EPA -330/1-88-002
MULTI-MEDIA PRIORITY RANKING
OF SELECTED FEDERAL FACILITIES
REGION I
February 1988
— —— I .
_I L i !:—i]
- . LI
L ’L
II; __,i
jL :
J•. =”
- _•
1 -j,—- Fi
- -
- -. i __7 1
IiI—-J
‘ I
I —
•1

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING
EPA -330/1-88-002
MULTI-MEDIA PRIORITY RANKING
OF SELECTED FEDERAL FACILITIES
REGION I
February 1988
Joel K. Mattern
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
Denver, Colorado

-------
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
METHODS 3
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT (RCRA) 3
SITE CONTAMINATION (CERCLA) 6
WASTE WATER DISCHARGES (CWA) 7
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL (PCB) STORAGE
AND USE (TSCA) 8
AIR EMISSIONS (CM) 8
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA) 9
RESULTS 10
TABLES
1 Facility Rating Criteria 5
2 Facility Ratings (by ranking) 11
3 Facility Ratings (by State) 14

-------
INTRODUCTION
In order to more effectively allocate EPA investigation resources, a multi-
media priorily ranking model was developed by NEIC in 1984 (updated July
1987) to evaluate selected Federal facilities according to their relative potential
for having environmental problems. 1 The objective was to use readily available
information in a rapid and objective manner to identify “high priority” facilities for
further detailed evaluation by EPA. The ranking model was not designed to
compare a facility rating with any fixed number to indicate whether a facility is
environmentally “good” or “bad”. Rather, the rating is a preliminary indication of
a facility’s potential, relative to other installations, for having major
environmental problems. A high rating indicates that a facility has a relatively
high potential for environmental problems, and that further evaluation, if not
already completed, is warranted.
Rating criteria were developed and used to rank facilities according to
the type and magnitude of facility activities which actually or could potentially
result in environmental contamination. In general, these activities include past
and present hazardous waste 2 generation and management, handling and
storage of hazardous and toxic materials, wastewater discharges and air
emissions. For purposes of this ranking system and in keeping with EPA
Region I and Headquarters priorities, emphasis was put on potential
environmental problems from hazardous waste management activity.
To ensure timely and consistent ratings for each installation, the
information used to rank the facilities was that which was easily accessible and
available for all or most of the installations. The major source of information
used to rank the facilities came from various EPA computer databases. This
information was supplemented, as necessary, with Region I file data. More
specific information, such as detailed site inspection reports, was not used
because such information is available for only a few facilities. Facility
1 Environmental problems, as generally used here, are directly related to the release of
contaminants to the environment.
2 As defined in 40 CFR 261

-------
2
compliance data was not incorporated into the ranking system because Of the
dynamic nature of such information. 1
Specific facility information and recent compliance data would be used as part of the
detailed followup evaluation of a facility, if warranted.

-------
3
METHODS
The list of facilities to be prioritized was chosen by Region I from an initial
listing of Region I Federal facilities generated from EPA’s computerized
Facilities Index System (FINDS). The FINDS list contained all (more than 100)
Federal installations with: (1) known or suspected hazardous waste disposal
sites (active and inactive), (2) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
permit application or permits on file with EPA, (3) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits and/or (4) air emission point sources. Of
these, 36 were selected by Region I for prioritization by NEIC.
Selecied facilities were ranked based on the type and relative level of
activity in the following six categories:
• Hazardous waste management
• Site contamination (known and potential)
• Wastewater discharges
• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) storage and use
• Air emissions
• Drinking water supplies
These six categories generally reflect pertinent activities regulated by
one or more of six 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),
respectively. The six rating categories and an explanation of the information
used to rank facilities in each category follow.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT ( RCRA
This category ranks facilities according to the potential for environmental
contaminatioi through generation and handling of hazardous waste. For rating
purposes, the category was divided into four activity subcategories: (1) Annual
quantity of hazardous waste generated, (2) waste storage design capacity,
(3) waste treatment design capacity and (4) waste disposal design capacity.

