NEIC
r
I EPA-330/1-89-002
r
MULTI-MEDIA PRIORITY RANKING
OF SELECTED FEDERAL FACILITIES
PUGET SOUND
May 1989
\
National Enforcement Investigations Center, Denver
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING
EPA-330/1-89-002
MULTI-MEDIA PRIORITY RANKING
OF SELECTED FEDERAL FACILITIES
PUGET SOUND
May 1989
Joel K. Mattern
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
Denver, Colorado
-------
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
METHODS 4
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT (RCRA) 5
SITE CONTAMINATION (INCLUDING CERCLA) 6
WASTEWATER DISCHARGES (CWA) 7
TOXIC SUBSTANCES INCLUDING PCB STORAGE AND USE
(TSCA) 8
AIR EMISSIONS (CAA) 8
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA) 9
STORMWATER/NONPOINT RUNOFF (CWA, WPCA) 9
NATURAL RESOURCES/WETLANDS/SHELLFISH (SEPA, SMA) 10
PERMIT COMPLIANCE 10
SPILLS (CWA) 11
RESULTS 12
TABLES
1 Puget Sound Federal Facility Environmental Rating Criteria 2
2 Puget Sound Federal Facilities Pollution Potential Rankings 13
-------
INTRODUCTION
EPA Region X, the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (Authority) and
the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), requested November 1988
that the National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) rank Puget Sound
area federal facilities according to their relative potential for having
environmental problems.' These facilities were ranked using a modified
version of NEIC's Multi-Media Priority Ranking Model which has been
successfully used to rank federal facilities in the various EPA Regions.
Facilities are ranked using environmental rating criteria based on the
type and magnitude of activities in the various media which actually or
potentially could cause environmental contamination [Table 1]. These activities
include past and present hazardous waste" generation and management,
wastewater discharges, air emissions, and hazardous and toxic materials
handling and storage. To rate the Puget Sound facilities, additional
environmental criteria related to the Puget Sound Water Quality Management
Plan were established. These criteria address stormwater/nonpoint runoff,
sediment contamination, natural resources/wetlands/shellfish, industrial
pretreatment, spills, pesticides use, and compliance with environmental statutes
and regulations.
Rating points for new environmental rating criteria were assigned by
regulatory and enforcement personnel from EPA, Ecology, and the Authority
who are the most knowledgeable about the status of various environmental
conditions at each of the Puget Sound federal facilities.
The facility rating is not compared with any fixed number to indicate whether the
installation is environmentally "good" or "bad." Rather, the rating indicates
whether there is the potential, when compared with other installations, for major
environmental problems (i.e., the higher the rating the greater the potential for
environmental problems at the facility and, thus, further evaluation may be
warranted).
Environmental problems, as generally used here, are directly related to the release of
contaminants and habitat degradation.
As defined in 40 CFR 261
-------
Table 1
PUGET SOUND FEDERAL FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL RATING CRITERIA
Rating
0
1
2
3
4
5
Rating
0
1
2
3
4
5
Quantity
Generated
(m tons/Year)
0
<12
12-50
50-500
500-50.000
>50.000
Wi
Flow SIC7
Rate Toxicity
(mgd) Group
No? <3
<5
.5-1 5 23
1.5-25
>2.5
Hf¥?irlffl/fi Wf&ft) Mfvwfinwit '
SteContamnaion
Storage Treatment Disposal Capacity Soil/Water
Capacity. Capacity Landfill Land Application Contami-
(gal.) (galVday) (acres-ft.) (acres) ~ Seriousness nation
000
< 10,000 < 1.000
10.000- 1.000-
100.000 50.000
>1 00.000 >50,000 25
25
vttAwntar fVc/4>amoc^
On-base Suspected
Industrial0 Toxic
Pretreatment Discharge
No industrial waste No2
generated
Wastes generated
but pretreated Suspected3
Wastes pretreated but Known
with potential problems
Wastes generated
with no pretreatment
0 No2
Low
or suspected3 or
<10 Modium or
unknown
210 High
NPL*
Toxic
Pesticide
PCB Use
Use (Ibs/year)
No2 0
<250
Suspected3 250-500
500-2.500
Known 2.500-5.000
>5.000
No2
Potential
suspected3
Known5
ArEmssans
Number of Criteria Discharge to
Pollutants9 Discharged Nonattamment
at 21 00 Tons Per Year Areas
No2
0"
1
2
>2
No2
>2
Sediment Bulk Storage
Conlami- ot Hazardous
nation- Material
No
Potential
or suspected
Known
Suspected Hazardous
Air Pollutant'0
Discharges
No2
Yes
No2
Known
Water
Supplies
No of
Persons
Supplied
No2
< 1.000
>1.000
-------
Table 1 (cont.)
