City, , Fertilizer-granite barge
111.
Unknown
Seattle, Wash. Toctyl
Longview, Wash. . Alumina
<
Colorado Zinc
Galvcston, Tejc. Zinc oxide-
Zinc metal ash
Texas & Tenn, Xylene
Onshore facility Unknown
Calumet River
Harbor Island
Onshore facility
Mill waete
settling pond
i
Derrick
Barge
Unknown
Hundreds of
fish killed-
Wator supplies
' affected.
Unknovn
Unknown
Columbia River
Willow Creek
Ship Channel
Intercoastal
DuPont, Inc.
Unknown
Dinner Bell Packing Co.
Victor Welding
Lockheed Shipbuilding
& Construction
Reynolds Metal Co.
Emperius Mill-
Gulf Central Co.
Unknovn
vaterway & Tenn.
River
9/7/71
Kent, Wash.
Methyl alcohol RR tank cor
Small fish kill Mill Creek
Border. Chemical Co.
-------
, DATE
' 9/9/71
LOCATION
Brunswick, Md.
Dorse/, Md. .
MATERIAL
Formaldehyde
QUANTITY/BOUnCE
UOOO gallons/
Tnnk l.mi'lv
Vinylideno chlor- 10030 gallons/
idc Tank ear i
Unknown
Unknown
WATKrifl AKJH5CTED
COMl'ANlf
E. I. DuPont
Dow Chemical Co.
mmmn
j 9/15/71
]
! 9/16/71
! 9/16/71
Painville, Ohio Creosote
Pumping equip-
ment
Painville, Ohio Industrial waste Plant
diocharge
Durham, N.C, Trichloroethylene lohQ gallons/
Tank trailer
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Lake Erie &
Grand River
Lake Erie &
Grand River
GAP Corp.
Industrial Rayon Corp
South Chemical Co,
9/17/71 " Louisville, Miss. Phenolic compound 1*00 gallons/failure Unknown
of reactor!
Hughes Creek
' Georgia Pacific
° Chemical Plant
-------
DATE
LOCATION
MATEHIAL
UAMAOKS
WATKKS AWKCTBO
COMPANY
KKMAltKU
i
! 9/20/71
i
*
9/21/71
Houston, Tex. Xylene
Charleston, S.C. Chlqrduno
1050 gallons/
tank farm
Drums
Unknown
Unknown
Houston Ship
Channel
Shell Oil Co.
Sou-Land Services
Corp.
No reported damages to
wildlif* or environment.
9/2U/71.
, 9/28/71
'; 9/29/71
Pasadena, Tex.
Spent caustic
soda
Barge
Greenville, Tex. Concentrated 3300 gallons/
. , -- Sulphuric acid , tank truck ,
Unknown
Corpus Chrieti, Collected vost« 1*2000 gallons/- No apparent
Tex, mixture vith-pH waste pit damage to
of 12 wildlife &
, environment
None evident
Houston Ship
Channel
Corpus Christ!
Channel & Nueces
River
Champion Paper Co.
Nueces Vacuum
Service Co.
Barge raised and cargo
transferred to onshore
storage tanks. Cargo hat'
covcro remained tight
during incident. Channel
pH in vicinity did not
exceed 8,
Hale Creek, "tribu- Allied Chemical Co.
tary to Lake
Tawakoni, Tex.
Soluticr in diked area
converted to alkaline an'
will be retained by dike--
until svfficient rainfdl]
runoff causes dikes tL v-
out. This will facilitatd
additional dillutipiUJ |
-------
DATE
9/30/71
! 9/30/71
i >
J
; 9/30/71 .
j
! 9/30/71
jd/2/7i -
i
j'lOA/71
\
\
4
i
: 10/8/71 '
1
jlO/10/71-
i .
!
t
LOCATION
Eastlake, Ohio
Carville, La.
Harrison, Ind.
West Yellowstone
Montana
" Ontario, Canada
Chester, Pa.
South Point,
Ohio
Houston, Tex. '
'
i
MATIilUAL
Chrome
Phenyl ethylene
Aqueous suspen-
sion - chicken
manure
Ammonium phos-
phate
Hexane
Kexamethylene
diamine
Ammonium Kit rate
solution
Vinyl chloride,
butadiene, acetow
it other chemicals
',
QUANTm/UOUHCE
700 gallons/
Proccoa tank
20000 gallons/
Onuhore pipeline
11072 gallons/
septic tank
1*750 gallons/
Truck & trailer
17000 gallons/
storage pipeline
300 gallons /tank
12856 gallons/.
storage teink
RH tank CELTS
!
DAMAGl'SJ
Unknown
Unknown
Massive fish
kill
No important
damage
Unknown
Estimated 500
fish killed
Unknown
One de.ad, 33
persons injured
,
.
COMPANY
WATKKS AH-'UCTED JUttlVNUIliLK
Drainage ditch Lubrichrome, Inc.
Mississippi River Coo -Mar Co.
Tippecanoe River William Tinkey
Farm
U.S. Hatch Trucking -
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Sto Clair River Polymer Corp. Ltd.
Beaver Creek Liquid Nitrogen
Products Co.
Ohio Hiver Allied Chemical Co.
Missouri Pacific BR
i
.
Hl-JMAi.KJ
City of Eastlake respond
to cleanup. >[
\
Estimate that 500,000 to
1,000,000 fish vere kill
Roanoke, Va. Styrene monomer Tank truck
No fish kill ' Roanoke River
Unknown
-------
J
DATE
10/16/71
10/18/71
10/18/71
lO/lfl/71
10/19/71
10/19/71
10/19/71
10/19/71
10/21/71
10/21/71 *
LOCATION
Emporia, Va.
Wilmington,
N.C.
DcSoto, Kan.
Lawrence, Mo.
Warren, Ohio
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Wilmett, 111
Great Bend, Pa.
Hew Jersey
MATKIUAL
Acetone, Paper
mill waste,
Cooking oil, &
Giiaolirie
Methanol
. i
Butyl acetate
Ammonia
Acid rinse water
V
^White effluent
Red effluent
,Loke oedimento
carbon , alum ,
algae ,
Methyl ethyl
ketone & acetate
Red, effluent
({UAN'iTn/GOUHCK
Freight train,
2000 gallons /tanker
1100 gallons
Unknown
Industrial sewer
line
Onshore facility
Onshore facility
i *
Water treatment
plant
Tank truck
Onshore facility
DAMASK.!
Unknown
None
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Truck driver
killed
Unknown
COMPANY
WATKIUJ AI'KKCTKU Kir.l (>»:; Iitt.H
Soaboard Coast Line
Gary Creek Associated Petrolcui
Carriers
Kill Creek ( Sunflowers Ord.
Atlas Chemical Co.
* *
Mahoning River Wheeling Pittsburgh
Steel Co.
Delaware River _ Unknown
Delaware River Unknown
Wilmette Harbor Wilmette Water Trea'
Plant
Krajack Co,
' Delaware River Unknown
W1J
-------
*
1 DATE
10/26/71
' 10/26/71
10/27/71
1
;
10/27/71
: io/?8/71
*
11/2/71
i
i
11/2/71 .
1
1
!
i
[ 11/2/71
nA/71
i .
| UA/71
'
11/6/71. -.
_
11/8/71' '
LOCATION'
Latrobe, Pa.
Harrison, Ind.
.
Houston, Tex,
Washington,
W. Va.
Portland, Ore.
*
Evendale, Ohio
.
, ,
* ^
Oklahoma
1 New Jersey
Tennessee
Baltimore, Md.
i,
J '
Cincinnati,
' . Ohio
'.. West Virginia '
MATERIAL
Zinc oxide
Methanol
',
Xylenc
, Acrylonitrile
| ,
' Caustic soda
'
Plating vastes
Salt water
" from production
veils
Red effluent
Caustic soda
';
arsenic
"acid" " "
Methyl Alcohol .
Nitric Acid
QUANTITY/SOURCE
Truck
1»I»6I»0 gallons/
barge
Barge
Storage tank
2l»00 gallons/
onshore pipes
21,000 gallons/ '
plant
* '
12,600 gallons/
storage tank
Onshore facility
^600,000 gallons/'
, 'barge
Trailer truck
2 2500 gallons/ ,
tank truck
Company plant
DAMAGES
None
No dead or
distressed fish
observed
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
N
Unknown .
None
.
None visible
Unknown
None visible
WATERS AFFECTED
Loyolhonna Creek
Ohio River
Houston Ship
Channel
Ohio River
Willamette River
Mill Creek
Unnamed Creek
Delaware River
Cumberland River
Baltimore Harbor
U.S. Route 75
,
Ohio River
COMPANY
RESPONSIBLE REMARKS
Unknown
Old Man River Towing
Service
<.,
Charter International
Oil Co.
Morton Chemical Co.
i
Pennwalt Chemical Corp. ,
Micro Mechanical Mill 'Jtsek is primarily i-
Finishing Co. stow, drain. No fish kncf-n
to inhibit affected porttyn
of Oreo*. /
I
Gulf Oil Co. /
/
>' f
' ' '/
Unknown ' /
Herbert Towing Co. , /
it E.I. DuPont f
Allied Chemical Co. /
/
/
Refiners Transport /'
& Terminal Inc. /
Mobay Chemical Co. ' /
-------
DA3E
LOCATION
MATERIAL
QUANTITY/SOURCE DAMAGES
WATERS AFFECTED
COMPANY
RESPONSIBLE
REMARKS
11/9/71
l «
1 11/9/71 .
: 11/9/71
i 11/9/71
; 11/9/71
11/9/71
. ll/U/71
i
11/11/71 '
11/12/71 \-
\
11/1U/71 J
West Virginia
East on, Pa.
McConnelsville ,
Ohio
1
Addyston, Ohio
Addyston, Ohio
Plymouth, 111.
Point Pleasant,
W. Va.
Chicago, 111.
Indianapolis ,
Indianka
Boone ,
N. Carolina
Dioetylphthalate-
fle'xol Plasti-
cizer
Cleaning solvent
Copper Sulfate
Hydrogen sulfide
Sulfuric acid
& other chemical
wastes
Oily ester
Vinyl resin
Fertilizer
Sulfur
Chloride
Methylene '
Chloride
890 gallons/
pipeline
Sump of wells &
pipeline from it
to H above-ground
tanks
3350 gallons/
storage tank .
Drainage system
Outfall from pit
Two railroad cars
Settling lagoon
6529 gallons,
barge
31072 gallons,
railroad tank' car
Plant
Unknown
Unknown
None
None
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Kanawha River
Bushkill Creek
Muskingum River
i
Ohio River
Ohio River
« *
Flour Creek &
LeMoine River
Ohio River
Calumet River
Tributaries of
White River
, Nev River
Union Carbide Co.
Pfizer Inc.
Gould Foils Divisior
Monsanto Chemical Co.
Monsanto Chemical Co.
Burlington and Northeri.
Railroad
Pantasote Co.
Chotin Transportation, Inc.
Perm Central Railroad
IRC-Div. of TRW Corp.
-------
DATE
LCl'A'i'iON
MA'i'lUtiAl
QUANTm/SpUHCB DAMAGES
WA'l'EHS AFFECTED KUai'ONSIBLE
HEMAUKS
11/16/71
ii/iG/n'
f *
- '
- v
1
< 11/17/71
, 11/17/71
i
; 11/17/71
i 11/18/71
S 11/2U/71
1
11/25/71
U/26/71
Ml'llrxtlJ, Ptli
Parkereburg,
\i* Va.
'. ,',',' ' ;./ .' i
Winona, Minn.
Wyoming
Gillette,
Wyoming
Bos ton p Mass..
' Downington, Pa.
Eldorada, Tex.
Riverton, Wym.
uuld
Sulphuric acid
,
'« . . ,. ..!» »., IV V U
Molasses
Reservoir
sediments
Propane
Possibly hydro-
gen eulflde
Coconut soap of
JDioUiyl ami do
Butane & propane
. Concentrated
sulfuric acid ;
i
pickling liuik ,
Pipeline
i
1
Unknown
(
m
15,000 gallons, Unknown
barge
Reservoir
Wnh kill
below Willwood
Dam.
1000 gallons. Unknown
tank truck '
Unknown
Massive fish
kill ,
3000 gallons/' Unknown
tank truck
Pipeline . Unknown
Tank truck
; Unknown
"hi,! in v»t CM,. iii, iu ni.uul AH i.i rh
newer ir
Little Kanawha ' FMC Corp.
River
i
Mississippi River Bargco and Co.
Ohonhono River past Willwood Diversion Co«
Willwood Dam
Inland . A&V Oas Service
Boston Harbor & Unknown
Charles River ,
.Text U ana Neise Inc.
i
Phillips Pipeline Co.
Wind River 'Keumon Transport Co.
-------
COMPANY
DATE j
12/2/71
12/3/71
! 12/3/71-
!
t
i
i
1 12A/71
i
t
12/6/71
,
i
i
i
! 12/7/71
] 12/7/71
j
LOCATION
New Jersey
Thomasville, Ca.
Fort Meade, Fla.
,
'
Northeast of
Cleveland, Ohio.
t
Baton Rouge, La.
Henrietta, N.Y.
Hempotead, Tex.
N
MATERIAL
Red effluent
Sulphuric acid
Phosphate
i '
Fatty substance
,
Styrene "tar"
Chlorine
Chemical vaste
mixture
QUANTITY/SOURCE
Onshore facility
RR cars
t
Waste storage
pond
Sewer discharge
line
Storage pond
'
Sewage treatment
plant
1500 gallons/
tank truck '
DAMAGES
.Unknown
Unknown
Phosphate slime
seen on vegeta-
tion-751b. dead
tarpon observed.
Unknown
t
No apparent
damage to
wildlife or
environment.
Estimated 3000
fish killed
Unknown
WATERS AFFECTED
Delaware River
Peace River
Grand River
Baton Rouge Harbor
Barge Canal
Tributary to
Brazos River
RESPONSIBLE RE-MAI* 3
Unknown
Southern Railroad
Cities Services Oil Vistal dosage severe 'for
Co. 75 m'jes upstream from .
Puntt. Corda. . .'
t
, '
Uni royal
Foster Grant Co.
.
Village of Henrietta
-
Ted True
12/8/71 Wheatfield, Ind. "Anti-knock" RR tank car
; . chemical
; 12/9/71 Kenton, Ohio Phenol & lagoon Lagoon
wastes
Unknown
No apparent fish Scioto River
kill
Unknown
Hooker and Durez
Plastics Co.
Marioi Water Co. shut ofe1
intake because of pheno^
at point of intake.
Alternate intake on Littfl
Scioto River was prevent
by a
-------
t DATE
I 12/9/71
12/9/71
t,
12/10/71
12/11/71
LOCATION
Cincinnati ,0hio
Westminster,
Mass.
Wear Ripple '
Meade, Va.
Corbin, La.
MATERIAL
Dimethylamine
Methyl ethyl
ketone
Sulfuric acid
Chlorine, liquid
QUANTITY/SOURCE
11(1(00 gallons/
RR tank car
RR tank car
Tank car
RR tank cars
DAMAGES WATERS AFFECTED
None visible Mill Creek
Unknown
Unknown ' Hew River
Unknown
COMPANY
RESPONSIBLE
Proctor & Gamble Co
Boston & Maine R.R.
Norfolk & Western R
Illinois Central R.I
REMAFJS
phosphate ferti-
lizer, lube oil,
vinyl acetate
12/13/71
12/13/71
12/lU/Tl,
12/15/71
12/16/71
1 *
Lea, New Mexico
New Orleans, La.
F
Nashville, Tenn.
Chicago, 111.
' i "' \
Newcastle, Del.
< \
Salt water
Tetraethyl lead
Ethyl acrylate
Isopropanol
Acetone . . '
6300 gallons/
on-land heater
treater
Dock loading
facility
Truck
lOOOgollono/
tank barge
1(5000 gallons/
tank truck
Unknown
None apparent
None
' Unknown
Unknown
Amerada Hess Corp.
populated area evacuated
due to chlorine leak.
Leak repaired. Surface j
restored.
Near Mississippi
River
Nashville Avenue
Wharf & Ethyl Corp.
Matlack Truck carrying
Rohm & Haas product
Calumet River
Unknown
Reliance Universal
Product unrecoverable in f
vater-readily mixes with 'j
water.
-------
DATE LOCATION MATERIAL
12/20/71 Wayne, Ind. Cadmium oxide
12/20/71 Fayetteville.N.C. Phenol
QUANTITY/SOURCE DAMAGES
5000 gallons/truck Unknown
22000 gallons/
pressure storage
tank
WATERS AFFECTED
Whitewater River
Cape Fear River
COMPANY
RESPONSIBLE
Unknown
Borden Chemical Co.
R3IARKS
12/23/71.
12./23/71
12/26/71
12/27/71
Lake Charles,La. Components in Reactor plant
i a Perchloroethy-
lene reactor
New Jersey
Rod effluent
Onshore facility
Mansfield, Tex. Anti-knock com- RR tank cars
pound & insecticide
Helena, Mon.
2-U-D,Stoddard OP Unknown
equivalent &
emulsifier
3-1* plant ' Lake Charles
personnel killed
Unknown
Unknown
Delaware RJLver
X
V '(.
2 fish kills- Lake Helena
Destroyed feeding
area for migrant
birds.
PPG Industry
Unknown
Southern Pacific RH
Bureau of Reclamation
12/29/71
Pittsburgh,Pa, Isooctyl .alcohol. Barge
Unknown
Ohio River
U. S. Chemical Co.
-------
c'OMl'ANlf
PATE '
1/2/72
!
* iyu/ /s
i
lA/72
1/5/72
1/8/72 !"
1 f l
0
1/11/72
1/11/72
l/lU/72
1/1V72. ',
>
LOCATION
Near Marseilles
Illinois
Berkeley, Cal.
Cleveland, Ohio
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Plao,uemine,la.
Alexandria, Va.
i
Perry, Ind.
Hamilton, Ohio
Berkeley, Cal.
MATEUTAI,
Vinyl acetate
Bulphurio acid
Zinc chloride
solution
Toluene
' Vinyl chloride
"
Chlorosulfuric
acid and sodium
Ethanol
Concentrated
nitric acid
Pesticide . .
