EPA-330/1 -88-004
UPDATED MULTI-MEDIA
OF SELECTED FEDERAL
REGION VIII
April 1988
PRIORITY RANKING
FACt LITIES
n_
- 1 •
FoI
I I
I: : i
• -, -J
j.)
— _j I_ J_
-J
_2J

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING
EPA-330/1 -88-004
UPDATED MULTI-MEDIA PRIORITY RANKING
OF SELECTED FEDERAL FACILITIES
REGION VIII
April 1988
Joel K. Mattern
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
Denver, Colorado

-------
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
METHODS 3
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT (RCRA) 4
SITE CONTAMINATION (CERCLA) 6
WASTE WATER DISCHARGES (CWA) 8
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL (PCB) STORAGE AND USE
(TSCA) 9
AIR EMISSIONS (CAA) 9
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA) 10
RESULTS 11
TABLES
1 Facility Rating Criteria 5
2 Facility Ratings (by ranking) 1 2
3 Facility Ratings (by State) 1 6

-------
INTRODUCTION
The National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC), in 1984, at the
request of EPA Region VIII, ranked selected Federal facilities according to their
relative potential for having environmental problems. These facilities were
ranked with a Multi-Media Priority Ranking Model, developed by NEIC using
available information from the various EPA databases and Region files. The
Region used the 1984 rankings as a management tool to help target facility
inspections. Because of changing priorities and the availability of new
information Region VIII, in January, requested that NEIC update the 1984
re P0 1 1 .
Facilities were ranked according to the type and magnitude of activities in
the various media which actually, or could potentially, result in environmental
contamination. These activities include past and present hazardous waste’”
generation and management, handling and storage of hazardous and toxic
materials, wastewater discharges and air emissions. In keeping with agency
priorities, emphasis was placed on the potential environmental problems
associated with hazardous waste management activities.
To ensure consistent ratings, only available information for all or most
installations was used to rank the facilities. The major information sources used
were the various EPA computer databases and Region file data. Because site
inspection reports were available for only a few facilities, information of this type
was not used in the ranking process. In addition, facility compliance data was
not used because of the dynamic nature of such information.t
It should be noted that the ranking model does not compare a facility
rating with any fixed number to indicate whether a facility is environmentally
“good” or “bad.” Rather, the rating provides an indication of whether that facility
Environmental problems, as generally used here, are directly related to the release of
contaminants to the environment.
EPA 330/1-84-003, ivlulti-Media Priority Ranking of Selected Federal Facilities. Region
VIII, - September 1984
As defined in 40 CFR 261
t Specific facility information and recent compliance data would be used as part of the
detailed folio wup evaluation of a facility, if warranted.

-------
2
has the potential, relative to other installations, for having major environmental
problems (i.e., the higher the rating the greater the potential for environmental
problems). Thus, a high rating indicates that a facility has a high potential for
environmental problems and further evaluation is warranted.

-------
3
METHODS
All of the Federal facilities rated in the original 1984 report were ranked
using the updated information. These facilities were originally chosen by
Region VIII from an initial listing of Federal facilities, generated from EPA’s
computerized Facilities Index System (FINDS). The FINDS list contained
approximately 175 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, the Region selected 41
for prioritization.
Selected facilities were ranked based on the type and 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
The above categories generally reflect 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.
An explanation on how facilities were ranked in each category follows.
Three facilities not rated in the initial evaluation were added by Region VIII to the updated
version because of increased awareness of activities at these facilities.

-------
4
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT ( RCRA )
This category ranks facilities according to the potential for environmental
contamination 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
These general subcategories were used because of the type of information
readily available and the wide range and levels of hazardous waste
management activities.
The major information source 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 the type and quantity of hazardous wastes generated, the
types of hazardous waste handling activity and the design capacity of waste
processes. Information was obtained from Regional RCRA files when the
computer database was 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 handling of waste. Generating facilities with RCRA
storage, treatment or disposal activities were rated according to the relative
level of activity in each subcategory. 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.