PUGET SOUND FEDERAL FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL RATING CRITERIA
Stormwatar/Nonpoint Runoff
Natural Resources/
Wetlands/Shellfish14
Compliance with Environmental
Statutes and Reoulations
Rating
0
1
2
3
4
5
Area of
Impervious
Surfaces
(acres)
0 10
10-25
25-50
50-100
100-250
>250
Potential
Contamination
(No. of sources)10
0
1
2
3
4
>4
Collection/
Treatment
(percent)
95-100
75-95
50-75
25-50
5-25
0-5
Extent
Inventoried'7
All
-
Partial
-
-
None
Protection
Program
Yes
.
Partial*0
-
-
None
Degree of
Noncompliance 1S
No known
.
.
One NOV*'
Minor*?
Major*3
Spills'9
No spills, good response capabilities and BMPs
i ,
Reported spills, fair response capabilities
_
Reported/suspected spills, no
capabilities or BMPs
and BMPs
response
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
6
7.
8
9
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15
16.
17.
18
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
The minimum rating tor any taolity generating hazardous waste, regardless ot any storage, treatment or disposal activities is 3. Facilities with RCRA storage treatment and/or
disposal activities ate assigned subcategory ratings, as indicated in the table. An additional pomt is added to fatalities if they are both a generator and TSD (see text)
No = No known or suspected activity In this activity category or subcategory
Suspected means that Information suggests nonspecific activity in the subcategory.
A/Pi, means the facility Is listed or has been proposed for bating on the National Priorities List.
Facilities with known or potential contamination ot drinking water supplies are assigned two additional rating points (total of 7)
Includes known discharges to municipal wastewater treatment plants
SIC Toxidty Group /a number from 1 (lowest) to Sfhujhest)] is an indication ot potentially harmful health effects related to a specific Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code
(see text)
Industnal wastes include any waste which is not domestic or nonconlact cooling water.
As defined n 40 CFR 50
Hazardous air pollutant (40 CFR 61) emission sources with or without other air sources
Facility has point source emissions but does not have the potential to discharge at 2100 tons per year per pollutant
Facility discharges one nonattalnment pollutant in nonattainment area for that pollutant
Fatality discharges two nonattalnment pollutants in nonattainment area for those pollutants
A rating ot 0 should be given to any facility where no natural habitat exists. Where natural habitat does exist, it is assumed that the absence ot a habitat inventory or protection
program represents a nsk to that resource.
Rating is based on the frequency ot spills, the facility's ability to respond to spills, and the best management practices (BMPs) being implemented to prevent spills (including an
updated SPCC plan).
Sources ot potential contamination could include hazardous material storage, munitions handling/storage/repair. aircraft maintenance/operations, ship repair/building, vehiclu
maintenance, and residential/agricultural uses.
The more acres of non-inventoried habitat the higher the rating.
May receive rating points for noncompliance n each media.
Rating points are doubled for total rating.
Indicates the presence ot some natural resources that are not fully covered by a habitat protection program.