1
qUANTm/ROUnCK
B&O tank car |
' ,
!
Truck |
j '
Onshore facility
Tank truck
Compressor unit .. '
i
;
Tractor trailer t \
i
i
168 gallons/tank
on barge i
i
*
8000 gallons/ ',
KB tank cor (
Unknovn ' , '
i
I>AMAf|En WA.TKIV) AWiin'KI)
Unknovn
Unknown tltorm drain
No visible Cuyahoga River
damage
Unknown Alleg»»jny Kiver
No apparent Near .Miosissippi
damage to vild- River
1 1 CM HI- I-I,V 1 T-
onmcnt. However 0
5 jilunt pcruonnol
injured.
*
Driver injured
& taken to hospi- . '.
tal.
Unknovn Ohio River
'
s
,
'
None visible . '
Unknovn ,
|il'JU'fitliHM|,K ItlWtlfKfJ
Rock Island
Unknovn
K. I. OuPont . .
Pennzoil United Inc.
Goodyear Chemical Co.
>
Or"
s
llendden Tractor Trailer . *.~ -
.
Union Carbide Co. Leak stopped by pumping part
of contents ol damaged tank
compartment tc> adjacent
compartment uo that level
dropped.
B&O Railroad/National
Lead Co.
Qring Pest Control
, ' ^-- '
-------
>
DATE
; 1/16/72
'1/16/72 ,
*
1/16/72
i 1/18/72
i
i 1/18/72
' *
1/19/72
L 1/20/72
i
;. 1/20/72
I 1/20/72
i 1/20/72 " : '
' 1/22/72
i -
i
,, \
LOCATION "
Garland, Utah
Hamilton, M*.
Colorado
Love land, Colo.
l
Massachusetts
Belle, W. Va.
North of
Richmond, Va.
Institute.W.Va.
Baton Rouge, La.
Chicago, 111.
Franklin, Pa. '
' MATERIAL
Litnc
Molasoos
Mixture of
ItyctfolUourla &
Chromic acids
Recirculated
clarified water
Tetraethyl lead
Metlianol
Acrylonitrlle
Isobutyl methyl
ketone
Caustic soda
Styrene monomer
Cleaning
solvent
QUANTITY/001 IROK
Waste lime pond
i
i
2000 gallons /bargo
Settling pond
i
Water discharge
uystcRi i
t
Vessel i
2000 gallons/ :
ulorrnje tank '
Truck i
U6667 gallons /barge
i
55996 gallons/barge
1
Unknown ]
't |
Tank wagon ' ' | .
i i
1 !
DAMAGE
SoTne roiflh fir.h
wr" M 1 t'-ii.
Unknown
No reported
riuh km
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Small fish kill
Unknown
Unknown
, Unknown
Unknown
WATKHfl Al'liriTI)
Mnlart River
Ohio River r
Brunh Crook &
UouLh 1'a.iiLLo [(Ivor
Big Thompson River
Atlantic Ocean
i'
Simmons Crook * *
Tributary to North
Anna River
Konawha River
i
*' .
Mississippi River
Chicago Sanitary
& Ship Canal
Race Run
COM J 'ANY
I(tt:i1'i|i:;l]!|.l'l lil'MAIiK.1
Utnh-Tilnho r>up;nr Water of vlvi*r «f;f
/
!
Great Western Sugar Co.
DuPont Chemical Co. Explosion dangcr-finpty drv
had ga-j >line & tetraethyl
lend rt il due-toxic, poliion
and cxjnonivo
Uul'ont Chomlcul Corp.
* *
Glosen Motor Lines
Union Carbide Co.
t *
Allied Chemical Co. ' ,
i
Unknown , . . .
Mooney Chemical Co. ' '.
' ' * .
-------
DATE
1/23/72
i
! 1/26/72
! 1/27/72
3/3/72
* 9
1
1
! 3/3/72
i
1
3/16/72
: 3/17/72
3/19/72
LOCATION
Clarks field,
Ohio
tUt.ro, W.Va,
Ovid, Colo,
r.outh of Utxton
Rouge, La.
Baltimore ,Md.
Veronon, Ky«
Near New Orleans
La.
Louisville, Ky,
MATKRIAL
Hydrochloric
acid
CttUHliC! BOlllt
Plant process
discharge, BOD
ft no It rln
D>*butiml /.nil
30% aromatic
concentrate
( Benzene, xylene
ethylene )
Alkyd resin
solution
Sulfur dichlor-
.ide
Styrene
Chlorine
QUANTITY /BOUNCE
RR tank car'
13720 gallons/
Plant outfall
cargo line
e '
/'
Chemical plant
3000 gallons/
RR tank, car
Barge
192000 gallons/
barge
UAMACiffl WATCH:: AMWIW KK:iiuN:;iiit.i{ iii'MAKKu
None visible Vermillion River N ^ W Railroad Co.
!
Unknown Kmmwlia EUvar t'XO Cur^i. i
i
Water quality Uoutli 1'latte ilivar Great Western Ciugar Co.
in river affected !
i
Unknown . Mliiiiliinliijil 1(1 vor A]lluU Chrinlcitl Co.
S. ' j
\
Unknown Curtis Creek Hancy's Products
Chemical Corp.
Unknown Eagle Creek Jtoulaville & Nashville
. , Railroad
* * !
None ' Mionisalppi Siver Unknown
Unknown McAlpino Uom Unknown
-------
DATE:
3/20/72
3/22/72
LOCATION
MATERIAL
Theodore, Ala. Arsenical
pesticide
QUANTITY/SOURCE
Unknovn
DAMAGE;
WATERS AFFECTED
COMPANY
KKSl-ONUIBLE
REMAHKS
Steer which died
shoved traces of
Greenfield,Ind. Natural latex UOOO gallons/
with 2# tank truck
ammonia
arocnlc. Iloroo
exhibited symptoms '
of arsenic poison-
ing. 2 cows & 1
horoc died.
Unknown
Tributary to Mobile Cisco Chemical Co.
Bay '
Stein, Hall & Co.
3/23/72
3/30*/72
3/31/72
.A/72
W72
fc/2/72 '
I
Walton, Ind. Anhydrous
ammonia
Yorkville ,0hio Sodium
bichromate
16000 gallons/
pipeline
In-plont tank
Willock, Pa. Methyl chlor- RR tank
ide, Methylene
chloride, Caustic
llod/l, & UC'Jd
Geismer, La. , Liquid- nitrogen
fertilizer .
Evandale,0hio Methyl
parathion
Denver, Colo. Cobaltous
naphthcnate
1680000 gallons/
barge
Truck-tractor
Trucking Co.
Several
thouoand dead
fioh
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
lU persons
hospitalized
Unknown
i
Rock Creek De Haven Soils Service J
Ohio River ^ Wheeling-Pittsburgh
*" * Steel Co.
Streets Run . B & 0 Railroad
Mississippi River Allied Chemical Co.
Hsyward Chemical Co.
South Platts River P.X.E, Trucking Co. Mat'
flai
* h&zi
skii
flammable material, wi
hazardous vapor & dant
skin contact.
-------
fMMPAUY
DATE
U/5/72
U/8/72
U/8/72
U/ll/72
U/ll/72
U/12/72
U/12/72
.
;
:
U/lU/72
i
i
U/15/72
J " LOCATIOH
Dallas, Tex.
New Orleans, La.
. Belle, W. Va.
Dixmoor, 111*
Cleveland,
Ohio
Radford, Va.
Baltimore, Md.
'
V
Denver, Colo-
Radford, Va.
"
MATERIAL
Potassium
bromate
Arsenic
trloxlrto '
Spent ethylene
glycol
Acldt base
Iron oxida
uolido
1
Acid wastes
Unknown
(probably
sodium sulfide
oolubion)
Arsenic
tetrachloride
Acid water
'
QUANTm/SOUnCE
Plant '
1 >
i
1
Dry cargo ship
165000 gallons/ i
tank " >
Storage tank
BLccl Mi.11, wanton
from electric .
furnace operations
;
t
Waste treatment
plants ;
8000 gallons/
storage tank '
<
!
i
Metal can '
1
. <
Acid neutralization
system
DAMAGE:;
8 employees
killed
No measurable
tliunnp.r l.n
ciivlruliinuiiLc
Unknown
None
lUnitnlornLton
of river Tor
short distance
downs t ream o
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
WATKrif. AM'ECTKD iiBHPONKinLK 1IM
Trinity River & Pennwalt Co. Muc
Daniels Creek brc
lm\
3 \
Bui
Piety Street Wharf Unknown
Kanawha River DuPont, Inc.
Little Calumet Haag Laboratories
River
Ritynhop.ii nivor^ J nnd L (Stool Co.
*. *
New River Radford Arsenal
Baltimore Harbor FMC Corp.
Sand Creek Consolidated Freightways
New River Radford- Army
Ammunition Plant
<* the potassium
broma', was estimated to
IIHVP h 'Pii n
-------
COMl'ANY
DATE
fc/19/72
' W19/72
>/20/72
U/2I./72
l»'/27/72
V30/72
5/5/72
5/l't/72
t
5/H»/72
6/1/72
LOCATION
Portland, Ore.
Fairfield, Con.
Willow Drove,
Pa.
Momphio , Tonn.
Baltimore, Md.
4
Quincy, Mass.
Ant loch, Cal.
' Stockholm, Wise .
West Lafayette,
Ohio
West Virginia
If \ t
MATERIAL
Oil & rust
C(l| Ill-Oil
prciuervative
Acrylic resins
High deter-
gents
Antifreeze
Insecticide
(Kepone)
powder form
Soap ouds
Hydrochloric '
acid
quANTiTy/nounci!
Ship dismantling j
"pni'lll, lull
1000 gallons/ '
tank truck
Washing of aircraft,
i
nn tank car _ i
Storm drain i
Unknown
Unknown ' :
i
Anhydrous RR cars
turunonia, Oil, i
Chcmicakersiii,
Aimiioniun nitrate
phosphate . ;
Phosphorus ,
Pentasulfide (P/
Vinyl chloride,
Acrylonitrile '
Tetralin
RR cars '-' ' '
2s5 )..-. :.. ;
y - - - "
i
Cooling vater/ J i
sewer
PAMAOlffl WA'J'FUfl AI'WCTICD
Unknown Willamotto nivei
Unknown
Heavy fish kill Park Creek
Unknown
Unknown Storm drain
Unknown ' Boston Harbor
Unknown
Unknovn
. t
PgSj burned
,. 1 mile, radius , ., . .
evacuated
Unknovn Kanavha Biver
HKMAllWI
IH Mllllllll.l I M|/, (.'ll.
Unknown
U. 8. Naval Air
Station
Continental Oil Co.
Unknown
1 Proctor & Gamble
imperial Weut Co,
Burlington Northern
Railway
Penn Central
Union Carbide
-------
DATE
6/1/72
6/5/73
6/6/78
6/6/72
6/6/72
| 6/7/72
LOCATION
Dallas, Tex.
1'uliiortvi.Uo,
Ohio
Baltimore, Md.
Bean ford, Conn.
Martins Ferry,
Ohio
Schodack, W.Y,
Perth Aniboy.N.J.
MATERIAL
Ethylene
hypoehlorite
Unknown yellow
pungent, liquid
'e
Iron oxirto
mixed with
mild buaed
sulfate
Lime floe
material >
Formaldehyde
Styrene
QUANTITY/SOUnCE
RR. tank car !
i
Uliulltll'a I'lliulliia
Outfall
Outfall
Steel Mill effluent
5000 gallons/tank
truck
3780 gallons/ '
atoragc tank
DAMAflET,
17 people
injured
lilnl.liuiit.ini
150,000 fish
killed
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
ruMIWNY
WATERS AFKKCTED INSil-ONiJlUI.B Hl-MAH'C j
Texas-Pacific j
Railroad Co.
t
Hruihl tllvar |i|u4iiniiil IIUiuiii'iMth 8 Jnu. |
RtonohouBi* Cove PMC Corp. A flnh kill wnn obnerved
in viclnlLy but Mil. Uupt.
of Wot or Hcsourceo felt
it ui.rilntod. i .
I^IIK Tnlanrt At.lwitlc Wlro Co.
Uouild '
I" "
Ohio River ?; ' Wheellng-Pittsburg i
Steel |
Multzeo Kill P.B. Mutrie Motor
Transportation i Inc.
Arthur Kill Zinchem, Inc. Opill reached Arthur Kill
via storm sewers. !
-------
DATE
6/15/72
; 6/15/72
I
' 6/16/72
LOCATION
Addison, Ohio
Baltimore, Md.
Denver, Colo.
MATERIAL
Styrene Polymer
Paint thinner
Wastes (Cyanide,
Radioactive ,
sludge, oil)
QUANTITY/SOURCE
Storm drain
2000 gallons/
Underground
storage tank
Refinery wastes &
other industrial
wastes are brough
DAMAGES
Ho danger to
downstream users
Unknown
WATERS AFFECTED
Ohio River
Bethlehem Steel
Ship Yard
6/19/72
; 6/23/72
j 6/23/72
! 6/26/72
Renville, N.D.
Valley Forge,Pa.
Cleveland,Ohio
Englewood.Colo.
Mercury treated
grain
to hazardous land-
fill, in addition
to solid wastes.
Fanner had dumped
treated seed
Reside road.
Nitrocellulose,
pigments & lead
compounds, MEK,
Iso-alcohol,
Ethyl alcohol,
Mcthanol, Aluminum
Stcurate.
38500 gallons/
drums
Blast furnace '
effluent
Suspect Hydro-
chloric acid
Blast furnace
' clarifier
Plating solution
waste
Cattle grazing Murphy Creek
at ranch belov
landfill found
dead.
Unknown
Unknown
Schuylklll River
COMPANY
RESPONSIBLE REMARKS
Monsanto Chemical Co.
Denver Landfill Site
Unknown
"American Laquer
Solvent Co.
Hurrieant
Unknown
Cuyahoga River Republic Steel Corp.
South Flatte South Platte River Thomas Plating Co.
River deteri-
oration
-------
C'OMl'AN*
PATE '
1 6/26/72
6/27/72'
6/27/72
6/28/72
6/30/12
i
7/5/72
1 ' -
; , , ''
WCATION
Greeley, Colo.
Denver, Colo.
Mount Quvuge,
Hd.
Pennsylvania
North Gate,
North Dakota
Commerce City,
Colo.
'
MATEniAt,
Anhydrous ammonia
8uJ,furia aoid
i
1'ltetiol
V
Hazardous
nuboinncsao
Unknown -
pcnticido
' uuupectcd
i
Soil organic
binder
(^JAWlTY/noUflCli!
Farmland drain
ditch to river
,
Storage tank !
gJOOO (juiloue/
tank car
Stray drums 'from
13 toi"f\|J£o fiffix
multiple sources.
Unknown
!
t
t '
Storage tank <
t .
JiAMATOI
Several
thousand fish
Mil »!
Rf»tJmattf<4 few
thounand fish
killed
Vegetation
turned brown
Unknown
20-25 thousand
finh killed,
Unknown
WA'renn AFFECTED
Cache La Poudee
Rivor
Oouth PlnUs ntv<»P
Jennintsa Kuii to
Villa Crook
Schuylkill Rivesp
Des Lacs Biver.- .,
V
St"*
.
Rear Sand Creek
niinpminTni.is
Unknown farm or
farms
Allied Cliemicma Co=
Western Maryland HI<
.
Unknown
Unknown
Biff Oil Co-
nWMIKft -
1
t
{
1 i
t
,
' '.
',
1
, 'i.
Hurri*: inc Agnes
* Ir > '
' ' I
, t
The nc.erial was used as a
fille.* on roads prior to
asphalt. , .
-------
DATE
7/16/72
7/20/72
7/2V72
7/2l»/72
7/26/72
7/28/72
,
7/31/72 .
LOCATION
Denver, Colo.
Ironton, Mo.
i.
,
Golden, Colo.
Denver,' Colo.
i
Riverside, Cal.
Oil City, Pa.
Jefferson, Colo,
" .
MA'l'KlUAL
Vinegar (10J5
ucctic acid)
Chicken manure
Fertilizer
Sugar produc-
tion vaste
Meaityl Oxide
Aqua ammonia
2# suspension
Dibromomettiane
QUANTITY/SOURCE
Storage tank
Chicken brooder
plant
Trucks
Aeration pond
RR tank car
(
Drums
Spray tank on
truck ,
DAMAUK3 WATK1W AJ'TECTKD
Unknown Couth Platte River
Virtually total Stouts Creek
fish kill-Creek
in a septic
condition for
1-2 ml lea.
Unknown Ralston Creek
1/3 drop in South Platte River
aeration of
production water
3 persons over-
. coino by fume a
, Unknown Allegheny River
Unknown Bear Creek
COMPANY
HKUl-ODSIULE 10 NA
Spear Vinegar Co.
Unknown
Coor's Brewery
Great Western Sugar Co.
Southern Pacific Railroil
Wolf's Head Oil
Refining Co,
Forest Service
-------
COMI-ANY
DATE s-.
8/1/72
""* -~
8/7/72
0
0/0/72
8/8/72
i
8/9/72
8/11/72
1
8/12/72
'
8/16/72
>
8/22/72
i
8/22/72 .
i
i , V
LOCATION
Wilson Lock
nnd Dnm
' - _ _
Institute, W.Va.
Loo Angoloo.Col.
Vaughn, N.M.
Denver, Colo.
Rawlina, Wyo.
i
Institute.W.Va.
f
Columbus Qrove,
Ohio
Chester, Pa.
,
Casper, Wyo.
i .
,*,,*
MATERIAL
§tyrene
Ethyl
Butyraldehyde
Koloncii, alcohols
& jet fuel
additives
Toxaphono
Nitric acid
Sulfuric acid
>
Methyl ethyl
pyridine
Ammonium
hydroxide
Ethylene
Soybean oil
replacement
tAlkyd resin)
QUANTITY/SOURCE .
Small amount/
HnrRf J "n.k '
3000 gallons/
Chemical plant
Cl ic ml mil iilornga
tank farm fire
305 Ballon"/ ,
Overturned "truck
1 gallon/Bulk
storage tank line
liOOO gallons/
truck overturned
50 gallons/ ,
plant cpill
1500 gallons/,
leaking line
i
Tank truck
10-12000 gallons/
Storage tank & KR _
tank car |
DAMAGES WATERS AFFECTED
Unknown , Tennessee River
Unknown Kanawha River
No rind kill - Ixju Angcloo Harbor
observed
None reported None
None None
Surface con- None
tamination on . -~
hlehwiiy property ^
" .