-------
Table 1
FACILITY RATING CRITERIA
Hazardous W ie M ,ar’ ement 1
Sita Contamination
Quantity Storage Treatment Disposal Caoacity
Soil/Water Bulk Storage
Contami- of Hazardous
Seriousness nation Matenal
Generated Capacity Capacity Landfill Land Application
Rating (m tons/Year) (gal.) (galiday) (acres-if) (acres)
0 0 0 0 0 0
No 2 No 2 No 2
1 <12 <10,000 <1,000 - -
- - -
2 12-50 10,000- 1,000- - -
Low Potential Known
100,000 50,000
or suspected 3
3 50-500 >100,000 >50000 <5 <10
Medium or - -
unkoown
4 500-50,000 - - .5 10
High - -
5 >50,000 - - - -
NPL 4 Known 5 -
Toxic
Wastewater Discharges 6 Substances
Flow SIC 7 Number of Criteria
Rate Toxicity Toxic PCB Pollutants 8 Discharged
Water
AirEm ions Supplies
Discharge to Suspected Hazardous No of
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 <0.5 - Suspected 3 Suspected 3 1
- - i000
3 0.5-1.5 a 3 Known - 2
iii - -
4 1.5-2 5 - - Known >2
212 Yes -
5 >25 - - - -
>2 - -
1. The minimum rating for any facility generating hazardous waste, regardless of any storage, treatment or disposal activities is 3 Facilities with
RCRA storage, treatment and/or disposal activities are assigned subcategory ratings, as indicated in the table An acklitional point is added to
all these facilities if they are also generators (see text,) Facilities which treat, stare or 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 subcalegory
3. Suspected means that information suggests nonspecific activity in the subcategory
4. NPL means the facility is listed or has been oposed for listing on the National Pnorities List
5. Facilities iqith known or potential contamination of dnnking water supplies are assigned hcv additional rating pints (total of 7)
6 Includes known discharges to municipal waste water treatment plants
7. SIC Toxicity Group (a number from I (lowest) to 5(highest)J is an indication of potentially harmful health effects related to a specific Standard
Industrial Classthcation (SIC) code (see text)
8 As defined in 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
I I Facility discharges one nonattainnient pollutant in nonattainment area for that pollutant
12 Facility discharges two nonattainnwnl pollutants vi non at td,nnluflt Jred (Or those pollutants

-------
6
Subcategory ratings and any additional rating points were combined to
provide the overall facility rating for “Hazardous Waste Management” [ Table 2
(overall facility ranking) and Table 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, using the rating criteria [ Table 1], receive 2 rating
points for waste quantity generated, 2 points for storage, 2 points for treatment
and 1 point for being a waste generator [ 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.
SITE CONTAMINATION (INCLUDING CERCLA
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 three activity subcategories: (1) Seriousness of site contamination
problems, (2) contamination of soil and water, and (3) bulk storage of
hazardous materials.
Information was obtained from the following EPA computer databases:
FINDS, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS), Compliance Data System (CDS) and the
Federal Facility Compliance Docket. Regional 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).
Regional 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). CDS lists installations with
Even though the handling of bulk quantities of hazardous materials may not be covered
under CERCL.A, it is included here because of its potential for site contamination.

-------
7
bulk storage facilities for 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 rating is the facility’s overall rating for “Site Contamination” and is
presented in Tables 2 and 3. Art 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 site contamination.
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].
Subcategory rating criteria under the Site Contamination category were
modified somewhat from the original model. Facilities with known soil/water
contamination were rated higher in this updated model than in the original,
especially if drinking water supplies are known to be or are potentially
contaminated [ Table 1]. Facilities listed or proposed for listing on the NPL were
identified and received 5 rating points under the “seriousness” subcategory in
the updated model. Also, facilities with bulk storage of hazardous material
received two rating points rather than one (in the original model), to reflect
Agency concerns regarding leaking tanks.
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
Known or suspected as a result of being included in the CERCLIS computer database.

-------
8
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)’ code for the facility’s waste generating
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 Regional NPDES
files. SIC codes and toxic discharge information for each facility were taken
from the EPA computer systems and Regional 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, Regional 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
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.
The rating for wastewater discharges in this updated model was modified
from the original one. All wastewater discharges, direct and those tied to
municipal treatment facilities, were rated in the updated model. Also, potential
problems, as a result of the quality of the discharges (i.e., toxicity), are assigned
additional weight by the addition of a “toxicity discharge” subcategory and by
The SIC code is a number which describes an industry by the type of activity in which it is
engaged.

-------
9
assigning facilities with a SIC Toxicity Group Number of 3 or greater, 3 points for
this subcategory.
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, HWDMS, FINDS and Regional
files (including the Federal Facilities Compliance Profiles). 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
facility are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
This category was changed from “PCB/Pesticide Storage and Use” in the
original model to just “PCB Storage/Use” for this updated model. This is
because more specific information on PCB use is now available. Also, facilities
with known PCB use were assessed a rating point of 4 rather than 3, as per the
original rating scheme. This was provided to address Regional concern about
PCB contamination and their experience showing problems with PCB handling
at federal facilities.
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 nonattainment
pollutants into nonattainment air quality control regions and/or discharge

-------
10
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
point air emission sources and Regional files. Facilities were rated
quantitatively according to Table 1. Results for each facility are presented in
Tables 2 and 3.
The updated model expands and refines the criteria for rating air
emissions of each facility from the original model to address heightened EPA
concerns over such emissions. Subcategories for suspected discharge of
hazardous air pollutants (as defined in 40 CFR 61) and “discharge to
nonattainment areas” were added to put more emphasis on air emissions.
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA )
This category rates a facility’s potential impact according to: (1) Whether
it handles its own dnnking water supplies 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 and the Federal Facilities
Environmental Compliance Profiles. Table 1 identifies how the rating points
were assigned. This category was added to reflect concern about potential
environmental problems associated with handling of drinking water supplies.