-------
4
These general subcategories were used because of the type of information
readily available and the wide range of possible activities and levels of activities
related to hazardous waste management.
The major source of information used for this category was the EPA
Hazardous Waste Data Management System (HWDMS), a computer database
which includes information submitted to EPA by hazardous waste
generation/handling facilities in RCRA Part A and/or Part B permit applications.
The data includes type and quantity of hazardous wastes generated, types of
hazardous waste handling activity and design capacity of waste processes.
Information was obtained from EPA Region I RCRA files when the computer
database was incomplete (all information was not available for all hazardous
waste facilities).
As shown in Table 1, the minimum rating for any facility generating
hazardous waste is 3. This accounts for activities involving actual generation
and any short term or small quantity handling of waste. Generating facilities
with RCRA storage, treatment or disposal activities were rated according to the
relative level of activity in each subcategory as shown in Table 1. An additional
rating point was assigned to all these facilities to account for potential problems
involved in the actual waste generating process(es). Also, facilities which treat,
store or dispose of hazardous waste in a surface impoundment were assigned
an additional subcategory rating point due to enhanced contamination potential
attributed to the use of impoundments. Subcategory ratings and any additional
rating points were added together to obtain the overall rating for each facility for
“Hazardous Waste Management” as presented in Tables 2 ( overall facility
ranking) and 3 (facility ranking within each state). 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
would, following Table 1, receive 2 rating points for quantity of waste generated,
2 points for storage, 2 points for treatment and 1 point for being a waste
generator (see footnote 1 on Table 1) for a total rating of 7 points for hazardous
waste management. This ranking is an indication of the facility’s relative
potential to contaminate the environment and cause environmental problems
through hazardous waste management.

-------
Table 1
FACILITY RATING CRITERLA
Waste Manariement 1 Site Contarninabon
Quantity Storage Treatment Disix,sal Capacity Soil/Water Bulk Storage
Generated Capacity Capacity Landfill Land Application
of Hazardous
Rating (m tons/Year) (gai) (gal Jday) (acres-ft) (acres) Seriousness nation Matenai
0 0 0 0 0 0 No 2 No 2
No 2
I <12 <10,000 <1,000 - -
- -
2 12-50 10,000- 1,000- - - Low
Potential Known
100.000 50,000
or
3 50-500 >100,000 >50,000 <5 <10 Medium
or - -
unknown
4 500-50,000 - -  5 a 1 0
- -
5 >50,000 - - - - NPL 4 Known 5 -
Toxic Water
Wastewater Dischar9es 6 Substances i 6 aErn ssior is Supplies
Flow SIC 7 Number of Criteria
Discharge to Suspected Hazardous No of
Rate Toxicity Toxic PCB Pollutants 8 Discharged Nonattainment Air Pollutant 9
Persons
Rating (mgd) Group Discharge Use at 100 Tons Per Year Areas Discharges Supplied
0 No 2 <3 No 2 No 2 No 2 No 2
No 2 No 2
1 - - - - 010
- - <1000
2 <5 - Suspected 3 Suspected 3 1
- a l 0 0 0
3 .5-1.5 3 Known - 2 ill -
4 1.5-2.5 - - Known >2 212
Yes -
5 >25 - - - - >2 - -
1.
The minimum rating for any facility generating hazaidous waste, regardless of any storage, treatment ar disposal activities is 3 Facilities with
RCRA storage, treatment and/or disposal activities ate assigned subcategory ratings, as indicated in the table An additional point is added to
all these facilities if they are also generators (see text). Facilities which treat, stare ar dispose of hazardous waste in a surface impoundment
are assigned an additional point (see text)
2. = No known or suspected activity in this activity category or subcategory.
3. Suspected means that information suggests nonspecific actiwty in the subcategory
4. NPL means the facility is bstedor has been pa-oposad for listing on the National Pnor,ties List
5. Facilities with known or potential contamination of drinking water supplies are assigned two additional rating points (total of?)
6 lndudes known discharges to municipal wastewater treatment plants
7 SIC Hazard Potential (a number from I (lowest) to 5(highest)J is an indication of potentially harmful health effects related to a specific Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) code (see text)
8. As defined ui 40 CFR 50
9. Hazardous air pollutant (40 CFR 61) emission sources with or without other air sources
10 Facility has point source emissions but does not have the potential to discharge at  100 tons per year per pollutant
11 Facility discharges one nonatta,nment pollutant in nonattainment area (or that pollutant
12 Facility discharges two nonattainment pollutants in nonattainment area (or those pollutants
U i