Unknown Kanawha River
Fish kill ' Cranberry Creek
" ,
t'
Unknown
-
Unknown ' None
,
RKfjliMfiinTiE
Unknown
Union Carbide
'
Uuncrul American
Trans. Co.
Helena Chemical COo
Martin Marietta
Noumon Transit Co>
,
Union Carbide
Schumacher Soil
Service
Unknown
Jorgenson Paint Co.
HFMAI ", 1
Barge offloaded at
ClmM niim-nii. Trim, i
i
Personnel negligence in ;
loading barge
Kill plp» of tiuik furta'
snagpjd ty truck causing
leak and eventual fire.
\
'
1 ' * (
1
'!;!
t
'
, '
i
l
Traffic accident.
Wrong valve left open on
storage tank - overflowed.
-------
OOMJ'ANY
DATE , '
8/2l*/72
: U/26/Y2
o
8/26/72
J
10/1/72
10/8/72
10/10/72
10/17/72
i 10/17/72 - '
I '
t
, 10/20/72
,
; 10/31/72
i ' [
* 3
10/31/72
,
'
LOCATION
Haskell County,
Texas
Longman t, Colo.
Monticello.Miss.
i
Radford, Va.
RK/cr Mil* £tfl
Radford, Va.
New Martinsville,
W. Vu.
Newton Falls,
Ohio
Fuyottevillo,
N. C.
.
Newark, N.J.
Waynesville ,N. C.
MATERIAL
Toxaphone
Cyttiiliie
Outhion
Probably sodium
BUlfate
AcrylonltriJo
Probably Sodium
nulphuto
Polyether '
Chromic acid
Xylcno
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
QUANTITY/POUnCE
165 gallons/
ruptured drums
Unknown
1
19b Ibs/Agricul-
turol spraying
operation
TNT plant
3-3 Kmionn/bru-KO
went aground
TNT plant
1000 gallons/
plant
13000 gallons/
plant
2000 gullono/
overfilled tank
1-5000 gallons/
. tank car overflowed
1
UO-50 gallons/
tank truck leaking
valve > , . j .
DAMAOKJ
None reported
Ltu-ge flah kill
Huge fish kill
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
t*
'
1 man injured
1
50-60,000 stock
of state trout
hatchery
WATCTfl AFFKCTRD
None
Ul. Vraln iUver
Pearl River
New River
Tormnnnoo Hlvrr
Stroubles Creek. -.
to Now Rtvnr \
^ ° '
Ohio River Mile
121
Mahoning River
Cape Fear River
1
,
Small Stream,
Richland Creek
r
-------
DATE LOCATION MATERIAL QUANTITY/SOUHCK
11/1/72 Hammond, Ind. . Sulfuric acid Leaking tank car
11/10/72 Jamestown, Col. Mine vater & Unknown
solids
11/11/72 Newark, Cal. , , Acid material Unknown
11/11/72 . . Creeley, Col. Feeder molasses 2000 gallons
DAMACKC:
High SO- in
air 93ppm-
evacuate nearby
area.
11/8/72
11/9/72
n/9/72
11/10/72
Steubenvill^
Ohio
Farmville.N.C.
Albany, Cal.
Bneryville , Cal ,
Blast furnace
scrubber water
Urea- formalde-
hyde
Clue
Lime
About 10,000
gallons
711* gallons
Tank truck
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
WATERS AFFECTED
None
Ohio River
COMPANY
REMAHIJ
Indiana Harbor
Belt RR
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Blast ."urnace water
Steel clari/.er breakdown.
Contentnia Creek International Paper Co.
James .Creek
Poudre River -
Trip to South
Platte River
Adhesives Products
Flberboard
Allied Chemical
Jones Hamilton Co.
Great Western Sugar
Driver washing out tank of[
water soluble glue !
Compoii> spilled line on
properl.y - Danger of wach
ing of. , |
Acid tutorial leaches from
company property everytime,
it ra.'. IB. ' I
I
-------
DATE
ll/lfc/72
i
j 11/16/72
,
n/19/72
>
i 11/20/72
i
'; 11/20/72
11/21772
. 11/22/72
11/25/72
' ,
I .
i
"11/26/72
'. .'
LOCATION
Hickory, N.C.
Taylors ville,
111.
«
Houston, Tex.
LeFlore County,
Okla.
Institute ,W.Va.
Lexington, Ky.
Chicago, 111,
" N
'Cabin Creek,
W. Va.
^
,
Uravan, Col.
- *
MATERIAL
Glyox-al
Ammonium phos-
phate, potassium
chloride
Merox
Ammonium nitrate
Benzene
Toluene
Toluene
(l)Methyl taiyl
acetate
(2}Sodium
hydroxide
(3) Carbon tetra-
chloride
Acid
"
,
QUANTITY/SOURCE
100 gallons /tank
truck overturn
Tank cars leaking
300 gallons/
Ho. 1 spillway
3 barges involved
Less than 200 gal/
tank barge 'leak
2000 gallons/
truck wreck
Barge leak
(l)3l»68 gallons '
(2)11*00 gallons
C3)300 gallons ,
Plant
.
DAMAGES
Unknown
Unknown .
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown .
. Unknown
COMPANY
WATERS AFFECTED RESPONSIBLE REMAHj.r,
Clark Creek Chemical ueaman '
Tank Line
Flat Branch Creek B ts 0 Railroad Derailment
.Houston Ship Crown Petroleum Co.
Channel
.Arkansas River Unknown Barg«e got loose
*
Kanawha River Union Carbide
Elkhorn Creek t£
W*-'
Chicago Sanitary Union Oil
tc Ship Canal
Cabin Creek C & 0 Railroad Train derailment.
. ' ' f
9 . .
'
San Miguel River Union Carbide Operator erroneously
ed flew to river.
.
-
-------
DATE
11/28/72
:
11/28/72
11/28/72
I
12/1/72
0
12/2/72
1
12A/72
; 12/U/72
1
12/5/72
' 12/8/72 '
12/10/72
1,1
>.,. LOCATION
> Washington ,W.Va.
Durham, N.C.
Lordstown TNP,
> Trumbull County,
Ohio
North Carolina
Salt Lake City,
Utah
Tall oKassee, Flo.
Cincinnattij
Ohio
Joliet, in.
s
, ScotJLs Bluff.Neb.
' St. Paul, Minn.
MATERIAL -
Latex
"Methylene
chloride
White Phosphorus
Sulfurie acid
Hydrochloric
acid '
Ethylene glycol
Molasses
Para-xylene
Pesticides '
Chromic and
Sulfurie acids '
QUANTITY/SOURCE DAMAGES
1000 gallons/ Unknown
plant line broke
1000 gallons/tank Unknown
truck overturn
Tank car derailed None
but intact
100 gallons/tank
truck accident
U-8000 gallons/ Unknown
truck trailer
tipped over
20,000 gallons/ ' None apparent
train wreck
. 100 gallons/ Unknown
barge overflow
Wharehouse firs ','".''
500 gal/storage .
tank leak ,' - ' . ' .
COMPANY
WATERS AFFECTED RESPONSIBLE REMARK I
Ohio River Marbon Chemical Co. .
Hone Union Oil . ' ,
3 & 0 Railroad
i
1 i
Acid t: >ntnined in roadside
ditch, neutralized with ''
lime aid removed. |
.Salt Lake Sewage Wasatch Chemical Co. Stiff .eg on trailer brofce
Canal while >eing filled.
None Seaboard Coastline
RR
Ohio Rive? Werlin Corp. Failure of tankerman to
place '.'lank flange on
discharge hose. (
Des Plaines Amoco Chemical . ''
'*
Stauffer Chemical Contamnaced debris disjJSsa
"- . ' problem.
* .'
Mississippi Rive? Univac Corp. . . '.';'.
v ' .
-------
DATE
12/12/72
12/12/72
*
12/13/72
i
I 12/13/72
LOCATION
Duff, Tenn.
Pottstown, Pa.
Baltimore, Md.
luka, 111.
MATERIAL
Ortho-tolui dine
Waste hydro-
chloric acid
Acetone
QUANTITY/SOURCE DAMAGES
About 200 gallons/
tank car derailment
2300 gallons/tank Unknown
truck accident
250 gallons/tank
truck leak (veld
failure)
Glycerine; Train derailment
Hexane petroleum
naphtha; Propylene
glycol
Unknown
COMPANY
WATERS AFFECTED RESPONSIBLE
REMARK I
None
L & N Railroad
Schuylkill River Carpenter Steel Yard
Matlack
None
B & 0 Railroad
Fire consumed some of
materials. »-«
12/18/72
12/18/72
12/19/72
12/20/72
Ducktown,Tenn. Sulfuric acid 3-6000 gallons/ Unknown
"N tank truck over-
turn
Institute,W.Va. Flexol plasti- 500 gallons/tank Unknown
cizer overflow
Luke, Md.
t
. Chlorine
Lake Ocoee
Kanevha River
Cities Service
Morris, 111. Lasso pesticide 125 gallons/truck Unknown None
. overturn
Tank car spill 20 people ex- None
posed - 3
hospitalized ,
overnight ,
Cardox Transport
Westvaco Paper &
Pulp
Tank car brakes not secy
when cir moved, it broke
flange 1 connection. /
-------
->
DATE
12/22/72
i
j 12/26/72
i a
!
i
1 1/3/73
;
i '
i 1/3/73
I
; 1/3/73
' ,
j
ll/b/73
i
*
i
!
r' ' '-
i
i
1/6/73
. '
i '
LOCATION
Edgevood, Md.
Russell, Mass.
'
Corpus Christ!,
Tex.
So. Charleston t
W. Va.
Heron, Monte
\
Harrod, Ohio
;
»
'
Hardin County,
Tex.
MATERIAL
Sulfonic acid
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl acetate
*
Isopropanol
Telone ;
Di chloropropene
' Tentunoi ,
Anhydrous ammonia
Sulphuric acid
,
QUANTITY /f-OURCK ,
20 gallons /tank
Li'iii'k riootfti'iil.
20,000 gallons/ ,
RR tank cur
About 500 bbla/
Hurgo tmiik. Ocino
hatch covers vere
lllOIIO,
2-3 gallons/tank
barge
15,000 gallons/
RR tank car
I(R tank car (box-
car derailment
33,000 gallons/ '
storage tank
overflowed
COMPANY ' !
PAMAOK3 WATRIK1 APPKCTOD WK'JJ'dHJJlIlM? KIWI K'<] ' \
Unknown Creek Matlack Trucking Co,
Unknown Weot field River Ponn Central Tank car entered river
foLKwing train wreck -
Ko leakage.
Few dead fiuh Corpus Christi Alamo I)arp;o Lines
Uliip Channel
i
'Unknown Kanawha River Union Carbide
Unknown Clark Fork River Burlington
Northern RR
1 fatality . Krie-Lackawonna RR Pcn.oie truik car colll--f-c
local air ' wit.i tanxs of Anhydrou-*
pollution problem amm^ria stored along t>':c
1 ol ammonia tunKii rockl-
eted into town causing t
fatality. /
, . /
Unknown ' Heches River 3uFont ''
' ' , . '',-"- . ''
-------
DATE
1/7/73
1/8/73
i
1/9/73
| 1/9/73
1/10/73
LOCATION
Page, Okla.
Ama, La.
*
Elkhorn City,
xy.
Morgan City, Lai
Alexandria ,Va .
MATERIAL
Ethylcnc oxide
Hexamethylene-
Qiamine; Methyl
\ ethyl ketone
Ammoniated ,
fertilizer
Chlorine
i
i
Many types of
solid & liquid
pesticides
QUANTITY/SOURCE
20,000 gallons/
tank car derailment
RR tank cars
derailed &
leaking
29 tona/RR box-
car overturned
Runaway barge
struck RR bridge
& went aground
About 500 Ibs/
Pesticide Whare-
house fire.
DAMAGES
Town of 100
evacuated
,
Unknown
2500 people
forced to
evacuate
during salvage
operation ,
Unknown
WATERS AFFECTED
None
Unknown
Levisa Fork
COMPANY
RESPONSIBLE
Kansas City
Southern RR
*
Missouri Pacific RR
CiO Railroad
REMARKS
Vapor imnod as it emerge
from c *acVc in tank car.
Atchafalaya River Diamond Chemical Co. No Chlorine lost.
Potomac River > Herbert Bryan, Inc.
1/11/73
1/12/73
1/13/73
Beltsville, Md. Scotch whiskey ,
Oklahoma County, Methanol
Okla.
I»00 gallons/boxcar
derailment
Tank car over-
turned .
LaPlace, La. Adiponitrile Storage tank
Possibly some
Minnows
Indian Creek - B&O Division of Chessie
Tributary to N»B.
branch Anacostia
River, Pptomac River
None apparent . None
Frisco RR Co.
Drainage canal to DuPont .
Lake Maurepas <
Adiponitrile contaminated
water inadvertently re-
leased from diked area. .
-------
COMPANY
DATE
; 1/15/73
t
i
i
| 1/15/73 .
i
' 1/17/73
.
i
;
! 1/18/73'
1
, 1/19/73
i *
1/20/73
j
! 1/22/73
4
j
}
] 1/27/73
|
f
[1/30/73
i
1 ,
LOCATION
! New Martinsville,
W. Va,
,
Midland, Pa.
Pryor, Okla. '
Belle vue, Ohio
-
Denver, Colo.
Solma, Ind.
Youngs town.
. 'Ohio
Jefferson Parish,
[ La.
',' V
Cheater, S.C.
' *»
. ! ' ' ;
MATERIAL
Carbon disulfide
Red oxide
Ammonium nitrate
.
'
*
52? Caustic
soda
Weak sulfuric
acid solution
Methyl metha-
crylate
Toluene
Caustic soda
t
Industrial
alcohol
QUANTITY/SOURCE
Explosion in plant
storage tank
Pump failure
Nitrogen plant
explosion & fire
8000 gallons/
leaking tank car
8-10,000 gallons
500 gallons/tank
car derailment
10,000 gallons/-
tank car ruptured
during shifting
operations
1000 tons/barge
aground but did
.not leak.
Unknown/tank car '
derailment-leaking
from doae
DAMAGES WATERS AFFECTED
Unknown Ohio River
Unknown ' Ohio River
8 employees Pryor Creek -
injured; Grand River
$10 million
damage
Unknown None
None South Platte River
Evacuated about None
5000 people
Unknown
i
Unknown Arkansas River
\ '
. ;
. t* *
. , >
RESPONSIBLE
PPG Industries
Crucible Steel
Cherokee Nitrogen
"NiW Railroad
Public Service Co.
Penn Central
B&O Railroad
t
Plaqwemlne Barge Co.
t
Seaboard Coast Line
Railroad
'
REMARKS
About ;0 tons carbon >
disulMde may have reached
river, ;
I
I
(
t
Fire fighting run-off [
enterot creek. Nitrate ' j
concentration about bOppm.1
' i
. 5
Car ri'i tured during Humpic
operaV.1 ons . \
";
Electrical failure caused
scrubber wash to be dumpJ
to sewer system. <
i
<
t
All material leaked out.j
(
'
-------
CUMI'AN*
DATE
2/1/73
WYJ
' 2/2/73
2/5/73
, 2/5/73
O
2/6/73
2/7/73
2/8/73
2/9/73
1" "-"""
i
2/12/73
LOCATION
Loveland,
Colorado
MtU JUJ
Mies. Riv»r
Winfield,'
W. Vo.
Downinptown,
, ' Ptt, *
Mlddletown,
Ohio
Iliurunond,
Ind.
Thornton,
111.
Decatur,
111.
Troy, Ohio
.... -'
-------
DATE
LOCATION
MATERIAL
QUANTITY/SOURCE DAMAGES
S/13/73
2/20/73
2/20
\ 2/21/73
i 2/23/73
2/2>i/73
3/1/73
3/5/73
! 3/5/73
Knnuwlm tUvof
8. Clmrlaeton
W. Va,
Dubach, La.
Pecos .Texas '"
Tan, La,
Alberta, Va,
Kremlin,
Oklahoma
Bartlesville,
Oklahoma
Kingston,
Tennessee
Oglesby,, Ga»
C"1 lintnl v«
uolvaul
Methyl-
lu.'ulyleno
propadiene &
LPG
Carbonic acid;
phenols, vinyl
chloride
lloxamothylono<»
diaminc, adiplo
ucid
Li'juor oo.vioo7."
ings
Methanol
Bis-cycyclo-
hexenyl .ethylene
'PCS 6 chlorin-
ated, benzenes
, Caustic soda
Ortb/wylene
Para-cymene
P-T itn.1 l»ur til v«»r
leak in neuder
line tank barge
3 tank cars None
20,000 unl. fnolt
train derailment
5 RK tank cars/ _ None
derailment
6 RR tank cars/ None
collision
li 0,000 '(i-jtitvitu/ Mono
derailment
20,000 gallons/ None
derailment
200 gellons/ , Liza Creek
valve opened by fr .
mistake
2200 gallons/ Unknovn Two Creeks
leakage from tank
truck ;
-15,000 gallons Tributary to
-20,000 gallons ' ' Broad River
-10,000 gallons/ -.
train derailment ' '
Union Cnrttlilo <'n,
Rock Island
Idtlarouil
Tcxao Pacific Railroad Fire followed derail
mcntc
Tcxao Pacific Railroad
fJoubotird nuilroiiit
Rock Island Railroad
Phillips Pe "
Moss Truck Co. /
Seaboard Coastline /
Railroad /
-------
- DATS
3/9/73
!
j 3/13/73
! 3/22/73
1
< 3/26/73
1
] 3/27/73
i
1
3/28/73
i
U/l/73
LOCATION
Toledo, Ohio
Salisbury , NiC,
Uollc villa.