Any notice of violation (NOV) Issued over the last 5 calendar years
More than one notice ot violation issued over the last 5 calendar years.
Failed to comply with Administrative Order.
-------
METHODS
The following nine federal facilities located in the Puget Sound area
were selected for pnoritization:
1. Defense Fuel Supply Point, Mukilteo
2. Fort Lewis
3. McChord Air Force Base
4. Naval Submarine Base, Bangor
5. Naval Supply Center, Manchester
6. Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station, Indian Island
7. Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station, Key port
8. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton
9. Whidbey Island Naval Air Station
The above facilities are ranked using environmental rating criteria based
on the type and relative level of activity in the following 10 categories:
1. Hazardous waste management
2. Site contamination (known and potential)
3. Wastewater discharges
4. Toxic substances, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
5. Air emissions
6. Drinking water supplies
, 7. Stormwater/nonpoint runoff
8. Natural resources/wetlands/shellfish
9. Permit compliance
10. Spills
The above categories generally reflect pertinent activities regulated by
one or more of six Federal environmental statutes and one or more of three
Washington State environmental statutes: Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA), the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA), State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA),
-------
and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), respectively. An explanation on
how facilities are ranked in each category follows.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT (RCRA1
This category ranks facilities according to the potential for environmental
contamination through hazardous waste generation and management. For
rating purposes, the category is divided into four activity subcategones:
(1) Hazardous waste quantity generated, (2) waste storage design capacity.
(3) waste treatment design capacity, and (4) waste disposal design capacity.
These general subcategories are used because this information is readily
available and covers a wide range of hazardous waste management activities.
The major information source for this category is the EPA Hazardous
Waste Data Management System (HWDMS), a computer database which
includes information submitted by hazardous waste generation and/or handling
facilities as part of RCRA Part A and/or Part B permit applications. The data
includes hazardous waste quantities and types generated, types of hazardous
waste handling activity and waste processes design capacities. Information is
obtained from Region RCRA files if the computer database is incomplete.
The minimum rating for any facility generating hazardous waste is 3
[Table 1]. This accounts for activities involving actual generation and any short
term or small quantity management of waste. Generating facilities with RCRA
storage, treatment or disposal activities are rated according to the relative level
of activity in each subcategory. An additional rating point is assigned to these
facilities to account for potential problems involved in the actual waste
generating process(es).
Subcategory ratings and any additional rating points are combined to
provide the overall rating for each facility for "Hazardous Waste Management"
[Table 2]. For example, a facility generating 12 metric tons of hazardous waste
annually, having 10,000 gallons of container storage capacity and 1,000
gallons per day tank treatment capacity, using the rating criteria [Table 1],
receives 2 rating points for waste quantity generated, 2 points for storage, 2
points for treatment, and 1 point for being both a waste generator and TSD
-------
facility [Table 1, footnote 1] or 7 points total for hazardous waste management.
This ranking indicates the relative potential to contaminate the environment
through hazardous waste management.
SITEiCONTAMINATION (INCLUDING CERCLAi
This category ranks facilities according to the actual, suspected, or
potential for site contamination from either past operations or the present bulk
storage of hazardous materials (acids, fuel oil, gasoline, etc).* The category is
divided into four activity subcategories: (1) Seriousness of site contamination
problems, (2) contamination of soil and water, (3) sediment contamination,
and (4) bulk storage of hazardous materials.
Information was obtained from the following EPA computer data bases:
FINDS, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS), and the Compliance Data System (CDS).
Regipn file information supplemented this data. FINDS lists all known or
suspected facility sites which were contaminated from past activities. CERCLIS
tracks these sites and identifies those which are proposed for, or listed on, the
National Priority List (NPL). Region files contain reports of any EPA/State or
Department of Defense site investigations (such as preliminary assessments)
for the suspected CERCLA sites. Preliminary Assessment and Installation
Restoration Program reports rate the "seriousness" of site problems as low,
medium or high and, if known, indicate the type of site contamination (soil,
water). Information on sediment contamination was derived from the collective
knowledge of federal and state personnel familiar with dredging or sediment
sampling activities that may have been conducted at each facility. CDS lists
installations with bulk storage facilities for hazardous materials (fuel oil,
gasoline) through its inventory of volatile organic air emissions.