-------
11
RESULTS
The selected Federal facilities were ranked in decreasing order of their
overall potential for environmental problems [ Table 2]. These same facilities
were also segregated by State and ranked in decreasing order of potential
environmental problems [ Table 3]. The rankings are not only useful in
identifying the facIlities with the highest potential for environmental problems,
but also show those activities which need to be emphasized during 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 provides an indication of whether that facility has the
potential, relative to- other installations, for having 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 is
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 Regional files which includes a review of compliance status
prior to any onsite investigations.

-------
Table 2 12
FACILITY RATING BY RANKING
(1984 Ratings in Parentheses)
FACILITY I ZARDOUS SITE POINT DRI*ING POINT
ID ADO SS TE CCNT ( (— WASTEI TER TOXIC WATER AIR TOT .
CITY * GO€NT D TION DISC ) R6ES SUBST ICES SUPPLY E)(ISS TING
O521OO2O769 ROCKY MOL ITAIN ARSE) .. 15 14 5 4 0 7 45
North of Stapleton Airport (13) C 8) ( 4) (3) (0) (28)
C ci City, CO
UT0571724350 HILL AIR FORCE BASE 11 14 • 6 4 2 8
2849 PFB/tEEXX (10) ( 9) ( 4) (2) (2) (27)
Hill B, LIT
P()4571924758 MINOT AIR FORCE BASE - 12 12 * 6 4 2 9 45
Faclity 1982 (10) C 6) (1) (2) (1) (20)
Ninot, ND
CO7890010526 US DOE ROCKY FIATS PIWiT 13 14 ‘ 6 4 2 5 44
16 .iles tM of Denver (3) C 5) ( 3) (2) (1) (14)
Golden, CO
W82138207 PLEBLO DEPOT - US A ) (Y 12 12 * 7 4 2 7 44
3/4 sue tE of I4iy 50 (9) (7) (2) (2) (2)
Pueblo 1 CO
CO 10O20150 FORT CARSON 8 12* 10 4 2 6
DF , Bldq. 304, 1C (7) ( 6) C 4) (2) (1) (20)
Fort Carson, CO
UT5210090002 T0O E A Y DEPOT 11 14 • 5 4 2 3 39
UT3213820894 State lisy 36 (11) (8) C 0) (2) (2) (23)
Tooile, UT
CO1571524130 LOWRY AIR FORCE 9 9 4 7 4 0 6 35
6th and 9uebec C 3) ( 6) ( 0) (2) (1) (12)
Denver,
1 924644 ELLSICRN AIR FO X BASE 7 12 * 6 4 2 4 35
44 C9Q/SAC C 6) C 6) ( 4) (2) (1) (19)
Rapid City, SO
UT0570090001 UT 4 TEST & TRAININS RAIif 14 10 . 2 4 2 0 32
7 sues SE of Wendover (13) C 5) (0) (2) (0) (20)
Wendover, UT
UT4570026233 AIR FORCE PL.R IT 78 4 10 4 6 4 2 6 32
30 sues ) on Pt. 83 (KR) (KR) (KR) (KR) (KR) (NA)
i m City, UT