New Jeroey
Geuga County
Ohio
Wilmington,
Delaware
Wilmington,
Delaware
Ironton,
Ala,
MATERIAL
Sodium chromate
r'liui . "V)0-l|00
Melliyl
acrylate
MoiuuueB
Burnt Lime
Ketone
Oleic
acid
Caustic soda
anhydrous
ammonia
QUAN'i'ia'y/UOUHCJ!!
120-lltO.OOO gal.
V'i1v<« mill ftmi-l Imi
uoujlnti ciyutem
liOO gnllonu/ lank
truck turned over
100,000 gullonu/
tank rupture
35,060 pounds/
ovft'Lnrnftl l.rnrh
1 gftllon/defcctive
valve
2000 gallons/
human error
UNK-Tank Cars
containing 30,000
gallonn soda & 90,
,l»/3/73
DAMAGE
COMPANY
gallons ammonia/train
. derailment
MMo 071 . Liquid ammonium UnHtiown/undorwator damage
Tennessee Bivex nitrate . to barge while in a lock
Sioterovillo,
W. Va.
Xylene
2000 gallons /pimp
failure in onshore
industrial plant
WA'i'lSl<3 AWWJ5D ' III
Otter Creek Libby Ovens Ford
Town Creek
Utorm Hewers
Mutlack Inc.
Univeroal J<'oods Corp.
Swamp draining to A licensee of Matlack
llltl.i'M (Vnnh Till'.
JJrumlywine
Creek
D&O Division
Chcssie System
Marsh abouv 1/2 Atlas Chemical Div.
mile from Delaware
River
Ditch leading to Southern Railroad 200 people evacuated i
Cahaba River/ m-orby trailer park, ,
Birmingham water bicuiioo of ammonia, '
. , oupply
Tcnnooooe River Brent Towing Co.
Ohio River at alle Union Carbide Co.
#5,3
-------
MATERIAL
QUANTITX/SOURCE
DAMAGES
COMPANY
WATEltS AKFKCTED RKJlONiUBLE
RKMAHKS
' V7/73
I
( U/9/73
\
i
', U/lO/73
1
Vll/73
Exit bO
Interstate 83
Salem, Va.
Ratlford,
Va.
Zinc chromate
Sulfuric acid
waste
Treasure Falls,, Mixed cleaning
Colorado > chcmicals-amine
, sulfonates
550 pounds/truck
overturned
cquipraenL fuilure
Unknovn-several
drums leaking/
truck accident
Ironton,
Ala.
Ethylene glyeol l»000 gallons
acotio acid utnull tunount
cuuotic soda 20,000 gullona
anhydrous ammonia leaking into air
(1 tank car)/
train derailment
Small amount dieoel Roadway Express
ran into unnamed
creek
Nr>w Hlvor
San Juan River
Cahaba River
Roil font Army Ammo
I'luiit, Kudi'ord
RR Street Co,
Gojo Distributors
Southern Railroad
*lt utrallsntlon by
a)>pllcatlon of ood
-------
On the following pages, chronology moves from the bottom of the page to the top.
-------
DATE
, 10/12/73
I
'-'.'
! lO/H/73
s
! ,
j 10/10/73
| 10/9/73
LOCATION
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
Bclnrldjl,
Minnesota
0
Marked Tree,,
Arkansas
Corinth,
North Carolina
MATERIAL
PCB's
Sodium
chlorate
Naptha and
propane
Caustic soda
QUANTITY/SOURCE DAMAGES WATER AFFECTED
55 gallons. « .*..« 0«.e,»«.=««.»B==r>
leak in 55 gaU
shipping drum
rail car derailment
railroad tank car
derailment and rupture
railroad tank car , ^*
derailment & rupture y ...
CO. RESPONS1U
Soo Line RR
Frisco RR
Company
Nnrfnlfe A
Southern RR
Lf RtMAKKS
mto
-------
DATC
9/10/73
9/17/73
9/17/73
9/17/73
9/17/73
9/17/73
9/14/73
LOCATION
Gelsmar,
Louisiana
Scranton,
Pennsylvania
Freeport,
Texas
Lafayette,
Indiana
Dearborn,
Michigan
West Salem,
Ohio
Gulf of
Mexico
MATERIAL
Caustic soda
Sulfur
dioxide
Phenol
organic
& Inorganic
solvents
QUANTITY/SOURCE
250-350 tons -
valve Inadvertently
left open at plant
30,000 pounds -
tank truck accident
16,750 gallons -
6 Inch pipeline
rupture
3,350 gallons -
teflon valve
malfunction
DAMAGES WATER AFFECTED
Mississippi River
stream affected stream
for one-half mile
formaldehyde one tank car
& butyl alcoholtraln derailment
Heodol 45 20,732 gallons -
spilled material hurried
after train derailment .
one tank car rupture .
Sodium cyanide 520 drums - '
& potassium 100 pound cyanide/
cyanide drum lost 1n 2 ship
collision
private pond
Wabash River
fish kill after
material leaked
Into creek .
Muddy Fork Creek
Gulf of Mexico
CO. RESPONSIBLE
Wyan Dotte Corp.
Va. Chemical Co.
Dow Chemical Co.
Ell Lilly Co.
C&O Railroad
Erie Lockawanna
Railroad
M/0 Persus &
Ar/J Puebla
REMARKS
lrc»l residents
evacuated
material
recovered for
disposal
2 ponds pumped ;
dry and contract
or Instructed to
clean up
-------
UAIK
10/1/73
: 9/27/73
(
!
! .9/26/73
j
; 9/20/73
! 9/19/73
lOCAflOtl
Daws on,,
Texas
Radford,
Virginia
Pcnnsboro,
West Virginia
Aberdeen,
Washington
HAfUUAL
Hydrochloric
acid - 15X
Waste acid
Greenwood, ' Vinyl chloride-
Mississippi
Vinyl chloride
& cyclohoxane
Acetic acid
QUANTITY/SOURCC
1,000 gallons -
automobile collided
with tank trwrV
Ki MI
ruptured tank at
Evans Harbor Mill
Stroubles Creek
Chehslis River
ro. KiM'oriMiin
Cardinal Chc.nical
Company
Radford Army '
AnunuitiUon Pi-mfc
Illinois CenVal
fiR
D&O Railroad
Evans Harbor ?ill
Fire Deptf
woshcd !;
01 M lulu
storm
scwor ' ;
-------
DATE
10/7/73
LOCATION
Magna, '
Utah
MATERIAL
93%
10/6/73
Georgia
add
QUANTITY/SOURCE DAMAGES
28,000 gallons - .......
pipe fatigue and
failure at plant
1,200 gallons - -.....
equipment failure
onshore nontrans-
portation
; 10/5/73 Rag land,
Alabama
10/4/73 Alvln
IU/M//J nivin,
Texas
10/3/73 Price.
Utah
10/2/73 Houston
IW/t/ f <* OWwdUVIIf
Texas
Phosphoric
add - 752
Solution - 502
Hydrochloric acid
35%
Fnvf ural
r ui i ui Q |
' i
40,000 gallons'-
railroad tank car
derailment
tank truck collision
broke off pump
3,000 gallons - .......
tank truck valve
failure,
pump failure
at plant
WATER AFFECTED
Great Salt Lake
Savannah Harbor'
Swoosa River
t
unnamed bayou
Sims Bayou
CO. RESPONSIBLE
Kennecott Copper ,
REMARKS
Seaboard Coast
Line Railroad
Robertson Tank
ConUn Dahlod
Contractors
Petro-Tex Cheirl-:al
Partially ,
contained
1n ditch -;
by earthai
dam f
truck I
moved to ;
landfill :
and drain)
-------
DATE
10/11/73
10/10/73
j 10/9/73
LOCATION
Pennsylvania
MATERIAL
pen * s
QUANTITY/SOURCE
EC nnl Innc
33 yd 1 lunS
leak in 55 gal.
shipping drum
DAMAGES
WATER AFFECTED
CO. RESPONSIBLE
Belmidji,
Minnesota
Marked Tree,
Arkansas
Corinth,
North Carol ins
Sodium
chlorate
Naptha and
propane
Caustic soda
100 pounds =
rail car derailment
4 tank cars -
railroad tank car.
derailment, and rupture
20,000 gallons -
railroad tank car
derailment & rupture
Soo Line RR
Frisco RR
Company
Norfolk 4
Southern RR
REMARKS
spilled
material
recovered
& shipped
for dispo
sal
1002
physical
pickup
1,000
persons
evacuated'
-------
DATE LOCATION
10/30/73 ' Rush,
Kentucky
Florida
*,
10/22/73 Vanport,
Pennsylvania
10/17/73 East Liverpool
Ohio
10/16/73 Newark,
' ' ^ Do lav/are
10/12/73 Maryann .
Township,
Ohio
MATERIAL
Acrylonltrlle
Anhydrous
amnionl a
i
Dlethylene
benzene
, Xylene
Xylene
2-4-5-T
weed killer
QUANTITY/SOURCE
80,000 gallons -
railroad tank car
derailment and rupture
*
20,000 gallons -
railroad tank car
derailment and rupture
quantity unknown -
barge collision and
tank rupture
100 gallons -
'tank truck tank
rupture
5 gallons -
tank truck tank
leak
DAMAGES WATER AFFECTED CO. RESPONSIBLE
t
Large fish ' Little Sandy & C&O Railroad
kill tributaries
Railroad
1 Company '
rtt» 4 rt D^ %/AV* * ^lirt^*4 n TrtuM fifi
«*'«».. un 10 i\i ver cnotin i owing
41. 4 miles Company
* «
ground Company
REMARKS
200-300
persons i
evacuated
EPA & Stab
authorltls
on scene
1
Citizens .
reported
taste in
water
-------
DATE
11 /C/TJ
1 l/Of/'i
1 1 /*7 /TO
11/3//3
11/1/73
11/1 IT)
1 1/I//3
in/n /7i
IU/OI//J
lrt/11 /77
IU/JI//J
t s
. LOCATION
KUTUS t
Oregon
Homliny, .
Ohlahoma
i
Lima,
Ohio
Rantoul ,
Illinois
Ynrkvlllo
Ohio
Newport,
Tennessee
MATERIAL
rnenoiic resin
A41 trail h«»4na
ui i wei i orine
SulfuHc acid
i ncryionitri le
i ,
add (cone.)
benzoate
QUANTITY/SOURCE
tank truck
leak in salt water
injection well
10,000 gallons
,UUU pOUnQS "
leaking valve In
tank car
valve failure
at plant
2flftO ni>^ln«<* «
. truck overturned
DAMAGES WATER AFFECTED
«._,.. a..*. W-lritf*ftTfA TrA*»Sf
fish kill . Ottawa River
for 20 miles
CO. RESPOND :JLE
llninn 011 Cn
Fulston Corp.
TIHnnlt Por.-rAl
Railroad
Pittsburgh ?tx*e1
Corporation
T(»nfra^A₯ rh ju liral
Company
REMARKS
cAlt t^*:tr*r1
1n creek up
to 1 mi. :
below spill
neutral- -
1zed with
limestone
bed by road
ballast
. '.;.
-------
DATE
« M / A /)%
12/3/73
« « f <1A *^*1
, 11/30/73
i
1 1/29/73
i
1 ^ ^ **n <*t i
, 11/27/73
1
11/20/73
*
11/20/73
11/13/73
*
11/12/73
11/10/73
11/9/73
*
LOCATION
/»_-_ _ j-
Canada,
Texas
Charlotte,
North Carolina
Savannah,
Georgia
West Dale,
West Virginia
Front Royal ,
Virginia
Roanokc,
Virginia
Louisville,
Kentucky
Salt Lake City,
Utah
Klngsport, >
Tennessee
Rock Springs,
Wyoming
MATERIAL
If 4 M>J^ * j*n4>A 4* A
vinyl acetate
i M ^Mu
Latex
1 4 «. j uu ga 1 1 ons
. tank truck overturned
and tank ruptured
CA Mall/tne
50 gai ions -
pipeline failure
2nnn n^llMM*
,000 gallons -
tank truck collision
and tank rupture
2CAA M^llmAf*
,500 gallons -
line leak at plant
1f\(M\ n^Ylnnc*
,Uuu gai ions ~
equipment failure
at plant
10,000 gallons -
structural failure
of setting tank
%
400 oallons «
tank truck tank
rupture
50 pounds -
equipment failure
8.000 call ons -
manufacturing plant
1 .060 Gallons »
tank truck
DAMAGES MATER AFFECTED
_ _____ MA! 1 A Wf f*₯*OI*V
C AUA t\n nh HA w*Kft*»
Shcnandoah River
V f
Paddy Creek
M1lk Creek
CO. KESPONSIBLl REMARKS
Company
ft*
& Cable Company
DeNemours
Phllllnc DA tfrt ^11
To nn (5 c ** A A FJI c ^tnAn
Company ^^
r^ocov»^ f\$ 1 ^rt
-------
DATE
LOCATION
MATERIAL
QUANT ITY/SOtmcn
DAMACrS
WATFR ArrrCTCD
CO. RfSPOHSIDLt RfMARKS
l£/ IH//J naryann
Township,,
Ohio
; Pennsylvania
19/19/71 nn»14nnfn«
i ic/it//j iiur ling ton [,
Illinois
19/19/71 ftxnaneknxn
, I&/IC//J urcensDorOo
! North Carolina
' 19/0/71 \ftifinne
ic/y//j viningso
; Georgia
' 19/7/71 PHnnmnnr*
Delaware
t-'t-3-|
weed killer
solution (approx0
79 ppm)
rnospnoric aciu
slurry
tank leak ground
personnel error in
plant
i£9tuuu gaining " small risn Mil iICCK
rallv/ay tank car '
suspension failure
and tank rupture
storage tank . .
rupture
explosion In
plant
drain plug failure
at plant .
Army Depot
i
Railroad
s
i
Corporation ;
i
L
-------
DATE
1/7/74
: 12/31/73
'12/28/73
12/23/gj
*
12/17/73
12/15/73
LOCATION
Atlanta,
Georgia
West Columbia,
South Carolina
Sterling,
Ohio
i
Mapleton,
Illinois
Greenville,
Mississippi
s r
N
Parowak ,
Utah
MATERIAL
Molasses
Sulfurlc
add
Fluoborlc acid
and 48-502
ammonium oxylate
Acrylon1tr1le
Orthoxylene
Caustic
soda
QUANTITY/SOURCE DAMAGES . HATER AFFECTED
tank truck accident
due to personnel error
railway tank car
tank rupture
piggyback trailer
not secured on
rallcar
tank car derailment soil . +
and tank rupture v
barge sprung a
leak . ' N
Cflrt nn 1 1 nnc . « ^ovl AV* D4uov>
tank truck collision
and tank rupture
CO. RESPONSIBLE MARKS
Southern Railroad opill was
contained
and Western Railroad , .
M<5 Ha^rK TwnrUnn ...._-----
Company, Inc.
-------
DATE
1/14/74
, V14/74
i
'' 1/14/74
: 1/14/74
t
1
.,, LOCATION .
Helena,
Montana
I '
'- '' Horse Creek
Wyoming
Opal,
Virginia
White Haven
Pennsylvania
' MATERIAL
Stack
Participate
Vinyl Acetate,
Phenol
Sulfuric
. acid
Chlorine
1/10/74
1/9/74
New Martinsville, Hydrochloric
West Virginia add (32%)
' Winnie,
-.;. Texas
Phenolic
waste
QUANTITY/SOURCE
100 cubic yards =
Industrial plant
quantity unknown
railway tank car
derailment and rupture
75 gallons * tank
truck overturned
unknown quantity
railway tank car
derailment and
rupture
10 gallons -
tank truck collision .
and tank rupture
1,000 gallons -
deliberate discharge
from tank truck
DAMAGES
fish kill
4-6 miles
estimated 1500°
2000 fish/mi,;
MATER AFFECTED
CO. RESPONSIBLE
REMARKS
Prickly Pear Creek : Kaiser Cement.'
and Company
Lake Helena
Horse Creek
and
North Platte River
Calveston harbor
and unnamed bayou
Colorado Southnrn
Railroad
Lemmon Trucking
("Company
Lehigh Valley
Railroad
Mobay chemical
Company
500 ;
gallons '
recovered
-------
On the following pages, chronology moves from top of the page to the bottom.
-------
i '
DATE
1/1/74 / '
1/5/74
1/7/74
i/14/74
1/14/74 ", V"
1/15/74
1/15/74
1/15/74 , ' , ,
1/15/74
1/16/74 v
- - *- \
; LOCATION -
Calhoun Falls, S.C. -
Boston, Mass.
i
. Atlanta, Ga.
Cincinnati, Ohio
' . McGregor, Texas
Hot Springs, N.C.
^
Mansfield, .Ohio
i
Markaand, Indiana
Hopewell, Va,
Harrisberg, Pa.
»
MATERIAL
Borax >
Liquid Nitrogen
Molasses - ,
Ethylenediatratae
Vinyl Chloride,
Naptha
Terathatartic
Sulfuric Acid
Valeraldehyde
Fropylaldehyde
Sodium bisulfite
Radioactive
material
SOURCE . ' DAMAGES
35,000 Ib
38,000 Ib
12,000/ind. None
plant personnel
error
319,120 Ib
68,099 Ib/
derailment
20,000 Ib , '
railroad
derailment
5,600 Ib/
ind. plant , ' ^
personnel
error, tank-
overflow
400,000 Ib/
barge collision
Unknown/
highway wreck
i
WATERS COMPANY
AFFECTED RESPONSIBLE
Savannah River Atlantic
Coastline R.R.
Boston Harbor Ing. Barge
Mass.
None Fleet Trans.
None Emerge Ind»
. Inc.
None Santa Fe R.R.
None Southern R.R.
Detroit Steel
River in Ohio Walker Towing
REMARKS ;
rail train r
wreck entere i
river }
tank barge
rupture -
equipment
failure j
i
tank truck
personnel
error -
wreck
i
i
f
i
!
.
Co.
-------
DATB
1/17/74
1/18/74 . !tv , -,
1 1
1/18/74
1/20/74
i > '
1/21/74
1/22/74
1/25/74
1/26/74
1/26/74
1/27/74
LOCATION
Austin, Ohio
Old Hickory, Tenn.
Lima, Ohio
Denver, Colo.
Meigs, Ga.
Mt. Holly, N.C.
CESS, Texas
Phila. , Penn.
Baton Rouge, La.