Rating points are assigned to each facility for activity in each of the four
subcategories using Table 1. Facilities with known contamination of drinking
water supplies are assigned two additional rating points. The sum of these
Even though the handling of bulk quantities of hazardous materials may not be regulated by
CERCLA. it is included here because of its potential for site contamination.
-------
ratings is the facility's overall rating for "Site Contamination" and is presented in
Table 2.
WASTEWATER DISCHARGES (CWA1
This category rates facilities according to the actual or potential impacts
of wastewater discharges into receiving waters. The four subcategories used to
rate facility activity in this category are: (1) average daily flow rate; (2) the
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)' code for the facility's waste generating
activities and general wastewater type (industrial, sanitary, or both); (3) on-
base industrial pretreatment; and (4) suspected discharge of toxic wastewater.
Information on the type and flow rate of wastewater discharges was
obtained from the Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Region NPDES files.
SIC codes and toxic discharge information for each facility are from the EPA
databases and/or Region files. SIC codes are used to assign each facility to a
SIC toxicity group. Each SIC toxicity group from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)
correlates to the potential for harmful effects from wastewater discharges from a
specific industry (as identified by the SIC code). The SIC Code/Toxic Pollutant
Discharge Potential component of the NPDES permit ranking system used by
EPA-nationally to classify dischargers as "major" or "minor," is used to assign a
SIC toxicity group to wastewater discharge facilities being ranked. Information
on industrial pretreatment was derived from federal and state pretreatment
coordinators who are familiar with waste handling operations at each facility.
Facilities were assigned a rating score of 0 if no industrial wastes" are
generated [Table 1]. If industrial wastes are generated, but are pretreated
before discharge to a treatment plant or landfill, the facility received a score of 1
or 2 (depending on the quantity of waste generated). If facilities pretreat
industrial wastes and there are known or suspected problems with the
pretreatment process, scores of 3 or 4 were assigned depending on the quantity
generated. Facilities that generate industrial waste, and have no pretreatment
The SIC is a number which describes an industry by the type of activity in which it is
engaged.
Industrial wastes include all wastes that are not domestic wastes or non-contact cooling
water.
-------
8
of those wastes before they are sent to a treatment plant or landfill received
scores of 5. Facilities known or suspected of discharging toxic wastewater are
assigned additional rating points. Flow rates, general wastewater type, SIC
toxicity group number, and suspected discharge of toxic wastewater are used
as shown in Table 1 to assign ratings to each facility in each subcategory.
Subcategory ratings are totaled to obtain the wastewater discharge ratings
presented for each facility in Table 2.
TOXIC SUBSTANCES INCLUDING PCS STORAGE AND USE (TSCA^
This category rates facilities according to information regarding use of
PCBs and pesticides. Information sources used to identify facilities storing/
using PCB compounds included: HWDMS, FINDS and Region files (including
the A-106 database). Facilities are rated according to Table 1. Pesticide use
information was derived from a report recently completed for EPA Region X
titled Pesticides of Concern in the Puget Sound Basin. A Review of
Contemporary Pesticide Usage. This report lists pounds of pesticide active
ingredients that are applied each year by Department of Defense facilities
located in Puget Sound counties. Facilities are rated according to pesticide
usag'e ranging from less than 250 pounds per year (scored as 1 point) to
greater than 5,000 pounds per year (scored as 5 points) [Table 1]. Category
ratings for each facility are presented in Table 2.