-------
6
SITE CONTAMINATION (CERCLA
This category ranks facilities according to the actual, Suspected or
potential for site contamination from either past operations or the present
handling of bulk quantities of hazardous materials (fuel oil, gasoline, etc). The
category is divided into three activity subcategories: (1) seriousness of site
contamination problems, (2) contamination of soil and water, and (3) handling
of bulk quantities of hazardous materials.
Information was obtained from the following EPA computer data bases:
FINDS, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS), Compliance Data System (CDS) and the
Federal Facility Compliance Docket. EPA Region I file information was used to
supplement these data. FINDS lists all known or suspected facility sites which
were contaminated as a result of past activities. CERCLIS tracks these sites
and identifies those which are proposed or listed on the National Priority List
(NPL). Regional files contain reports of the results of any EPA/State or
Department of Defense site investigations (such as preliminary assessments)
for the suspected CERCLA sites. Preliminary assessment reports and other
documents rate the “seriousness” of site problems as being low, medium or
high and indicate the type of site contamination (soil, water), if known. CDS lists
installations with storage facilities for bulk hazardous materials (fuel oil,
gasoline) through its inventory of volatile organic air emissions.
Rating points were assigned to each facility for activity in each of the
three subcategories using Table 1. Facilities with known contamination of
drinking water supplies were assigned two additional rating points. The sum of
these ratings is the facility’s overall rating for “Site Contamination” and is
presented in Tables 2 and 3. An overall rating of 2 indicates that there is no
known or suspected site contamination, but there is the potential for
contamination due to onsite bulk storage of hazardous materials.
The files did not contain the results of preliminary assessments or other
site evaluations for all facilities with known or suspected 1 site contamination.
1 Known or suspected as a result of being included in the FINDS computer data base.

-------
7
Subcategory ratings of 3 for “seriousness” and 2 for “soil/water contamination”
were assigned to such facilities with limited or no specific site information to
account for the unknown potential for problems in these subcategories
[ Table 1].
WASTE WATER DISCHARGES (CWA
This category rates facilities according to the actual or potential impacts
of wastewater discharges into receiving waters. The three subcategories used
to rate facility activity in this category were: (1) average daily flow rate; (2) the
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)’ code for the facility’s waste generatrng
activities and general wastewater type (industrial, sanitary or both) and (3) sus-
pected discharge of toxic wastewater.
Information on the type and flow rate of wastewater discharges was
obtained from the Permit Compliance System (PCS) and EPA Region I NPDES
files. SIC codes and toxic discharge information for each facility were taken
from the EPA computer systems and Region I files. SIC codes were 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’, was used to assign Toxicity Group Numbers to the wastewater
discharge facilities ranked here.
In cases where SIC codes were not readily available for installations
rated, EPA Region I file information regarding facility operations and waste
generation was used to determine an appropriate Toxicity Group Number.
Toxicity Group Numbers were used to help characterize wastewater discharge
in lieu of specific information regarding wastewater characteristics. Also,
facilities known or suspected of discharging toxic wastewater were assigned
additional rating points. Flow rates, general wastewater type, Toxicity Group
The SIC code is a number which describes an industry by the type of activity in which ft is
engaged.

-------
8
Number and suspected discharge of toxic wastewater were used with Table 1 to
assign ratings to each facility in each subcategory. Subcategory ratings were
totaled to obtain the wastewater discharge ratings presented for each facility in
Tables 2 and 3.
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL (PCB) STORAGE AND USE (TSCA )
This category rates facilities according to information regarding use of
PCBs. Information to identify facilities storing/using these compounds was
obtained through all possible sources including the Department of Defense
A-lOS tracking system (which tracks environmental actions at military
installations), HWDMS, FINDS and Region I files. Facilities were rated
according to Table 1. Department of Defense facilities with no specific
information regarding PCBs were assigned a rating point of 2 for this category.
This is because general information indicates that most military installations
handle PCBs and therefore, PCB use is “suspected”. Category ratings for each
faciIit are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
AIR EMISSIONS (CAA
This category rates facilities according to: (1) the number of criteria air
pollutants (particulates, nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide and
volatile organic carbon) emitted through point sources; (2) emissions of
hazardous pollutants and (3) emission of pollutants into areas of nonattainment,
as shown in Table 1. The 100-tons-per-year rate for criteria air pollutants was
used in the rating because that is the emission rate normally used to
differentiate between major and minor point air emission sources. Facilities
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 were assigned facilities which emit noriattainment
pollutants into nonattainment air quality control regions and/or discharge
hazardous air pollutants. No attempt was 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