Washington, W.Va.
MATIWAL
Acrylonitrile
Caustic soda
Phenol
D§R Spray
Fumngant §
Disinfectant
[2- (hyclroxymcthyl)
2-nitro-l,3-propane]
Sodium Hydroxide
Perchlorethylene
Kraft Process
soap stock
(fatty acid)
Ethyl alcohol
(95%)
Hydrochloric
Acid (201)
Liquid Latex
QUANTITY?
SOUO DAMAGES
Unknown/
2,400 lb/
storage tank
leaky valve
24,000 lb/
refinery -
valve failure
8 lb/ highway -
container
rupture
Unknown/derailment
8,100 lb spilled
4,000 lb entered
river/break in
transfer pipe
14,600 lb/
derailment
56,000 lb/.
derailment
3,600 Ib/tank
truck hose
rupture
1,600 lb/
and. plant
pump failure
WAT1-RS COMPANY
APPICrun RP-STONSIBLB REMARKS
B50 R.R.
Cumberland R. DuPont
Ottawa R. Std. Oil of
Ohio
.,. '
> ' Seaboard Coastline R.R.
Catawba R. Sou-Tex Chemical Co.
Sulfur R, Kansas City Southern R.R,
Reading R.R,
i
inland stream Mat lack, Inc.
(unnamed)
None Borg Warner
-------
DATE
,
; 1/30/74
>
i
1/31/74
2/4/74
t '
2/7/74
i
i 2/10/74
i
i
;
2/12/74
1
: 2/12/74
i ' '
' 2/12/74 ';
I
! 2/13/74
i ^. j.
\ ' " ' '
! 2/13/74
f
j ... *
; 2AS/74 .,,, ,
1 t , '
\ ' ' ' - - I§ ,
LOCATION , i
'
West Virginia
,
St. Louis p Mo.
"
Duchesne, Utah ''
t (>,
Jacksonville, Fla.
Jacksonville, Fla. ;
.
Copperhill, Tenn.
*
Detroit p Mich. ;
: - "' ,
Phila. , Penn,
,
Taylors, S.C.
'
Bessnner, Ala.
i
t '
'" ' i
Bait., Md. . > .'. ,
'
MATERIAL
Liquid Paraffin
Sodium Hydroxide
Phosphate
Camphene
Ammonia <
Sulfuric Acid
(concentrated)
Chlorine
Hydrogen Peroxide
Methanol
Toluene
i
Latex
Ethylene glycol
glycerine
.
Alcohol
QUANTITY/
SOURCE DAMAGES
8,000 lb/ , '
tank bargo ' , . ,
structural
failure
1,624,000 lb/ None
terminal -
personnel error .'
90,000 lb/
truck accident
1,000 lb/
tank car »
personnel error
(cleaning accident)
40,000 lb/ '
chemical plant -
vandalism
Unknown/tank car
derailment .
360,000!lb/ -None ' '
derailment
4,000 lb/
ind. plant
equipment failure
24,000 lb/ , ,
tank overflow -
personnel error
28,000 lb/
tank overflow - , - r
personnel error
1,600 lb/
. highway collision ;
WATI-RS
Al-TLCTUD
Kanawha R.
Mississippi R.
Starvation - -
Reservoir
Moncief (stream)
McCoy R.
Delaware R. .
Enoree R.
inland stream
Hubert Run
COMPANY
RUSTONSIBLE RKMARKS .
!
Union Carbide
i
Tri-City Terminal
U.S. Hatch Trucking Co.
Durkee Division of
SCW Corporation
Ashland Chemical Co.
,,
i
i
i
0 {
CGO R.R. i
' '
Rohm § Haas Co. " |
I
i
J.P. Stevens Co. !
Hercules, Inc.
;
i
Seagrams Distillery
i
-------
DATE
2/16/74
2/17/74
2/18/74
2/20/74
! 2/20/74
1
f
' 2/22/74
2/28/74
3/3/74
3/3/74
3/4/74
3/S/74
3/S/74
LOCATION
Morgan City, La. '
Muscle Shools, Ala.
Sueth, Utah
1
Chicago Heights, 111.
Nitro. W. Virginia
Marsailles, 111. j
Vandalia, Ohio
Wright City, OK
New Haven, Conn
Latrobe, Pa.
' Kalamazoo, Mich.
Washington Court
House, Ohio
MATIilUAL
Anhydrous
ammonia
Unknown
saltwater
Sodium Hydroxide
Sulfuric Acid
styrene
acrylonitrile
wastewater glue
nitric acid
mineral spirits
methylene
chloride
ammonia (281)
f
(JUANriTlY/
SOJkCli DAMAGliS
no spillage -
barge collision
Unknown/
. effluent from
treatment facility
due to malfunction
Unknown/equipment None
failure
45,000 Ibs None
Unknown Quantity
tunk burge accident
24,000 Ibs
tank truck overturn
48,000 Ibs
md plant pump
malfunction
quantity unknown None
vandalism
quantity unknown
deliberate discharge
16,000 Ibs
valve failure
30,400 Ibs
tanktruck overturn
112,000 Ibs None
equipment failure
of storage tank
WATIiHS
AI'FLLTB)
None
None
Thorn (inland
creek)
Knnuwha R.
Walbridge Creek
Poplar Creek
None
Branford River
Saxon Creek
Portage Creek
None
(XWI'ANY
KLSI'ONSIULL KLMMKS
Southern Towing Co. .
i
Union Carbide
j
i
j
TEXACO Co. j
j
Schneider Tank ;
Lines, Inc.
[
Allied Chemical Co. t
\
D 5 L Transport, Inc. i
!
General Motors '
Wayerhauser Co.
Atlantic Wire Co.
Matlack Inc.
s
, F
Transport Services 1
t
i
Carter Flo-lizer j
?
i !
-------
QUANTITY/ ,
WATERS
COMPANY
DATE
3/5/74 ,
3/6/74
,
, 3/7/74
I i
; 3/11/74
J
i
; 3/11/74
< 3/12-74
1
i 3/13/74
i
i 3/14/74
1
1
i 3/15/74
j
; 3/15/74
.
i
' 3/17/74
i
i
; 3/18/74
i
LOCATION ,
FnrmingtPn, N,M,
Wules, 1'lu.
McGregor, N.D.
St. Vincent, Minn.
Plymouth, Mich.
Columbus, Ga.
Cokeville, Wyo.
'
Cody, Wyoming
Wilmington, N.C,
Baltimore, MD
Terre Haute, Ind.
Oilman, Col.
MATF.RTAF,
hydrochloric nci
failure
unknown i|iitinUty Nuiio
trwk-trnin voll ision
witli tunkcur rupture
100,011(1 His None . Mono,
pipuliuu corrosion - , - , -
28,800 Ibs None ' ' None
truck accident
iy,2()0 Ibs None None
personnel error
Unknown <|ii;intlt?
Unknown cause
400 Ibs
truck overturn
unknown quantity
refinery spill
unknown quantity None
tanktruck accident
120 Ibs None
storage tank leak
unknown quantity , None
derailment
unknown quantity ' '
mining operation ; '
i
t
iMvul 1 I'llWIliCrfl I'd, !
;
|
.Si-.ihbanl i
Om.sl lino U.K. |
j
i
Hurl Oil Co. i
' !
Dun Dugun |
TrnnsjTort *
t
Wycot'l" Steel ;
IMoKlcrost Mills
i
W.S. Hatch, Co. i
1
Husky Oil Co. ';
!
Cromartie Oil Co, '
j
i
Bob Chrisholm !
j
i
Penn Central ;
Transportation Co. . |
Georgia Pacific Corp. i'
j
-------
DATE
i
3/19/74 .
S/3KI/74
,
3/21/74
3/21/74
i
: 3/22/74
i . >
« j " . ,
1 3/22/74
,
3/24/74
.
3/24/74
.
"
3/26/74
i
3/28/74
3/28/74
LOCATION
Port Westworth, Ga.
(folaiimi1, (.nnlnluiin
Mineral, Ohio
.
Springdale, Ohio
flnst nritlxa, Mont.
Statosvill\ N.C,
Raceland, KY
McKenzie, N.D,
.
Dallas, Texas
.
Salem, Mass.
Wilmington, Del.
MATHRIAL
phenol formal-
dihyde
mil rm li MI hi (7111 1
ammonium nitrate
soda ash
ethylcne glycol
tllcliloropropnno
.
dimcthyltcrcph-
tlialate
liquid Phosphate
fertilizer
saltwater
hydrochloric acid
.
soapy solution
1-2 benzisocyaza-
lone
><...>.t. in/ WATI.KS
SajRCll llAMAGliS AJ-TILTIJl)
*
unknown quantity
ind. plant discharge
/.-IMI llm
Uuikciir accident
quantity unknown
derailment None
108,000 ll)b Mono
ind. plnnt-dofoct.
. valve
Hfl.OOO Id-.
tunkcur structural
fniluro
quantity unknown
tankcur collision
96,000 Ibs
derailment
126 gal
injection line
break
1,500 gal spilled Trinity River
750 gal entered
H£0 valve stem
broke
i
quanity unknown
condenser failure
100 Ibs Delaware River
ind. plant
XWI'ANV ,
KliSIWSIIJLli Kl MARKS
Georgia Pacific
Corp
1 It , 1 fill Mil
Cull U.K.
Bait, f, Ohio R.R.
Avon I'ltxIULlh Co.
HIM 1 inj'.iim
NoiLlic-in U.K.
Chcmicnl Scamnn
Tunk Lines
1
Chessie System |
Texaco Co.
Arrow Chemical Co.
,
i
Salem Power Plant
ICI American
i
-------
DATE'
4/1/74
4/1/74
4/2/74
! ,
I VS/74
*
i
r
, '
i
j
j
)
j
, 4/7/74
}
\
; 4/8/74
1
1 4/8/74 '
* (
i 4/13/74 '
i
l /
LOCATION
Little America, Wyo.
Mitchell, S.D.
Chicago, 111
i
< i
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
'
'
' * ^
,
' , '
Hammond, La.
!
t
Saginaw, Mich, ;
!\
Fair Oaks, Georgia
Hiedelburg, Miss,.
1 "" '
MATERIAL
phosphoric acid
raw sewage
polyglycol and
n- ethylmorphine
liquid rubber
antioxident
mixed alkylated
diphenyl
Paraphenoplene
diaminus (39%)
Mixed diphenyl
amines (31%)
Polymerized
diphenyl
paraphenylene
diamines and
hydroxydiphenyi
amines (101)
octyl alcohol
anhydrous ammonia
terpentine, ink
1
salt water
QUANTITY/
SOURCE DAMAGES
1800 gal '
deliberate discharge
quantity unknown
personnel error
quantity unknown
loose fittings
1870 gal
incorrect valve
handling on
tankcar
i
6180 gal
tank truck accident
.
50,000 gal
tankcar accident
1500 gal
ind. dhop
4200 gal .. / .
due to heavy rain, '
pipeline
WATERS COMPANY
AFFECTED RI-SPONSIBLE REMARKS
None Hatch Co.
1 i
Mitchell Sewage
Treatment Plant
Lee Way Motor
Freight, Inc.
Copolymer Rubber
and Chemical
]
1
i
Matlack Tank Lines
"
Chessie System
'
Tallaltah River Gulf Oil Co.
f
I
-------
DATE
4/15/74
LOCATION
Wylandville, Pa.
Sherman, Texas
MATERIAL
hydrochloric acid
sodium hydroxide
chromic acid
4/15/74
\ 4/15/75
' 4/16/74
4/16/74
4/16/74
i
4/17/74
> 4/17/74
4/18/74
. 4/19/74
New Martinsville, W.Va.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Hazard, Ky.
i
Wabash, Minn.
i
Freeport, 111.
.
Kent, Ohio
\
Greenville, S.C.
\
Three Forks, Wyo,
Saylor's Point,
poly liquid rei
vinyl chloride
ammonia
inorganic zinc
coating (paint
base)
aimonia (88t)
iron ore
sodium sulfite
sodium sulfate
radioactive
material
sulfuric acid
sodium isthiati
Penna.
QUANTITY/
SOURCE DAMAGES
Unknown quantity
tankcar overturn
3000 gal spilled
2800 gal entered
H20
tank truck flange
rupture
5500 gal
tank truck accident
unknown quantity
tank accident
8,000 gal fish kill
storage tank
deliberate discharge
quantity unknown
highway accident
source unknown
500 gal '
farm trailer tank
overturn
unknown quantity
derailment
unknown quantity
onshore transport
1200 gal
tank truck overturn
50 gal
tank truck collision
WATERS
AFFECTED
Chocktaw River
pvt. pond
COMPANY
RESPONSIBLE REMARKS
I
B 5 0 R.R. , i
Texas Instruments
Inc.
Matlack, Inc.
Perm Central R.R.
Ashland Oil, Inc.
B § 0 R.R.
Newman Transit Co.
Matlack, Inc.
-------
DATE
4/20/74
4/21/74
4/22/74
4/22/74
4/23/74
4/23/74
4/24/74
4/24/74
4/24/74
4/24/74
4/25/74
*
j
LOCATION '
Falls City, Texas
,
Norman, Minn.
.
St. Paul, Minn.
.
North Point, La,
,
i '
Birthoud Falls, Col.
Monessen, Pa,
N
Ingraham, 111.
Cleveland, Tenn/.
( Tilling, Texas
f
1
4
South Holand, 111. .
1
Falls City, Texas
,
'-'.''"' ' ' !
MATERIAL
sodium chloriate
anhydrous ammonia
' lignum
dimitro weed
killer (2-sec-
butyl-4,6 dimitro-
phenol)
ethylenb glyool
ammonia liquor
°
anhydrous ammonia
sulfuric acid
hydrochloric acid
trichloroethene
sodium chlorate
QUANTITY/ WATIiRS
SOURCE DAMAGES AFFECTED
quantity unknown
tank truck
incorrect valve
hand line
20,000 Ibs
tank car leak
300 gal
derailment
130 gal
tank truck accident
r^
1500 gal
truck accident
100 gal
ind plant equipment
failure
quantity unknown i
ind. plant casualty
quantity unknown
acid cooler leak
10,000 gal
stationary tank
rupture ,
1300 gal
tank truck overturn ,
quantity unknown
tank truck, valve
left open ' '
COMPANY i
RESPONSIBLE REMARKS
Robertson . ,
Distributors [
System
Burlington !
Northern
Soo Lines
]
i
f
i
_
Ruan Transport
i
Wheeling-Pittsburgh *
Steel
Standard Oil
Indiana
Cities Service Co.
;
Darrel Knight
Service Co. ;
Barton Solvents,
Inc,
Robertson Dist.
System
;
-------
DATH
4/25/74'
4/28/74
4/20/74
4/30/74
5/1/74
S/l/74
5/2/74
5/2/74
's/2/74
5/3/74
5/6/74
LOCATION
Stillwater, Minn.
Eau Glair, Wis.
Kopor, N.C.
Frederickstown, Ohio
Beaumont, N.C.
Woodbine, 111.
Londonbeny, Ohio
Mundclcin, 111.
Edgcmoor, Del.
Fisher, Arkansas
Ada,. Minnesota
MATIilUAl,
sodium hydroxide
naptliu resin
tliyiniil
red acrylic paint
bore
dyo
arachlor - 43%
ethylene glycol
titanium tctra-
chloride
ferric chloride '
(301)
benezene
liquid fertilizer
niiAMiTrv/
SCHIKCI! IIAMACILS
2400 gal
power plant
personnel error
200 gal
stnt ionnry tnuk
overflow
Mil) Hi-;
truck accident
10,000 gal
ind. plant personnel
fi'i'ur , (link tivuiTltiw
50 gal.
plant storage,
deliberate discharge
200 gal
truck accident
300 gal
tank truck accident
4 drums spilled
drum leak (equip.
failure) from truck
3500 gal
ind. plant.
unknown quantity '
derailment
4300 gal
highway accident
WA'IIII1: litll'ANY
AH'H.Thll KIM11NSIHI.I: UIMMtKK
St. Croix lUvcr Northern States
Power Co.
llni-Uoyal
Iliiii.-iimil .iii-iiiii .Si in link Oil (4>.
North Branch J.B. I-'oote
Kokosind
Grey Connelly
United Supplies
Coastal Tank Lines
TIM I'reight Lines
Delaware River DuPont
small creek Cotton Belt R.R.
Senex Transportation
I
i
t
i
j
\
i
i
t
i
j
-------
-. If
DATE f.
*
5/6/74 . .
S/9/74
j S/10/74
5/12/74
5/15/74
1 . *
t
i S/16/74
|
; S/20/74 .
S/20/74
5/20/74
j
| 5/23/74
S/24/74
S/25/74
1 -
LOCATION -.C ,''
, V
Spencer, Indiana '
Alexandria, Va.
v
Tennessee
St. Thomas, 111.
i
Edgemoor, Del, " -
Woodlawn, N.C.
,, ' ' :
Fargo, N.D. .
'
West Virginia .
t t
Houston, Texas
,
Cincinnati, Ohio
Denver, Colo, $*,-' ., ' '
"/»'"
'- >'i ' '
Cleveland, Ohio
, ' i
MATERIAL
ammonium nitrate
hydrochloric acid
sodium nitrate
Prover 24 D CML2S70
(herbicide)
titanium dioxide
ketone mixture
sugar beet plant
lagoon effluent
hydrochloric. acid
(33%)
organic waste
Sulfuric Acicl
Vinyl paint
Industrial vaste
i
''
QUANTITY/ ,
SOUKCH ' " DAMAGES ,
' / ' \ ' ' '
80 ton
train overturn
unknown quantity
loose flanges ' -
(equip failure)
3400 gal
(cause not given}
1250 gal
tank truck overturn
(truck hit curbing)
unknown quantity
ind. plant spill
4400 gal
tank truck accident
unknown quantity BOD fish kill
ind. plant (740,411 to
740,430)
quantity unknown
ind. plant.
100 gal
storage tank accident
(natural course flooding)
160,000 gallons
barge collision
10 gallons
ind. plant, personnel
error
4,500,000 gallons "'
ind. pland,
equipment error
WATERS COMPANY
AFFiicrnn RnspoNsim.n REMARKS
Penn Central r
Transportation Co. ,
Dow chemical Co.