AIR EMISSIONS fCAAl
This category rates facilities according to: (1) the number of criteria air
pollutants (particulates, nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, and
volatile organic carbons) emitted through point sources; (2) emissions of
hazardous pollutants; and (3) emission of pollutants into nonattainment areas,
as shown in Table 1. The 100-tons-per-year rate for criteria air pollutants is
used in the rating because that is the emission rate normally used to
differentiate between major and minor point air emission sources. Facilities
with point air emission sources, which do not have the potential to emit any
criteria pollutants at greater than or equal to 100 tons per year, were given a
ranking of 1 for that subcategory. Additional ranking points are assigned
facilities which discharge hazardous air pollutants and/or emit nonattainment
-------
pollutants into nonattainment air quality control regions for that pollutant. No
attempt is made to incorporate fugitive emissions into the rating system.
Information on emission rates was obtained from the Compliance Data
System (CDS), an EPA computer database containing information on permitted
point air emission sources and Region files. Facilities are rated quantitatively
according to Table 1. Results for each facility are presented in Table 2.
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA1
This category rates a facility's potential impact according to: (1) whether
it handles its own drinking water supplies, and (2) the size of the population
served by the facility. Information is obtained from the Federal Reporting Data
System (FRDS), Public Water Source data. Table 1 identifies how the rating
points are assigned.
STORMWATER/NQNPQINT RUNOFF (CWA. WPCA1
The three subcategories used to rate facility activity in this category are:
(1) area of impervious surfaces located on the facility, (2) number of sources of
potential contamination, and (3) the presence and effectiveness of stormwater
collection/treatment systems at the facility. Sources of potential contamination
that were used to establish the relative rating of each facility include hazardous
material storage, munitions handling/storage/repair, aircraft maintenance/
operations, ship repair/building, vehicle maintenance, and residential/
agricultural uses.
Information regarding stormwater/nonpoint runoff was derived from the
collective knowledge of federal and state personnel familiar with facility
operations, including personnel responsible for writing NPDES permits.
Rating points were assigned to each facility for activity in each of the
three subcategories using Table 1. Area of impervious surfaces was rated
according to a scale ranging from 0 to 10 acres (0 points) to greater than 250
acres (5 points). A facility's potential for contamination was rated according to
the number of sources of contamination present (5 points were awarded to
-------
10
facilities with greater than four potential sources of storm water contamination).
If a facility has no means of collecting or treating stormwater, it was given an
additional 5 points. Facilities with partial means of collecting and/or treating
stormwater/nonpoint runoff were rated by percentage collected and/or treated
[Table 1].
NATURAL RESQURCES/WETLANDS/SHELLFISH (SEPA. SMA1
The two subcategories used to rate facility activity in this category are:
(1) extent facility has inventoried natural resources, and (2) the existence of a
prote'ction program for existing natural resources. Information on natural
resources, including the presence of wetlands and shellfish beds, was derived
from the collective knowledge of federal and state personnel familiar with the
environmental resources present at each facility.
Facilities were rated according to Table 1. A facility was given a rating of
0 if no natural habitat exists there. Where natural habitat does exist at a facility,
it was assumed that the absence of a habitat inventory or protection program
represents a risk to that natural resource and the facility was given more points.
The more acres of non-inventoried habitat present at the facility the higher the
rating.
PERMIT COMPLIANCE
This category rates facilities according to their degree of noncompliance
with environmental statutes and regulations. Facilities which received any
notice of violation (NOV) issued over the last 5 years were assigned a score of 3
rating points. Facilities which received more than one NOV over the last 5 years
were assigned a score of 4 rating points. Facilities which failed to comply with
an Administrative Order received a score of 5 rating points. Facilities received
rating points for each media in which they were in noncompliance [Table 1].
Information regarding permit compliance was obtained from Compliance
Monitoring and Enforcement Log Data found in HWOMS database's Evaluation,
Violation, and Enforcement Report, PCS database's Significant Noncompliance
-------
11
Report, CDS database's Significant Violators Report, and the Region X
Enforcement and Compliance Inventory.