-------
9
point air emission sources and EPA Region I files. Facilities were rated
quantitatively according to Table 1. Results for each facility are presented in
Tables 2 and 3.
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT ( SDWA )
This category rates a facility’s potential impact according to; (1) whether it
handles its own drinking water supplies or is situated over a public drinking
water supply and (2) the size of the population served by the facility.
Information was obtained from the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS),
Public Water Source data. Table 1 identifies how the rating points were
assigned.

-------
10
RESULTS
Table 2 shows the selected Federal facilities and their assigned ratings
ranked in decreasing order of overall potential for environmental problems.
Table 3 presents these same facilities segregated by State and ranked in
decreasing order of potential environmental problems. These tables are not
only useful in identifying facilities with relatively high potential for environmental
problems, but they also show which activity(ies) should be considered in
developing a strategy for followup site inspections.
As previously stated, the facility rating was not designed to be compared
to a fixed number to indicate whether an installation is environmentally “good”
or “bad”. Rather, the rating indicates the potential of a particular facility to have
environmental problems based on the potential for environmental
contamination relative to other installations. A relatively 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 that a more
detailed evaiuation of the facility is warranted.
This prioritization system is an initial evaluation of selected facilities.
Further evaluations should be conducted prior to any onsite investigations.
Such evaluations should begin with a detailed analysis of EPA Region I files
and include a review of facility compliance status.

-------
Table 2 11
FACILITY RATING (by ranking)
EPA FACILITY F ZARDOUS SITE POINT DRIMUP4G POINT
ID ADD SS WASTE CCNT I WASTEWATER toxic WATER IR TOT .
I C. CITY GE NT IWATIOPI DISD RSES SUBST CES SUPPI.Y EMISS t I 16
7170022O19 LISPI PORTSMOUTH NAV . SHIPYARD 9 12 8 4 0 7 40
Seavey Island
Kittery, NE
NE9570024522 US LOPING AIR FORCE BASE 9 12 8 4 2 3 38
42 cSGIcC
Liaestone, M L
1447570024847 tJS PEASE AIR FORCE BASE 10 13 8 4 1 2 38
509 Squadron
Portseouth, P 1
CT4170022020 US NAW NAVAL SUBNARI?€ BASE 6 11 6 4 0 9 36
Route 2 Crystal Lake Rd
Groton, CT
NA8570024424 USAF NSCCN AIR FORCE BASE 3 13 6 4 2 8 36
Hanscom AFB
Bedford, NA
NA0570024026 US AIR FORCE I STO R AFB 5 11 6 4 2 5 33
439 CSG/DE
O,icooee, NA
NA25700244$7 USAF OTIS AIR FORCE BASE 3 13 6 4 2 4 32
102 Civil Engineers Bldg 971
Otis AFB, NA
NA0213820939 US ARMY M&M RESERVE CENTER 4 11 5 4 0 7 31
Arsenal Street
Watertown, NA
RI 170024243 USN NAV . EDUCATION & ThG CIR 5 11 8 4 0 3 31
P 12170024036 Public Works Departrient
Newoort, RI
NA7210025154 US ARMY FORT DEVEI6 7 10 5 4 2 2 30
Bldg 1650 — Ft. Devens
Ayer, NA
E8170022018 USPI BRWISWICM P 7 12 5 4 0 2 30
Building 8
&unswick, NG
NA2 170024259 LSN 80 51DM W1 & SHIPYARD 3 10 6 4 0 6 29
Boston Naval upyard
D arIeston, NA