Holston River - Hols ton Army Plant !
t
Nalco Chemical Co.
Dupong Co.
, . Forshaw Chcm Co.
Red River American Crystal
Sugar Co. j
Allied Chemical Corp.
unnamed drainage Ashland Chemical Co.
ditch
Ohio River Ashland Oil Co.
KWAL Paint Co.
|
'
Cuspahoge River DuPont
i
-------
DATE ,
S/2S/74
J
S/25/74
5/27/74
LOCATION
Romulus, Mich.
Springfield, Tenn.
»
Chattanooga, Tenn. ,'
MATERIAL
Acetic Acid
Toxaphene
f
Diisobutylamine
QUANTITY/ WATERS
SOURCE DAMAGE . AFFECTED
100 gallons/
tank car,
structural failure
200 gallons/
airplane dis-
charge due to
engine trouble,
deliberate
50 gallons/ S« Chickamauga
COMPANY
RESPONSIBLE . REMARKS
Chessie System R.R. r
i
\
Riggs Flying Service
>
'
Alco Chemical Co. 1
5/28/74
5/28/74
5/28/74
5/30/74
5/31/74
5/31/74
Greenville, S.C.
Greensboro, N.C.
t;
Lenoir, N.C.
Rome', Ga.
Latex waste
Downers Grove, 111. Acid
normal Butyl
Alcohol
Lacquer thinner
Black liquor
Church Hill, Tenn. ,- Sulfonated
Detergent
1 < Compound
overflow, personnel
error
500 gallons/
stationary tank
rupture (structural
failure)
Unknown/ind. plant,
deliberate dumping
into stream
452 gallons spilled,
45 gallons entered
water/tank car
equipment failure
540 gallons/storage
tank hose rupture
(equip, failure)
8,000 gallons/tank
car equipment failure
Unknown/tank truck
accident
Bushy Tops
Commercial Broad Loom |
Unnamed stream Wescom, Inc.
North Buffalo R. Pfiezer, Inc.
Tower R,
Singer Co.
Smith Cabin R. Georgia Craft Co.
Mason Dixon Line
-------
PATG . .
5/31/74
6/1/74
0/2/74
i . -
6/4/74
i
S 6/4/74
| 6/4/74
j 6/5/74 ' '
1 6/6/74
1 6/7/74
i
. 6/7/74
6/10/74
' 6/11/74
i
j 6/11/74
j 6/12/74
4
LOCATION
Radford, Va.
Phila.1, Penn.
II In ton W. Vu, ,
Morris town, Pa.
Charlotte, N.C.
Roland, Idaho
Clarion, Pa,
Edgemore, Del, .
Moncure, N.C.
Covington,, Va,
Asheboro, N,C.
Dayton, Ohio
Baton Rouge, La.
Bridgeport, Mich,
MATlilUAL
' TNT
Phenol
iitliyJono glycuj.
Pickling Acid Waste
Vinyl Acetate
Sodium Hydroxide
Pocolene
Titanium Dioxide
Liquid Nitrogen
Polystyrene
Urea formaldehyde
resin
Acrylonitrile
Styrene
Pesticides
Herbicides
QUAKI'lTY/ WATIiltt
,'iUIKCI! UAMACIi AI-'NiCI'lil)
Unknown/explosion
at pi not
10 gallons/tank truck
looi'.o v/ilvo (equljmient
failure
.10,0011 tfiil lini'i/iiiiik , --"- Nuw Klvor
car overturn . -
4,000 gallons/deliberate
discharge
800 gallons/truck
accident
16,000 gallons/derailment
25 gallons/ind. plant ' Clarion Run
500 pounds/ind. plant Delaware R.
300 gallons/tank being
towed, rupture due to
equipment failure
Unknown/truck accident
2,000 gallons/ truck
accident
21,000 gallons/derailment
i
3,000 gallons/tank truck inland bayou
accident
Unknown/plant accident
(fire)
COMPANY
KIMyJM 111,1! HIMMCa |
Radford Army Amnunition
Plant
Matlack, Inc.
cr,o u.u.
Central Transport Co.
Chicago Milwaukee R.R.
Owens 111. Corp.
DuPont
Mr. Henry Morton
:
Westvaco Co,
Central Transport Co.
CGO R.R.
Texas Solvents Chem. Co.
Williams Co.
-------
DATl! .
6/12/74
0/12/74
; 6/13/74
6/14/74
6/15/74
6/17/74
6/18/74
LOCATION
Morro, Okla.
Wulwsli, ind.
i
Piqua, Ohio
Dermott, Texas
Wixon, Mich.
Norfolk, Va.
Grapevine, Texas
MATIIUIAL
Pliospliorous
Irlt-liliirlilo
TrleliliM'oot liyloiiu
Anhydrous
ammonia
Cyclohexane
Acetic Acid
Paint thinner
Chromic Acid
QUANlTfY/
IMIIO
6-8 ilrnns
(r.r. (int. PH. |/
derailment
KM) JMll l.lll'./ illll.
plant, personnel
error (incorrect
valve handling)
2,000 pounds/
ind. plant,
equipment failure
210,000 galiong/
derailment
5 i>alJun.s/luiik cur,
line leack
(equip, failure)
Unknown
500 gallons/
IVAII:IC>
iiAMACi'. Ai>i>u;rr.it
30 people tro.-itcil , - '^'~
(in MiinKi' inliitlii
tjon, 5,000 - /,()(«)
people ovncniital from
Moore
10,000 fish killed Great Miami
Chesapeake 1
Albemarle O
unnamed Brai
6/18/74
6/19/7S
Marshallton, Del.
Pueblo, Colo.
Phenol
Sodium Hydroxide
deliberate waste
disposal from
ind. plant
75 gallons/ind.
plant personnel
error (incorrect
valve handling)
2,000 gallons spilled
50 gallons entered water/
ind. plant, tank overflow,
(personnel error)
Id-MW illll,I! IIIMAKK,1;
Ssinta Fc R.R.
(icnornl Tito Tf
Val Decker Packing Co.
Santa Fe R.R.
Clu-sslu Sysliiii U.K.
Atlantic Yacht Basin >
Electro Coating, Inc.
Harvey Industries
St. Charles R.
Public Service Co.
-------
, 1 , ,
DM'U LlXM'lON
! 6/19/74 Charleston, W. Va,
1
i
. -
1 6/20/74 Gateway, Colo.
_
'
6/20/74 Morton Grove, 111,
( i
1
.
6/23/74 ' . Molvin, Ohio
,
6/24/74 ' La Veta, Colo. ;
-
-
6/28/74 . Rutherfordton,
N.C.
'
6/28/74 Deniopolis, Ala,
6/29/74 Nacogdoches, Texas
'
%
^
* > < -
MMI'IUAL
Isopropyl Acetate
Potassium hydroxide
Phosphorous
chloride
Sodium hydroxide
(524)
Liquid fertilizer
Toluene
Phenol- formal-
dehyde
Adipic acid
hcxamethylenc -
diamine
tetraethyl lead
fatty alcohol
petroleum wax .
vinyl chloride
toluene
plastics
tallow
Q1IANITIY/ - WATIill ' COMPANY
JjulHO 1JAMM1U AI'Hl'llil) RI'.M'Uliilhl,!! ItliMAUk-'i '
4,500 gallons/ Kavawka R. Reliance Trucking Co. j
I. ml' tun k
ml 1 In Inn . , '
' i
3,000 Bulioiis/ . ' ' Uu» Wurd Trucking Co. i
tank truck
Occident - f
1
8 gallons/ . Regis Chemical Co.
ind. plnnt
storage tank
structural
Ini lino
9,000 gallons/ Todd Pork 1HJO R.R.
tank car
ili* mi lit 1 |
j
5,000 gallons/ . ' . Gibson Truck Lines
tank truck,
structural
failure
3,500 gallong/ Fish kill inland stream Infinger Transportation i
tnnk I nicK Co.
accident '
j
100,000 pounds/ Bordon Chemical Co.
plant boiler
explosion- , ,
!
Unknown/rail , Southern Pacific R.R.
general cargo .
overturn
-
i
i
.
'V '.,." :' ' j
-------
DATE ,
6/10/7,4 '
6/30/74
7/2/74
7/2/74
, 7/3/74
7/5/74
7/6/74
7/8/74
7/8/74
7/9/74
7/9/74
LOCATION
Franklin Furnace, Ohio
Darling, Miss.
Florancc Miss.
Donaldsonville, La.
New London, Conn.
Radcliff, Colo.
(
Kenton, Ohio
Delta, Colo.
Peshtigo, Wis.
*
Greenville, S.C.
Tollansbee, W. Va.
MATI'IUAL
Phosphoric Acid
Vinyl Chloride
Lead Acid FIDIIOS
Sulfuric Acid
Paint
Acid
Phenol resin
Pesticide
Black sulfite
liquour
Acrylic latex
Sulfuric Acid
(664)
t^UANI'lTY/ WAI II!
stxjitci; iiAMACi; ' AI i-u:ru>
28,000 gallons/
derailment
Unknown/derailment
Unknown/ ind.
plant
17653 pounds spilled Mississippi R.
1770 pounds entered
water/tank truck hose
rupture
Unknown/cons true t ion
job, personnel error
Unknown/ ind. plant
line leak
200 poiinds/ind. Taylor Creek
plant equipment
failure, cooling
jacket leak
Unknown/crop
dusting
Unknown/ind.
plant
1500 gallons spilled Rudy R.
200 gallons entered
water/storage tank
overfilled, personnel
error '
100 gallons/ind. -plant Ohio R.
flanges not properly
niMTANV
III. SKINS IHI.I: IU .MARKS
Norfolk § Western R.R.
Illinois Central R.R.
Con-Rex Oil Co.
Triad Chemical Co.
Tangcni 5 Sons Paint
Contractor
Amox Co.
Hooker Chemical Corp.
Badger Paper Co.
Charles S. Tanner Co.
Wheeling Pittsburgh
Steel
secured, personnel
error
-------
n/vrn . -
7/9/74
7/10/74
7/10/74
7/10/74
7/10/74
7/11/74
LOCATION
Roseville,, Minn,
MATniUAL
QUANITtY/
SOUKCII
D/WVGD
Oxidizing material 55 gallons/and^
s tempo
Colorado Springs, Colo. Caldium Carbonate Unknown/deliberate
discharge from Ind.
plant
Hopowoll, Vn,
Le Scur, Minn,
Montgomery, Ala,
Shaw, Miss.
Acid
Salt
Fonnic Acid
Unknown/lull. |i|;ui(
cquipncnt failure
hose rupture
65 tons/hill k storngo
lank
Unknown/tank car
rupture structural
raiJuro
Ortho-dichlorp- Unknown/derailment
benzene
Hydrocyanic Acid i
WATI'Jt
AI'I'UCIHD
CtWl'ANY
RIKHJNSIIIUJ IU;MAI1K5
Warner Construction Co=
Ciilco
Alllixl ClmitIf/il Cx>.
Green Ginnt Co.
Western R.U. of Ala.
Illinois Central Gulf R.R.
-------
I J
tlATK T/VWrtON 'MATIHIlTAt.
7/12/74 Jngleatde, Texas Chlorine
7/14/74 Alliance, Ohio Chlordane
Malathion
2.U-D
uxyclilur
Chlorinol
. 7/14/7U Alliance, Ohio Pesticides
Herbicides
'
| 7/16/74 Old Hickory, Term. Xylol
i 7/17/74 Keystone, South Dakota Herbicides
Amdon & Amixol
!
I
j 7/18/74 Carbondale, Colorado Acid
1 < *
; 7/18/74 Durango, Colorado Pesticide Boytex
QUANTITY/
flmall/Pnpnnh Unknown
Unknown/Storage $1 million
Tunlv Onahoro
Unknown/Onshore Unknown
Storage
100 gal . Industrial Plant
Unknown/Highway Unknown
Transportation
Liquid Bulk Spill.
Unknown/Fixed
Facility Plant
Unknown/Fixed
Facility Industrial
Plant jS"
WATERS
AITWTKH
fill (-)'« 'HHl,Jll
WuLorwuy, (Julf
Coast
Berlin Hen.
Mrilionlrig II.
Mahoning K.
Cumberland K.
Inland R. Spring
Eagle River
Lake Pastorian
COMPANY
nnri%»tr uu.tr.
Univeroul Coop
Af.rlciilluro
Chemical Plant
Universal Coop
Inc.
li.l.liuporit
Textile Fibers
Dept.
Nalco Chemical
Co. , Chicago
New Jersey
Zinc
Unknown >,
'*" .
V "-v i
ItKMAIO-.I'
P«fH'iiiti«-J Ki rnr
Ual'cty J
-------
LOCATION
Hodges Gardens,
Louisiana
Haylow, Ga.
Saranac, Michigan
MATERIAL
Light Aromatic
for Benzene
Extraction
Muriatic Acid
Chicken Manure
QUANTITY/
SOURCE DAMAGES
Unknown/Highway
Transportation
Spin. Liquid Bulk,
Unknown/Transportation Unknown
Bail,
Unknown/Onshore Unknown
WATERS
AFFECTED
Inland ' '
Inland
Lake Creek
COMPANY
RESPONSIBLE
Continental
Oil Co.
Houston, Texas
Southern
Railroad
Unknown
REMARKS
Collision with Other
Car. Knocked
Unloading Valve Off.
Train Derailment
NH3 & BOD Killed
Natural Phenomenon
Heavy Rains.
Fish in Stream.
Raleigh, N.C.
Hoisopple, Pa0
Soap Unknown/Highway Unknown
Transportation Spill
Magnesium Ore 55000 gal/Railroad Unknown
Derailment
Neuse R. Malone Freight Truck Accident.
Line
Stoney Creek B&O Railroad None
Kayford, West Va.
"N
Denver, Colorado
Coal Slurry
Pesticide
5iOOO gal/Onshore
Fixed Facility
Unknown
Unknown/Fixed Onshore Unknown
Industrial Plant
Fork Creek
Bethlehem Mines Pipeline Break
Houston Park Lake Wilhelm Tree Natural Phenomenon
Service Heavy Rains
Nathrop, Colorado
Concentrated unknown/Fixed Facility Unknown
Chlorine Mixture A Retail Outlet
Creek Mount Princeton Deliberate Discharg-
Hotspring Killing 31,000 U"
Trout
Maijyvllle, Term.
Nitric Acid 8,000 gal/Tank Truck Unknown
on Highway
Inland
Fleet Equipment Failure
Transportation Gasket Leak
Co,
Sterling, Colorado
Herbicide
Unknown/Onshore Fixeol Unknown
facility Industrial
Sterling
Reservoir
North Sterling Deliberate Discharge
Irrigation Co. to Kill Weeds
-------
, DATE
i 7/25/7U
i
i 7/27/7U
j
i
I 7/28/7U
;
{
7/29/74
;
j
7/29/74
7/29/74 .
LOCATION
'
San Antonio, Texan
\
Uravan, Colorado
Sheboygan, Michigan
Kinsport, Tenn. '
Cleveland, Ohio
Mode, 111.
MATERIAL
flpont Cynnlrlp
Pint. Inn lioluf.lon
Soda Ash Soloution
(30)5 Cone.)
Dioctyl
Phtalate .
Industrial Waste
BOD
Industrial Waste
Polyvinyl Chloride
QUANTITY/
SOURCE
T5 Kfil/HffMl
DAMAGES
Plnli Kill
WATKlfll
AFFECTED
Trf'uri f'r'ook
f'fiMI'AMY
RESPONSIBLE
n.n.A.F.
REMARKS
i
Kqul|im''Mt, Full tii*'
Cm- 1 1 1 l..y Kni'.tti'i !',lio|i
1(0 gal/Onshore
TruririporUillotr
High Liquid Bulk.
6,000 gal/Onshore
Fixed Facility.
Industrial Plant
100,000 pounds/
fixed facility
500,000 gallons/
fixed facility
ind. plant
Unknown/Railroad
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
San Miguel R.
Inland
Lake Michigan
Holston R.
Cuyahoga R.
Inland
Union Carbide
Vinyl Plastic
Co.
Tennessee
Eastman
E.I. DuPont
.
Personnel Error
Tank Overflow
Cause Equipment
Failure
High water
caused wast
pi pel me to
rupture
Ikjuipment
Failure
Chicago?* Eastern car
1 Illinois Railroad overturn
, 7/29/74
i
7/29/74
;
7/30/74
, 7/30/74
j
3
j 7/31/74
1
Willard, Ohio .
Decateur, 111.
I
Cortez, Colo.
Washington, W. Va.
,
,
Gillette, Wy.
Arsenic Acid
(75%)
.
, Propane
Salt Water
1
Ammonium Hydroxide
, Salt Water
800 gallons/
Highway spill
9,000 gallons/
Railroad spill
in water
100 gallons/
fixed facility,
oil well
Unknown/fixed
facility, ind,
plant
Unknown/fixed
facility
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
,
_
Unknown
1 * (
Inland
Inland
Dolores Creek
Ohio R.
Little Powder R,'
IJGO R.R.
Norfolk 5
Western R.R,
Southland
Royalty Co',
AMAX
Cheveron Oil
Rail tank
car leak/
structural
failure
Explosion
Soaked in
ground
Storage
tank rup-
ture
,
Line ruptue
sank into
ground
-
-------
DATE
7/31/74
.. ^
8/1/74
8/2/74
,
8/2/74
8/3/74
.
i
i
8/4/74
i
' 8/S/74
8/6/74
J
8/7/74
j
j
8/7/74
LOCATION
Alcoa, Term.
Fargo, N. Dakota
Columbus, Ga.
Baltimore, Md,
Briggsdale, Colo.
Kingsport, Term.
Fairfield, Md.
St. Paul, Minn.
*
Columbus, 'Ga.
Radfoixl, Va.
MATERIAL
Sulfuric Acid
Anhydrous Amnonia
Blue dye
\
Detergent
: Salt Water
1
Aniline
sulphate,
, , Sulfuric Acid
Chrome
Toluene
Toluene
Xylene
'
. Sulfuric Acid
i
QUANT HY/
SOURC1J
15,000 gallons/
Highway trans-
portation
Unknown/Trans-
portation/rail
transfer
Unknown/city
sewer
5 pounds/fixed
facility/ind.
plant
8400 gallons/
fixed installa-
' tion
13,000 pounds/
Industrial fixed
facility
1600 gallons/
fixed facility
industrial plant
2 gallons/fixed
facility
6,000 gallons/
highway spill
40,000 gallons/
fixed facility
DAMAG1-S
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
WATI.U
Al-TLLTliO
Inland
.