SPILLS fCWAl
This category rates facilities according to how frequent spills ot oil and
hazardous materials have been, how the facility is prepared to respond to spills,
and what best management practices (BMPs) are being implemented to prevent
spills from occurring at the facility (including the use of an updated SPCC plan).
Information for this category was obtained from federal and state personnel who
are familiar with the spill prevention and response programs at each of the
facilities. A rating of 0 was given where there were no reported spills, the facility
has the demonstrated ability to respond to a spill, and good BMPs are in place.
Because of'the potentially serious environmental problems that can result from
spills, rating points were doubled for this category. A rating of 6 was given if
spills had been reported and the facility response and BMPs were judged to be
fair. A rating of 10 was given if there had been several reported or suspected
spills at the facility, there has been no response capability demonstrated, and
the facility has no BMPs in place to deal with spills.
-------
12
RESULTS
, The selected federal facilities are listed in decreasing order of their
overall potential for environmental problems, as identified by the Multi-Media
Priority Ranking Model [Table 2]. The rankings are not only useful in identifying
the facilities with the highest potential for environmental problems, but also
show1 those activities which need to be emphasized during inspections, and for
implementation of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
As previously stated, the facility rating was not designed to be compared
to a fjxed number to indicate whether an installation is environmentally "good"
or "bad." Rather, the rating indicates whether there is potential, when compared
with other installations, for major environmental problems. A high total rating
indicates that, based'on the type and level of onsite activities, a facility has a
high probability of having environmental problems. It also indicates a more
detailed evaluation of the facility may be warranted.
, This ranking only provides an initial evaluation of the selected facility,
based on available information, and should be supplemented by a more
detailed analysis of Region files which includes a review of compliance status
prior to any onsite investigations.
-------
Table 2
PUGET SOUND FEDERAL FACILITIES POLLUTION POTENTIAL RANKINGS
WHIDBEY
CRITERIA NAVAL AIR
TOTAL RATING.
Hazardous Waste Management
Quantity Generated
Storage Capacity
Treatment Capacity
Disposal Capacity
Site Contamination
Seriousness
Soil/Water Contamination
Sediment Contamination
Drinking Water Supplies
Bulk Storage
Wastewater Discharges
Flow Rate
SIC Toxicity Group
Industrial Pretreatment
Suspected Toxic Discharge
Toxic Substances
PCS use
Pesticide Use
Air Emissions
Pollutants Discharged
Nonattainment Discharge
Hazardous Discharge
ISLAND
STATION
88
6
2
2
1
0
17
5
5
3
2
2
13
3
3
5
2
9
4
5
4
4
0
0
PUGET SOUND
NAVAL SHIPYARD
84
8
2
2
3
0
16
4
5
5
0
2
13
5
3
2
3
5
4
1
6
2
0
4
FORT
LEWIS
81
10
2
2
3
2
15
5
5
1
2
2
10
5
3
2
0
9
4
5
4
4
0
0
-------
Table 2 (cont.)
WH:
CRITERIA NAVAL
On-base Water Supplies
Ston&vater/Nonpoint Runoff
Impervious Surface Area
Potential Contamination
i
Col lection /Treatment
Natural Resources/
Wetlands/Shellfish
Extent Inventoried
Protection Program
Spills
Environmental Statutes/
Regulations Compliance
RCRA/CERLA
CWA
TSCA
CAA
TOTAL RATING
i
[OBEY ISLAND
AIR STATION
0
14
5
5
4
8
4
4
8
9
3
3
3
0
88
PUGET SOUND
NAVAL SHIPYARD
0
13
5
3
5
6
3
3
6
11
4
3
4
0
84
FORT
LEWIS
2
12
5
5
2
7
4
3
4
8
3
5
0
0
81
-------
Table 2 (cont.)