-------
Table 2 (cont.) 12
EPA FACILITY ZARDCUS SITE POINT DRfl IN6 POINT
ID ADDRESS WASTE CCNTAN— WASTEWATER TOXIC ATER AIR 1O PL
PU. CITY GE NT IP TION DISCHARGES SUBST 4CES SUPPLY EMISS KiN6
MA1210020631 US ARMY NATICK R&D CENTER 3 10 8 4 0 2 27
Kansas Street
Natick, MA
MA5570024617 USAF PL T 28/GENERAL LECTRI 7 10 5 4 0 0 26
T repont Street
Everett, MA
I6170022O36 US WAVY ALLEN RBOR - CBC CNT 5 11 3 4 0 o 23
off Sanaford Road
Davisville, I
CT2170022188 us NAVAl. UNDERWATER SYS CENTER 3 7 6 4 0 2 22
New Lonoon Laboratory
w LonGon, CT
CT6890113792 DOE K LLS ATOMIC POWER JlB 6 5 6 4 0 0 21
Prospect Hill Road
windsor, CT
CT0690307871 US COAST GUARD ACADEMY 3 2 3 2 0 9 19
Monegan Av
w London, CT
MA1360010242 US VA HOSPITAl. - POSERS EN M 0 12 0 1 2 17
200 Scrings Road
Bedford, MA
MA2170022022 NAVAL AIR STATION — S IIEYNOUTH 3 7 2 0 2 17
NAS PWD Coce 72.3
S P.eysloutn,
PE397152s324 uSDEFENSEFLELSUPPLY POINT 3 10 0 4 0 17
Truncy Road
Searsoort,
621009OOO1 US ARMY BE)ERPã. ECTRIC CD 4 0 4 0 0 16
V13210022718 Ethan Allen Firing Range
Jerico, VT
4l70O24539 US NAVY NAVAL SECURITY GROUP 3 2 4 1 0 15
NSGA
Winter Harbor, E
VT6572824294 BU ..IN6TOM AIR NATIO .. GUARD 3 10 0 2 0 0 15
Burlington lAP
Burlington, VT

-------
Table 2 (cont.) 13
EPA F CILITV I ZARDOUS SITE POINT DRINKING POINT
ID ADD SS WASTE CONTAM— lSTEWATER TOXIC SATER IR T0T L
C. CITY MA GO€NT INATION DISCHARGES SUBST 4CES SUPPI.Y E SS
CT26903 19643 US COAST GUARD PORT NEW LONDON 3 7 0 2 2 0
USCS Port
New LondOn, CT
P 269O307879 IJSCG 9JPPORT CENTER - BOSTON 3 3 2 0 0
427 Co. ierci i1 Street
Boston 1 NA
NA5360010388 US VA 4OSPITflL - NORTh PTON 3 2 0 0 0 5 10
North Main St.reet
Nortnaepton, NA
E5170024355 US VAL CC 9LThIC TIONS ii4IT 3 2 0 2 10
Cu 1er, €
E969O307880 USCI3 BASE - SOUTH °ORT D 3 2 2 0 0 10
kign Street
South Port land, ME
ME%90307%3 UScO STATION - ROCK I. 4D 3 2 2 0 0 9
Matinicus Island
Rockland, P€
C690307970 USCO BASE - EOUTh ST r RBOR 3 2 2 2 0 0 9
US Coast Guard Base
Southwest P arDor ,
? i0360010300 VA ADMIN D CTR - 4 HESTER 3 0 0 4 0 2 9
718 Siytn Road
‘lanciester, NH
057826873 uS ANG BRADLEY BASE 3 0 0
Braoiey 46 Base
East Grandby, CT
NA6570025902 US AIR FORCE - BARP€S NAP 3 2 0 2 0 0 7
Barnes Municipal Airoort
Westfield, NA
R 13690307910 USES BRISTOL T TEAM 3 0 0 0 0 5
USCs
Bristol, RI
R14360007310 VA ADMIN CTR — PROVID ICE 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
Chalkstone A’ e
Providence, RI