Red R.
Chattahoochee R,
Baltimore Harbor ,
.-
i
South Fork Holston
R.
Patapsco R.
Mississippi R.
Standing Boy
Creek
Inland River
COMPANY i
RLSlUNSlULli RLMARKS
Highway Truck
Transportation Accident
Co.
Burlington Uiuipncnt !
Northern R.R. failure/ <
tank leak
City Sewer ;
plugged
causing
overflow
Proctor § Deliberate
Gamble discharge
Chevron Oil Equipment
failure I
internal
. i
corrosion
Tennessee Sump was
Eastman Co. silted Over '
causing
overflow
M5T Chemical Storage tak
Inc. rupture
Dctterman pipe leak
Welding §
Tank Service
Marrietta Truck
Transport wreck ,
Radford Valley Structural
Ammo. Plant Failure
-------
DATE.
".- 8/8/74
1 8/9/74
8/9/74
; 8/9/74
i
8/11/74
8/11/74
: 8/12/74
8/12/74
LOCATION
Baltimore,
Md.
Atlanta,
Ga.
Cleveland,
Ohio
Radford, Va.
Rico,
Colorado
Will lams town
W. Va.
Philadelphia, .
Pa.
St. Mary
Montana
MATHRIAL
Calcium
oxide
Toluene
Acetic
add 802
Crude
Cyanide
Hydraulic
fluid
Caustic Soda
. Herbicide
Montsanto
Avadex BW
10* granular
QIIANTITY/SOIIRCr DAMAGCS
unknown/ fixed unknown
facility onshore
Indus trial plant
110 gal, spilled unknown
0 entered water/
Illrjhway spill ,
Truck liosi1 ruplurarf
45 gal. /Rail road unknown
spill /storage drum
leaks
252 qal./none entered unknown
water/onshore pipe-
line splll/oqulpmcnt
failure
3.000 gal. spilled/ fish killed
3,000 gal entered 10 miles of
water/Fixed facility stream
Silver mine/holding
pond washout
1700 gal; spilled and
entered water/dry cargo
vessel offshore/cause
was collision with a
fixed object
115 gal. /Rail liquid unknown
bulk/cause personnel
* error
2000 Ibs. spilled but unknown
none entered water/High-
way transportation dry
bulk/Truck accident '
WATfRS AFFCCTEf)
Inland stream
Inland
Inland
White Oak
Creek
Dolor Is
Creek
Ohio R.
Delaware
R.
St. Mary R. Co,
COMPANY
RrspnnsiniE RCMARKS
Trestollte None
Has Co.
Marietta
Transport
B & 0 RR
Eureka '
Pipeline
R1co Argent
Mine
Union Mechllng
i
B & 0 Railroad
Wagoner Trucking
-------
COMPANY
DATE J
8/13/74
8/13/74
i
8/14/74
i
1
i
I
| 8/14/74
i
*
/
i
I 8/14/74
i
i
i
j
!
, 8/14/74
i
'
J
J
t
I 8/14/74
"
!
1
LOCATION
Denver
Colorado
Nunn,
Colorado
Warm Springs,
Georgia
Denver,
Colorado
Mile 46.0
M1ss. River
Illinois
t
Norfolk
Virginia
m
Irving Texas .
j
MATERIAL
Purple dye
Salt water
. 11.500 mg/1
Sulphuric
Acid
Acrylic
Acid
Toluene
.
Caustic
'( ' Soda
,
Propanol
-
' ' *
QUANTITY/SOURCE DAMAGE
unknown/unknown unknown
3,000 gals, spilled/ unknown-
none entered water/
onshore fixed facility
Injection line broke
3.000 gal. spilled/ - unknown
none entered water/
cause onshore trans-
portation/crash between
truck and train
55 gal. none of which unknown
entered water/Source
was highway transpor-
tation crash between a
truck and a train
66,000 gal. spilled & unknown
entered Mtss. River/
Source ground! n of tow
on Miss. R. /Cause equip-
ment failure due ground
1ng
1 gal. spilled, none unknown
of which entered water/
Onshore transportation/
Rail liquid bulk/ cause
was equipment failure
500 gal, none of which unknown
entered. water/Fixed faci-
lity/transfer line/cause
line ruptured .
MATERS AFFECTED RESPONSIBLE REMARKS
South Platte R. unknown
South Platte R. Chevron
Oil Co. ,
i
f
inland Chemical Lehman '
Tank Lines i
1
i
South Platte R, Burlington j
, . " Northern ',
Transport t
|
i
' Miss. R. T/B CBC 241 '
i
|
i
i
I
, i
Elizabeth R. ' Norfolk & i
Portsmouth. , i
BeltUne R.R.
* V
{
\
i
Inland Drackett Inc. .
*
i
-------
DATE " . LOCATION - .MATERIAL
8/20/74 Conshocken ' 01ly pulp
Pennsylvania
8/20/74 Salt Lake City Ferric Chloride
i
,
'
i
8/21/74 Moorvllle N.C. Foam material
t (
'
i
8/21/74 Uravan Sovent extrac-
Colorado tlon liqueur
i
8/21/74 Erie
Pennsylvania
Sulfuric Acid
' 1
' i
8/21/74 Magna Utah - Slate L1me
.
,
8/22/74 Eldred Unknown
Pennsylvania Caustic
'
QUANTITY/
SOUPXE DAMAGE
unknown/ fixed unknown
onshore facility/
Industrial plant
1,000 gal. none * unknown
entered water/fixed
facility onshore/
bulk storaqe tank/
transfer line parted
30 qal . spilled and unknown
entered water/fixed
onshore facility/
Industrial
3,000 gal. spilled & unknown
entered water/fixed
onshore facility/
processing plan/
tank rupture
12,500 gal. spilled/ unknown
fixed facility/bulk
storage onshore/tank
rupture
100.000 Ibs spilled unknown
Into water/fixed
facility/processing
plant/bypass valve
left open at treatment
plant
*
unknown/onshore fixed unknown
facility/bulk storage/
equipment failure
WATERS COMPANY
AITCCTEO RESPONSIBLE REMARKS ,
i
Schuylklll R. Allenwood 1
Steel & paper
Company .
t
Jordan R. V/asatch Chem. >
I
t
t
t
Reeds Creek Braymore MFC Co.
;
San fHqull Union Carbide
1
Lake Erie Pennsylvania
Electric Co. \
i
i
Great Salt Kennecot Copper
Lake Company
'
t
i
t
t
Indian Creek Suspected j
Pennzoll |
-------
DATC
8/22/74
LOCATION
Buffalo
N. Y.
MATERIAL
Toluene
8/23/74
8/24/74
8/24/74
8/26/74
Fa1rf1eld
Maryland
011 Hickory
Tennessee
Annvllle
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia
Pennsylvania
1 Light Gray
Film unknown
DMT & Xylol
Turpentine
Aniyl ase
QUANTITY/
SOURCE
400 gal. spilled
250 gal. entered
water/fixed onshore
facility/was washed
Into storm sewer to
reduce fire hazard
unknown/onshore
fixed facility
100 gal. spilled/
20 gal. entered
water
'unknown/transpor-
tation/bulk rail/
wreck
1,200 qal.
1nd. plant, de!1»
berate discharge
Into sewer
DAMAGE
unknov/n
WATERS
AFFECTED
Inland R.
COMPANY
RESPONSIBLE
Allied Chem
REMARKS
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
Curtis Cr.
Cumber! and
River
Inland
Inand
Amoco 011
Dupont
Reading RR
Publishers
Industries Co.
-------
COMPANY
DATE
8/27/74
8/28/74
1 B/30/74 '
t
: 9/6/74
! > *
f ' i
; 9/9/74
J 9/10/74
9/11/74
9/11/74
9/13/74
9/13/74 >
LOCATION
Brighton,
Utah
Rangely,
Colorado
Flnlcyvlllo,
Penn.
Alvln, Toxat
i '
Helena, Montana
Baltimore, Md
Cumberland,
Ohio
Crossett,
Arkansas
Seattle,
Washington
Nacogdoches
Texas
MATLIUAL
raw sewage '
salt water
Sodium hydroxide
lirlna WAtor
phosphoric
phosphate
soln.
tolune-d1-1so-
cyanatr
ammonium nitrate
phenol & formal -
dlhyde resin
PCB
add
(JUAN III Y/WrtlkCl DAMAGE
500 gal. drain hose
of vnuH tank un.it tomlml
personnel error
quantity unknown
oil production acti-
vity, well head on
flrn
1000 gal, derailment,
deliberate discharge
<|imnllly unknown
from disposal well
quantity unknown
derailment
55 gal. drum rupture,
personnel error
quantity unknown
derailment
3000 gal. Industrial
plant, Incorrect valve
handling
260 gal. trans-
former fell
unknown quantity Ind.
plant, natural pheno-
menon, heavy rain
WAILHS AflLCILO Hlil'WIillJLC REMARKS
B1g Cottonwood Mr, Gordon
Chevron Oil Co.
Inland river Chosslo System ;
Aincn Clinn, Co,
Burlington Northern
RR
Chess 1e System
f
B & 0 RR ;
Brushy Creek Georgia
Pacific Corp.
Coastal Ourvanlsh U.S. A1r Force
Waterway
Texas Farm Products f
Company ;
-------
DATE
9/17/74
9/18/74
9/18/74
1
9/19/74
i
\ 9/21/74
j 9/21/74
i '
i
, 9/22/74
1 9/23/74
, 10/2/74
LOCATION
Englewood,
Colorado
Salt Lake
Utah
Galena Park,
Texas
1
Hlnslow,
Washington
Gillette,
Wyoming .'
Grabbling. ' ,
La. . . ,,
Swlekley
Penn. ,
Bay City, , ,
Mich.
Magna,
Utah ' .
MATERIAL
cyanide
blood
C-7 C-9 al-
cohol
pentachloro
phenol 52
aromatic oils
saltwater
15* & 28%
add
add waste
benzene
sulfurlc acid
QUANTITY/SOURCE DAMAGE
unknown quantity, small fish
passed through treat- kill
merit plant
900 gal, truck acci-
dent
9000 gal., personnel
error, Incorrect
valve, bulk storage
500 gal., Ind, plant
1260 gal. 1nd, plant
equipment failure
1250 gal., truck over-
turn
quantity unknown, natural
seepage at 1nd, plant
100-150 gal., vessel, per-
sonnel error, back pressure
on transfer pump
quantity unknown, copper
smelter, break 1n acid line
WATERS AFFECTED
South Platte
Panther Creek
Sag1now R,
COMPANY
RESPONSIBLE REMARKS
unknown
Intel-mountain
Chem. Exchange
Co.
Hykoff Wood
Treatment Plant
Chevron 011 Co.
Dowel1 Chem. Co.
Mil Service, Inc.
M/V Dow Rogen
Kennecott Copper
-------
DATE
10/7/74
, 10/10/74
j 10/15/74
3
! 10/16/74
10/17/74
; 10/21/74
10/23/74
f
, 10/24/74
\
! 10/25/74
; 10/28/74
j
LOCATION ,,
Minn. Knife River
111., Zion
Virginia
Radford
, \
Ind.
E. Chicago
Alaska ;
Cape Omaney
111., Roadhouse
Utah ,' '
fiagna
Minn. Rochester
Ind.
Lafayette
Minn.
, Duluth
' _ '* '
MATERIAL
paint
Anhydrous
ammonia
sulfurlc acid
hydrochloric
acid
area pellets
anhydrous
anrnonia
dim1thylam1ne
sulfurlc add
fungicide Nalco-21
Traflan(herbiclde)
paint
i
QUANTITY/ WATERS
SOURCE DAMAGE AFFECTED
Quantity unknown
personnel error
during bridge con-
struction
90,000 11). derail-
ment
3,000 gal./1nd.
plant, structural
failure, tank rupture New River
quantity unknown,
possibly deliberate
4,500/9,000 tons some aquatic Snipe Bay
barr-e sinking mortality &
browning of trees
1n area
quantity unknovm
equip, failure (valve)
quantity unknown '
equip, failure
quantity unknown cascade
personnel error,
hospital, flushing
aircondltioner
500 gal./ind. plant,
personnel error,
tank overflow
2 gal. deliberate* Lake Superior
discharge from
vessel
COMPANY
RESPONSIBLE REMARKS '.
j
i
Duluth, t'esabe, j
Iron Range RR
Chicago 8 North- I
western Transpor- [
tation
Hercules Inc. f
Youngs town Sheet !
& Tube 1
Collier Chem. Co. '
111. Central Gulf
RR
Lemmocptt Copper
Co.
St. Marys Hosp..
Eli Lilly :
|
. Vessel MV Atlantic f
Charity (owner unknown)
-------
DATE
10/29/74
10/29/74
10/29/74
10/30/74
1 10/30/74
;
; 10/30/74
, 11/5/74
11/5/74
11/6/74
; 11/7/74
i
LOCATION
Marietta, Ohio
Littleton, Colo. ,
s \
Rangely, Colo.
,
Charleston, W. Va.
Lockport, 111.
S
Kiln, Miss.
Cincinnati, Ohio
' Dunkirk, N.Y.
4
Ponce de Leon, Fla,
Magna, Utah , ,
MATERIAL
Phenol
Nitric Acid
(57*)
Saltwater
(1,000 ppm)
Butyraldol
Carbon Tetra-
chloride
Xylcne based
substance .
Potassium
Phosphorous
Sodium
Vinyl Acetate
Nitric Acid
Ammonium Nitrate
Sulfuric Acid
Smelter process
water
QUANTITY/ WATERS
SOURCE DAMAGES AFFHCTED
800 gallons/ Ohio R.
ind. plant,
pump failure
100 gallons/
tank truck,
hose rupture
84,000 gallons/
ind. plant,
equipment
failure
4,500 pounds/ Kanawaha R.
ind. plant,
condenser leak
1,000 gallons/ Des Plains R.
warehouse,
deliberate dis-
charge
3,500 pounds/ '
leakage from
buried container
7,000 gallons/
rail collision
600 gallons'/
' truck, flange
failure
Unknown/ " ' .
derailment <,
72,000 gallons/ - Great Salt La
junction box
overflow, equip.
COMPANY
RESPONSIBLE R1MARKS
Union Carbide
Moly Corp.
Chevron Oil
Union Carbide
TPG Enterprises, Inc.
Ingram Explosive
Devices, Inc.
C§0 R.R.
R.R.
failure
-------
DATE
11/8/74 ,
11/8/74
,
i
11/9/74
'
i
j 11/10/74
*
i '
11/11/74
]
;
^
11/11/74
.
i 11/12/74
,
' 11/14/74
,
11/15/74
'
' 11/16/74
' '
LOCATION
Aneth, Utah
.
<
Old Hickory, Tenn.
Jackson Township,
Ohio j
i ,
Swamonoa, N.C.
1
F. Collins, Colo.
,
N
Dearborn, Mich.
' Hopewell, Va,
'
Denver, Colo.
V
\
* .''
Harper, Ga,
t
,
Lodi, Ohio -
1
' i
MATERIAL
reinjection
salt water
'D.M.T. waste
Cresol oil
Acetic Acid
Raw sewage
t
Propionic Acid
Toluene
Digested sewage
sludge
Acetic Acid
Hexamuthylene
Diamine
Liquid Latex
QUANTITY/
SOURCE DAMAGES
84,000 gallons/ '
oil well, equip.
failure (line
broke)
Unknown/ ind.
plant, dike
wall leak
1,500 gallons/
tank truck rupture,
equip, failure
4,000 gallons/ind.
plant, storage tank
rupture
Unknown/waste
treatment plant,
line break
,
20 gallons/tank
car, line leak
180 gallons/ind.
plant
280,000 gallons
spilled
100,000 gallons
entered water
15 gallons/
derailment
51,000 gallons/
derailment
WATERS COMPANY
AFFECTED RESPONSIBLE REMARKS
Texaco, Inc. <
i
DuPont i
i
t
t
Chera. Leaman Tank Lines
t
Beacon Mfg. Co.
i
i
!
Cache La Poudre City of Fort Collins !
i
1
;
Chess ie System
,
Grindall Creek DuPont <
1
S. Platte R. Denver Metro Sewage
Treatment Plant j
i
r ,
Southern R.R. ;
i
f
B50 R.R. [
\
-------
. MTU-
11/16/74
11/16/74
11/19/74
11/20/74
11/22/74
11/22/74
11/23/74
11/26/74
. 11/26/74
- ' LOCATION . ' \
Savannah, Ga.
X
Trion, Ga.
Mnnsoy, S.C.
Chattanooga, Tend*
Douglas, Wy,,
Smackover, Ark.
Neola, Utah
Memphis, Tenn0
Aneth, Utah
. MATIIIUAi,
Foam (unknown
PCB
C-10 Oil
Acrylonitrilo
Styrene
Salt Water
Nitric Acid
Hydrochloric Acid
(28i)
Sodium Hydroxide
c
Salt Water
IJIANITIY/
fMHICI, ItAMAfilfl '
Unknown
600,270 gallons/
ttuck jiccJdeiit
10 j;n1 Ions/tank
i in .( UK liirnt
failure
Unknown/non-
trnn^prirtnHon
cm isc ' ,
Unknown/oil
well ccpiip.
failure (icLeu'LJon
dike seepage)
12,000 gallons/
derailment
2,000 gallons spilled
1,000 gallons entered
water/truck accident
1,000 gallons spilled
100 gallons entered
water/storage tank
rupture
33,600 gallons/oil
Jwcll, equip, failure
(plug rupture)
" WAims UIMI'ANY 1
, - AI'1'HTI.K . I'l-MUMm-li IIIMAMKN
j
Savannah R. Unknown
(Iciiunil 1:1 ec trie Co.
Sc.-ihoartl Coastline
Tennessee River Terminal
Texaco Oil Co.
Smackover Creek Missouri Pacific R.R.
Unita R. B§J, Inc.