PUGET SOUND FEDERAL FACILITIES POLLUTION POTENTIAL RANKINGS
CRITERIA
TOTAL RATING
Hazardous Waste Management
Quantity Generated
Storage Capacity
Treatment Capacity
Disposal Capacity
Site Contamination
Seriousness
Soil/Water Contamination
Sediment Contamination
Drinking Water Supplies
Bulk Storage
Hastewater Discharges
Flow Rate
SIC Toxicity Group
Industrial Pretreatment
Suspected Toxic Discharge
Toxic Substances
PCB Use
Pesticide Use
Air Emissions
Pollutants Discharged
Nonattainment Discharge
Hazardous Discharge
MCCHORO
AFB
77
6
3
2
0
0
14
5
5
0
2
2
11
3
3
2
3
8
4
4
8
4
4
0
BANGOR NAVAL
SUBMARINE BASE
75
10
4
3
2
0
18
5
5
4
2
2
7
3
3
1
0
6
4
2
4
4
0
0
NUWES
KEYPORT
73
9
4
2
2
0
19
5
5
5
2
2
10
2
3
2
3
5
4
1
4
4
0
0
-------
Table 2 (cont.)
CRITERIA
Onfbase Water Supplies
Stormwater/Nonpoint Runoff
Impervious Surface Area
Potential Contamination
Collection/Treatment
i
Natural Resources/
Wetlands/Shellfish
Extent Inventoried
Protection Program
Spills
Environmental Statutes/
Regulations Compliance
RCRA/CERLA
CWA
TSCA
CAA
TOTAL RATING
MCCHORD
AFB
2
13
5
5
3
5
3
2
4
6
3
3
0
0
77
BANGOR NAVAL
SUBMARINE BASE
2
13
5
5
3
0
0
0
6
9
3
0
3
3
75
NUWES
i KEYPORT
1
11
3
3
5
3
0
3
7
4
4
0
0
0
73
-------
Table 2 (cont.)
PUGET SOUND FEDERAL FACILITIES POLLUTION POTENTIAL RANKINGS
MANCHESTER
CRITERIA SUPPLY
TOTAL RATING
Hazardous Waste Management
Quantity Generated
Storage Capacity
Treatment Capacity
Disposal Capacity
Site Contamination
Seriousness
Soil/Water Contamination
Sediment Contamination
Drinking Water Supplies
Bulk Storage
Hastewater Discharges
Flow Rate
SIC Toxicity Group
Industrial Pretreatment
Suspected Toxic Discharge
Toxic Substances
PCB Use
Pesticide Use
Air Emissions
Pollutants Discharged
Nonattainment Discharge
Hazardous Discharge
NAVAL
CENTER
52
5
3
1
0
0
16
3
5
4
2
2
10
3
3
1
3
5
4
1
0
0
0
0
MUKILTEO DEFENSE
FUEL SUPPLY POINT
51
3
2
0
0
0
14
3
5
4
0
2
8
3
3
0
2
4
4
0
2
2
0
0
NUWES
INDIAN IS
50
7
2
2
2
0
15
3
5
5
0
2
6
2
3
1
0
4
4
0
1
1
0
0
-------
13
Table 2 (cont.)
MANCHESTER NAVAL MUKILTEO DEFENSE
CRITERIA SUPPLY CENTER FUEL SUPPLY POINT
OnHbase water Supplies
Stormwater/Nonpoint Runoff
Impervious Surface Area
Potential Contamination
Collection/Treatment
Natural Resources/
Wetlands/Shellfish
Extent Inventoried
Protection Program
Spills
Environmental Statutes/
Regulations Compliance
RCRA/CERLA
CWA
TSCA
CAA
TOTAL RATING
1
3
1
2
0
4
2
2
1
7
4
3
0
0
52
0
4
0
1
3
7
2
5
5
4
1
3
0
0
51
NUWES
INDIAN IS
0
5
1
3
1
2
0
2
3
7
4
3
0
0
50
------- |