-------
Table 3 14
FACILITY RATING (by State)
EPA FACILITY 1ARDOUS SITE POINT DRDa I 6 pQJ j
ID ADDRESS i4 1STE CONT — WASTEhATER TOXIC WATER AIR TOTPL
c iv 6E NT INATION DISCHARGES SUBST CES SUPPLY E?IISS RAP UNG
CON CT ICUT
CT4170022020 US P W HAVAL SUB RD€ BASE 6 ii 6 4 0 9
Route 12 Crystal Lake Rd
Groton, CT
C12170022188 US NAVAL lR0 WATER SYS CENTER 3 7 6 4 0 2 22
New London Laboratory
New London 1 CT
CT68901 13792 DOE KNOLLS ATOMIC POIER LAB 6 5 6 4 0 0 21
Prosoect Hill Road
Wir sor, CT
CT0690307871 US COAST GUARD ACADEMY 3 2 3 2 0 9 19
Mohean Ave
New London 1 CT
CT2690319643 US COAST GUARD PORT t€W LONDON 3 7 0 2 0 14
USCG Port
New London, CT
CT0572826873 US 6 BRADLEY BASE 3 2 0 2 0 0 7
Bradley i 6 Base
East Grandby, CT
NASS AC iJSEUS
8570024424 USAF HAt4SCOII I R ORCE BASE 3 13 6 4 2 8 36
riansconi B
Bed orO,
0570024O26 US AIR FORCE STDVER B 5 11 6 4 2 5 33
439 3/DE
Oiicooee,
2570024487 US OTIS AL FORCE BASE 3 13 6 4 2 4
102 Civil En ineers Bldg 971
Otis B ,
O213820939 US ARMY M&M RESERVE CENTER 4 11 5 4 0 7 31
Arsenal Strt t
Watertown,

-------
Table 3 (cont.) 15
EPA FACILITY Z A RDOUS SITE POINT DRINKING POINT
ID ADDRESS WASTE CONTAM— WASTEWATER TOXIC WATER AIR TOT
p1]. CITY MP1 6O€NT INATION DISCNARSES SUBSTANCES SUP° .y EMISS RPNI’JNG
NASSAC USETTS (contxnued)
NA7210025154 US ARMY FORT DEVENS 7 10 5 4 2 2 30
Bldg 1650 - Ft. Deveni
Ayer, NA
NA2170024259 USN BOSTON MAWL SIIPYARD 3 10 6 4 0 6 29
Boston Naval Shipyard
Q ar1eston,
NA1210020631 US ARMY NATICK R&D CENTER 3 10 8 4 0 2 27
Kansas Street
Natick, NA
NA5570024617 US PLANT 2i1/6€P€RPL a.ECTRIC 7 10 5 4 0 0 26
62 Tre.ont Street
Everett, NA
NA1360010242 US VA HOSPIT L - RO6ERS EN M 0 12 2 0 1 2 17
200 Sorings fload
Bedford, NA
NA2170022022 NA & AIR STATION - S YMOUTH 3 7 2 0 2 17
NAS P 4D Code 72.3
S Weymoutn, P
NA2690307879 IiSCS SUPPORT CENTER — BOSTON 3 2 3 2 0 0 10
427 Comercial Street
Boston, NA
NA536u010388 US VA HOSPITAL - NORTHAMPTON 3 2 0 0 0 5 10
North Main Street
Northaeoton, NA
?P6570025902 115 AIR FORCE - BAR €S NAP 3 0 2 C 0 7
Barnes Municipal Airoort
stfie1d, NA

-------
Table 3 (cont.) 16
EPA FACILITY WAZARDCJUS SITE POINT DRI 
-------
Table 3 (cont.) 17
EPA FACILITY WAZ ARDO IJS SITE POINT DR1NKIN6 OINT
ID ADD SS WASTE CONTQ — WASTEWATER TOXIC WATER AIR TOTAL
C. CITY 4A6E1€NT IWATION DiSCHARSES SUBST CES SUP LY ISS AM1(IMG
R DE IS
R11170024243 USN WAWL EDUCATION & INS CIR 5 11 8 4 0 3 31
RI2170024036 Public works Departiient
Ewoort, RI
RI6170O 036 US WAVY ALLEN WARBOR - CBC CNT 5 11 3 4 0 0
off Sandford Road
Davisville 1 RI
R13690307910 IJSCS 8RIST IT TEAM 3 0 0 2 0 i) 5
uscs
Bristol, RI
R14360007310 VA AD IN CIR — PROVIDENCE 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
CI,alkstone A e
Providence, . I
VERJ NT
VT6210090001 US ARMY GEJ€RAI. ELECTRIC CC 4 8 0 4 0 0 16
V13210022718 Ethan Allen Firing Range
Jerico, VT
V 6572824294 BURLINGTON AIR WATIOP#. G1.% RD 3 10 0 2 0 0 15
Burlington LAP
Burlington, VT
-------