Non Connahrl Creek Valley Products Co.
Texaco, Inc.
11/28/74
Blackhawk, Colo.
Mill Tailings
Unknown/natural
phenomenon (wash
out)
Golden Gilpen Mine
-------
, DATE'
12/1/74
12/2/74
; 12/3/74
12/5/74
12/6/74
12/6/74
12/6/74
12/7/74
12/9/74
12/10/74
< 12/12/74 ,
LOCATION
Harlem, Montana
Whitting, Ind.
Midland, Pa.,
Wash., D.C.
Munsing, Mich.
Radford, Va.
Arlington, Va.
Munsing, Mich.
Cleveland, Ohio
Goliad, Texas
Front Royal, Va.
MATERIAL
Mill Tailings
Phenol
Phenol
Iodine- 123
Butadiene Nitrile
Toluene
Varsol
Butadiene
Nitric Laytex
Toluene
Fatty Alcohol
Phosphorous Acid
SUIUCli UAMACI1S
Unknown/natural
phenomenon (heavy
runoff.)
2,000 pounds/
ind. plant,
pump failure
Unknown/ ind.
plant
Unknown/airport
personnel error
(package crushed)
500 gallons/ind.
plant, line rupture
Unknown/ tank
car valve failure
Unknown/non-
transportation
storage tank
failure
300 gallons/tank
car line rupture
5,000 gallons spilled
200 gallons entered
water/bulk storage
equip, failure
13,675 gallons/ ,
derailment
'Unknown/ind. plant
personnel error
WATCH: ; COMPANY ' ,
Ai:i;ix:rt.ii tuusi'UNSiiiut KLMAKKS \
Inland R. Unknown
Lake Michigan American Oil Co.
Ohio R. Crucible Steel Corp. :
National Airport
Kimbcrly Clark Corp.
Radford Army Arsenal j
Larry Buick Co. |
i
. inland pond Kimberly Clark Corp.
Aujahoga R, Aujahoga Chcm. Co.
i
Southern Pacific R.R. >
i
FMC Co. i
-------
DATE
12/12/74
( >
12/13/74
(
12/14/74
12/15/74
12/16/74
12/16/74
12/18/74
12A8/74
12/24/74
j
1- 12/26/74
,
LOCATION i ( MATIilUAL
Old Fort, N.C. Lacquer
kiko Whiting, Ind. Phciiol
Cincinnati, Ohio i Sodium Hydroxide
, Potassium
Manganate
. Bristol, Pa. Unknown
'
i
Odenville, Ala. Telone
.
W.Va. Ammonium Nitrate
i i
Salt take City, Utah , Sulfuric Acid
,
S. Carolina Plastasol
' '
' Moab, Utah Unknown
,
,
Ashtabula, Ohio Monochlorobenzene
(50%)
, ' I
' i '
<)1!/\WITY/
.SUMCI; UAMAUUS
1,000 gallons/
ind. plant,
doli be rate dis- ;
charge
2,200 pounds/
ind. plant
equip, failure
2,300 gallons/ind.
plant, broken
flange
1,800 gallons/
ind. plant,
improper
connection
60 gallons/rail
car leaking drums
personnel error
2,000 pounds/
derailment
13,320 gallons/
tank car, incorrect
switching
200 gallons spilled
100 gallons entered
vater/ind. plant
1,900 gallons/
oil production.
personnel error
20 gallons/ind,
plant, tank allowed
to overflow
WA'1'I'.US (X Ml 'ANY
AI-M.TU) KJ.SlWSlHLi; KLMAKKS
inland stream Ethan Allen Furniture Co.
Ijikc Michigan Standard Oil
Mill Creek Bnery Industries
Black Ditch Creek 3-M Company
i
i
Seaboard Coastline R.R.
Western Maryland R.R.
*
Union Pacific R.R.
Saluda R. ' J.P. Stiphens
Colorado R. Flying Diamond Corp.
Fields Brook ' Olin Corporation
i
'
;
i
I
f
,
I
1
i
i
{
\
;
i
,
'
j
I
:
!
!
j
:
L
t'
i
t
i
J
V
-------
DATE
: 12/27/74
i
i
j
i 12/30/74
LOCATICN
MATERIAL
Highland Heights, Ohio Sulfuric Acid
(20%)
QUANTm/
SOURCE
1500 gallons/ind.
plant, valve
failure
DAMAGES
St. T.oui3 Park, Minn.
Various pesticides 30,000 pounds/
ind. plant
WVTERS
AFFECTED
Euclid Creek
COMPANY
RESPONSIBUB
Grunnan Corporation
Androc Chen.
-------
DATE . ^
2/27/74
3/6/74
3/20/74
(
! 3/21/74
I
' 4/9/74
;
4/11/74
4/21/74
'
j 5/2/74
5
! 5/2/74
"i
]
s
: 5/16/74
!
', 10/3/74
j
»
r
LOCATION
Epringdalo, Pa.
-
Mt. Savage,, Md,
Hayden, Colo,, .
Portland, Maine.
Mt. Storm, W. Va.
Oologah, Oka.
.
Darby, Pa.
Cleveland, Ohio
Milwaukee, Wis.
Frisco, Colo,
Frisco, ColOo
MATERIAL
Paint
- Grain corn
f
Drilling mud
Animal tallow
Molasoos
Mils & wheat
1 (feed grain)
Grain corn
Steel industrial
wastewater
Line tracing dye
iwd
< '< sud & salt water
"
QUANTITY/
-------
, DATE
6/4/74
6/4/74
j
! 6/6/74
6/23/74
6/29/74
7/2/74
7/4/74
7/5/74
1 7/5/74
! 7/9/74
!
7/11/74
! 7/16/74
\
LOCATION
Plymouth, Mich.
Charleston, W. Va.
Ellsworth, Pa.
Defiance, Ohio
Cherryhill, N.C.
Jacksonville, Fla.
Epon,La«
Warrenton, Ind.
Milwaukee, Wis,
Kneeling, Ind.
Chillicothe, ZUo
Detroit,Mich. ,
MATERIAL
com syrup
coal slurry
coal slurry
Froon
Calgon Cat
Floe T
Sewage
liquified gas
(natural gas)
salt brine
t
water soluble
black
salt brine
molasses
Hydrochloric Acid
QUANTITY/
SOURCE DAMAGES
8,000 gallons/
derailment
500 gallons/
mining operation,
gasket failure
3,000 gallons/
coal mine, line
blockage
Unknown/derailment
500 gallons/non-
transportati on ,
personnel error
Unknown
420 gallons/
pipeline rupture
Unknown/oil
drilling, equip.
failure,corrosion '
300 gallons/bulk
tank overflow,
personnel error
630 gallons/oil
production, equip.
failure (corrosion)
800,000 gallons/
barge collision
10 gallons/highway
truck hose rupture
wvmts
AFFECTED
Ten Mile Fork
(inland stream)
Pigeon Creek
Long
(inland stream)
Broward R.
inland stream
inland stream
Yellow Creek
CCWI'ANY
RESPONSIBLE REMARKS '
Chossie System j
i
Bethlehem Mines
t
Bethlehem Mines J
DtO R.H. ,
Lithium Corporation
of America '
Anhauser Busch
Continental Oil Co.
Melvin Drilling Co. .
A.O. Smith Corporation
i
Cherokee Drilling Co.
i
Sioux City of New Orleans
Midwest Chrome Process
-------
DATE
7/19/74
.> .
7/28/74
7/30/74
7/31/74
8/2/74
8/3/74 .
LOCATION ' .
Yorktown, Va,
Wash., D.C.
Kayford, W. Va.
Kayford, W, Va.
Connersville, Ind,
Ratliff City, Oka.
MATERIAL
Paint
sewage
coal slurry
coal Blurry
white porcelain
sludge
salt water
(ju/urrrnf/
SOURCE DAMAGES
Unknown/bridge
construction
personnel error .
Unknown/personnel fish kill
error
90,000 gallons/
ind. plant, line
blockage
500 gallons/inl.
plant, line
blockage
55 gallons/ind.
plant, personnel
error
3,150 gallons/non-
WVIIflU:
AFFECTED
York R,
Potomac
Cabin Creek
Cabin Creek
'
8A4/74
; 8/19/74
J
i
| 8/26/74
j
i
; 8/28/74
; 8/29/74
Ratliff City, Oka. - salt water
MeCcmb, Ohio ;
St. Louis, Mo.
W. Va.
sugar
sewage
black -water
Burlington^ Vermont jnolassea
transportation,
injection line
broke
1,260 gallons/inl.
plant, equip.
failure, corrosion
Unknown/ind. plant, extensive fish
fire kill
30 gallons/deliberate
discharge
800 gallons/ind.
plant, pump failure
200 gallons spilled
5 gallons entered
ratez/irxfl. plant
inproper hose
connection
Caddo Creek
Cabin Creek
ft Ml'ANY
RESPONSIBLE REMARKS
Burgess Bros. Painting
Blue Plains Plant
Bethlehem Mines
Bethlehem Mines
Philco Ford Co.
Conoco
Continental Oil Co.
Portage R. . Food Packaging, Inc.
Mississippi R. Sauget Vbste Treatment
Plant
Bethlehem Mines
Lake Chanplain A.D. Tease Grain Co'. !
-------
i DATE
i 9/20/74
1
t
9/22/74
10/9/74
i
10/15/74
11/7/74
11/10/74
11/12/74
11/12/74
11/19/74
11/20/74
11/22/74 "
LOCATION
Hartford City, Ind.
Baltimore, Md. ,
« l
Milwaukee, His.
Chicago, 111. j
Milwaukee, Wis.
Cleveland, Ohio
Farmington, Minn.
'Racine, Wis.
Baltimore, Ohio
a
Waukegan, 111.
Porter, Ind. , '
MATERIAL
pulp water
wheat
i
isopropyl alcohol
red sediment
coal dust
industrial waste
milk
sand & water
mill effluent
brown substance
dunnage
QUANTITY./
SOURCE DAMAGES
2,000 gallons/
ind. plant, valve
failure
Unknown/railroad
car overturn
400 gallons/tank
truck, incorrect
valve handling
50 gallons/ind.
plant
25 pounds/non-
transportation,
personnel error
18,000 pounds spilled
8,000 pounds entered
water/equip, failure
6,000 pounds/leak
in cooling system
20 gallons/ind.
plant, equip.
failure (pump)
8,500 gallons/
ind. plant, valve
leak
Unknown/ind.
plant
10 gallons/ ,
VBVTERS
AFFECTED
Little Lick R.
Calmet R.
Menonee R.
Cujahoga
Lake Michigan
unnamed stream
lake Michigan
Fort Michigan
COMPANY
RESPONSIBLE REMARKS
3-M Company
Chessie System
Ashland Chemical Co.
Republic Steel
Hometown Coal Co.
DuPont
Mid America Dairymen, Inc
J.S. Case
Crown Fullerbach Corp.
U.S. Steel
M.V. Veshva Kirti
foreign vessel
deliberate dis-
charge
-------
- DATE.
! 11/25/74
I
12/8/74
j
' 12/10/74
i
j 12/12/74
| 12/28/74
LOCATION
Princeton, 111.
Minneapolis, Minn.
Old Hickory, Tenn»
Van, W. Va.
Hanamingo, Minn.
MATERIAL
sodium lauryl
milfnf-o (nl mint no
base)
calcium sulfata
organic material
QUANTm/
DOUnCE
5,011 qallonn/
tnrik
200 gallons/
ind. plant
400 pounds/
ind. plant,
heavy rains
coal chaning water 500 gallons/
coal mine,
line leak
whey
40,000 pounds/.
highway accident
DAMAGES
WVTERS
API'MCMD
COMPANY
Cumberland R.
West Fork of
Pond Fork
TVnnspnrt Service Co.
Superior Plating Co.
DuPont Textile Fibers
Department
Bethlehem Mines
Land O' Lakes
-------
DATE
1/11/75
1/25/75
' 1/28/75
1/28/75
1/29/75
1/30/75
1/30/75
f
2/10/75
i
2/12/75
LOCATION
Buffalo River, Term.
Susquehanna River, Fa.
Evitts Run,, West Va.
i
Wilmington, Delaware
Beaver Dam, Maryland
Kanawha River, West Va.
Piscatoway Creek, Md.
i
Otter River, Virginia
Clays ville, Fa.
QUANTITY/
MATERIAL SOHUCR
Sulfuric Acid 9,000 gal
truck accident
Paint Thinner 40,000 gal
capsizing
Unknown 3>000 gal fire
Carbon Black 5,000 Ibs
Varsol 700 Ibs
Sulfuric Acid 100 Ibs
reached tank
overflow
Unknown 1,000 Ibs
improper hose
connection
Sodium Hydroxide 25,000 gal
capsizing
Styrene 1,600 Ibs spilled
WATERS COMPANY
DAMAfJKS API-WTO) RESPONSIBLE
Buffalo River
Susquehanna River
None Reached Evitts Run
Water
None Reached
Water
350 Ibs Reached Unknown
Water
Kanawha River
1,000 Ibs Piscatoway Creek
Reached Water
25,000 gal Reached Otter River
River
100 Ibs Reached Buffalo Creek
REMARKS
vehicle collision Water
-------
DATE
2/20/75
2M/75
2/25/75
' 3/2/75
i
! 3/18/75
3/19/75
' 3/20/75
{ V2/75
1
\
' VV75
LOCATION . MATERIAL
Fishing Creek, West Va,, Coal
Buflkill Stream, Pa> Iron Oxide
A Tributary in Va. Polyester I
Little Coal River, W.Va, Black Coaling 6,500 Ibs
Water
fuuquier Co«, Va,
Van, Went Va.
Curtias Bay, Mdr
Wierton, Weet Va.
West Virginia
Piedmont., West Va,
Van, West Va.
Unknown
Black Water
Unknown
Black Water
Chlorine
Black Water
QUANTITY/
SOURCE
100,000 ibs,
capsizing
300 Ihfl
10 Iba apilled
capsizing
6,500 Ibs
puinp failure
,u ibu
vandalism '
200 gal
explosion
1,000 Ibs spilled
500 Ibs sjpillsd
collision
500 gal
,180,000 Ibs
' capsizing
1,000 gal
pipeline ruptured
DAMAGE ,
100,000 Ibs
Reached Water
Unknown
0 Ibs entered
.- ., .
Unknown
Unknown
20O gul
Entered Water.
Unknown
500 Ibs Reached
Water
500 gal Reached
Water
0 Reached Water
1,000 gal Reached
' Water
WATERS COMPANY
' AFFECTED RESPONSIBLE REMARKS j
;
Fishing Creek J
t1imk1]1 fltream
Tributary
t
Little Coal River
\
tiroui.1 Kuis Vundulo '
i
Went Fork of Pond
Fork
Curtis s Bay
i
Stream j
'i
i
t
10 mile fork of i
CAB '.
\
Potomac r '
;
West Fork of
Pond River >
-------
DATE
VW75
U/2V75
t
1
1
V22/75
i 5/2/75
i
1
; 5/6/75
5/6/75
LOCATION , MATERIAL
Baltimore Harbor' Fatty Alcohol
' Van, West Va. . Black Water
Bluestone R. , Va. Liquid Ammonia
Indiana ' Sodium Hydroxide
, , Farina, Indiana . Fertilizer
t!
i
Indiana F8253
', ' starter
QUANTITY/ . '
ROIIICR
20,781 gal
vandalism
800 gals
pipeline rupture
1 Ib
1 gal
tank overflow
6,000 gal
corrosion pipeline
750 gal
improper hose
connection
HAMAOKR
20,781 gal
Entered Water
Unknown
Unknown
Fish Kill
Unknown
750 gal Reached
Water - Fish Kill
WATERS
AKKKf.'TKli
Baltimore Harbor
West Fork of Pond
Fork
Blue B tone R.
Little Laughery
Creek
Stream
Center Run
COMPANY
KKKKlNSrUIJS
Vandalism
Williams Pipe-
Line Co.
PO Box 9339
Tulsa, Oklahoma
7^107
5/11/75
!
: 5/1V75
: 5/19/75
KFMA1«S
Maryland
Lemont, Illinois
Etna Green, Indiana
, Ammonia
Unknown
Unknown Quantity
tank leak
Unknown
500 gal (defective -Unknown
valves in tank truck)
Liquid Fertilizer 1,000 gal §
capsizing
Unknown
Unknown
Tributary
None
Custer Grain Co.
Garrett, Indiana
1»6738
-------
HATE
1 5/26/75
I
5/29/75
} 6/V75
! 6/5/75
1
! 6/5/75
i
! 6/11/75
j 7/3/75
i
j
i 7/16/75
i
!
t
! 7/25/75
7/29/75
1
i 8/6/75
LOCATION
Essex, Md.
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Baltimore, Md.
Salisbury, Md.
' Rockville, Md,
Baltimore Harbor, Md*
Delaware River
Kayford, West Va.
Roanoke, Virginia
Eddy s tone, Pa.
MATttltMti
Roofing Tar
Fertilizer
32% N
Phosphorus
Trichloride
Nitric Acid
Asphalt
Chloride
Hydrochloric Acid
Unknown
Black Water
Laquer Thinnsr
Ilmenite
(Fe-Ti ore)
QUANTITY/
1 gal
i
1*9,000 Ibs
170 gal
on nhore trans.
13 gal
leak
1,500 gal
1,000 gal
seal on truck leaked
55 gal
drum leaked
500 gal
pipeline flange leak
^3,000 gal
heavy rains
U,000 gal
capsizing
truck accident
165 Ibs,- '
derailment
HAM All KM
Unknown
1 jrrvl HoiU'hoil
Witl.it i'
Unknown
O Ibn Ronrlipcl 1
85 gal Reached
1 gal Reached
Water
WATKIC:
AI'TK'TKI'
Hopkins Creek
Tributary
tffli.P |* '
Water Monongahela Rivi
Chesapeake Bay
1,500 gal Reached Wicomica River
Water
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Baltimore Harbor
Unknown Delaware River
500 gal Reached Water
Unknown
i*,000 gal
Reached Water
0 Ibs Reached
White Oak Creek
'Roanoke River
Water None
I IH.I'. liKMAKKIt
Mr.Jerome North
Knrinx, Mil. i'liVl
Vandalism
------- |