-------
Table 2 (cant.) 13
EP FACILITY I’ ZR QJS SITE POINT DRII(ING POINT
ID )O 5S WASTE CCNT - WASTENATER TOXIC WATER AIR TQT
CiTY I# 6E ff IWATION DI SC )’ R8E5 9J8ST 4CES 9JPPLY EMISS RAT 1N6
MT8571924 6 JSTRO AIR FORCE BASE 4 10 5 4 0 8
Facility 1501 PeriL C 3) C 6) C 0) (2) (2) (13)
Great Falls, NT
UT375 21 1259 DIJ Y PROVINS GROU DS 4 12 a 5 4 2 4 31
45 mug N of Tooele C 3) (1) C 0) (2) (1) (7)
Dugisay, UT
UT9210020922 OGDEN DEFENSE DEPOT — DOD DLA 3 14 I 2 4 2 6 31
1117971549855 500 West l2ttt Street - C 3) C 6) 1 0) (0) (1) ( O)
den, UT
D —572O25537 PJKS PLN T (AIR FORCE) 3 11 5 4 1 6 30
12250 South C C I FI.y 75 (NR) (KR) (KR) (KR) (KR) (KR)
Littleton, CO
WY5571 4179 WAR 4 AIR FORCE BASE 4 12 * 5 4 2 3 30
Warren B (3) (1) (1) (2) (2) 1 9)
the) enne, WY
OD9571924191 PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE 6 10 • 5 4 0 5 30
Peterson B (3) C 6) C 0) (2) (1) (12)
Colorado Springs, CO
]8572 4928 IS AIR FORCE ACADENY 3 10 a 7 4 0 6 30
10 cues N of Colorado Spring. C .3) (0) (1) (2) (2) C 8)
Colorado Spring,, CO
1C3571924759 6 FORKS AIR FORCE BASE 3 12 a 5 4 2 1 29
Grand Forks B C 4) C 6) (3) (2) (2) (17)
Grind Forks,
CC70O2 44 MJD(EY BEA E 3 12. 2 4 0 6 27
k1sy (VIB Bass C 3) (1) C 0) (2) (1) C 7)
ircra, CO
NS0971528807 6 FORKS DFSP - LEDOD DIJ 3 10 a 5 2 0 0 20
$00971528836 Grand Forks B, 42 N C 3) ( 5) C 2) (0) (0) (10)
Grand Forks, $0
CO821 1620333 FITZSI$0NS ARKY DIC . TER 3 6 a 2 4 0 5 20
1%2O333 Colfax and Peoria C 3) C 5) (1) (2) Cl) (12)
zrora, CO

-------
Table 2 (cont.) 14
EPA F IL1TY I ZARD0US SITE POINT DRI*jP POINT
ID O 39 I STE CCNT - STE1 TER TOXIC I TE PIP i•OT .
CITY WHIGEP(NT IP TI DISC ) R S 9JBST CES SUPPLY E ISS TIN6
C07572025719 NO D — CIEVEME MOLWrAIN S 3 8 2 4 0 1 I a
1 East Bijou - (NR) (NR) (NA) (NP) (P4R) INR)
CoIor o Springs, CO
P 92i0022779 MISSLE EP .Y 1N6 SIPhON 5 5 2 4 1 1 18
Det 1 57 PD/DE (3) ( 5) ( 0) (2) (0)
Concrete, P )
CO6470000500 DEM R FEDERk 4TER 3 5 0 4 0 5 17
C04690090010 6th and Kipling ( 3) (5) (0) (2) (0) UO)
Denver, CO
W2142306%6 US 8U _ALJ REQ. TION 0 5 8 4 0 0 17
Leadville Dr. Tunnel ( 0) ( 5) ( 5) (0) (0) uOl
Leadville, CO
SD2360OiO2 VA HOSPIT . - HOT SPRIP S 0 10. 0 4 1 1 16
5th St., Sec. 13—T7S—R 1 0) C 5) ( 0) (2) (1) 5)
Hot Springo, SD
5245153411 USBOR - TER I POIER S SERV 4 4 2 4 0 0 14
910 Van Bursn 1 3) 1 0) C 0) (0) (0) ( 3)
Loveland, CO
W6640090035 WA SIL R KIPE MIIER 3 9 0 0 0 0 12
US Higheay 18 (3) C 5) C 0) (0) (0) C 8)
Edge.ont, SD
UT8570 5561 UT LE JIMTAIN TEST IEX 0 1 a 0 4 0 0 ii
South 10800 West ( 0) (5) C 0) (2) (0) C 7)
Ogden, UT
CO4190000017 SOLAR E)E Y SDI IP6TITUTE 3 5 2 0 0 1 11
1617 Cole Blvd. C 3) C 5) 1 0) (0) (0) I 8)
Soldun, W
W 736O010329 VA EDI . (INTER - S1€RID l 3 4 0 2 1 1 11
Fort RD ( 0) ( 0) C 0) (2) (1) (3)
9 eridan, WY
CO9890031876 IL POINTS OIL S1 .E FAC 3 5 0 2 0 0 10
8 .iles West of Rifle (3) (1) C 0) (0) (0) ( 4)
Rifle, CO
WY3890090001 I PA - CRS R FIBJ B lD4 3 5 0 2 0 0 10
West of Mt. Viaw C 3) ( 5) ( 0) (0) (0) C 8)
Mills, WY

-------
Table 2 (cont.) 15
F ILITY I ZARDOUS SITE POINT DRIWII€ POINT
ID o ss )&STE C ()lT )— WASTEIIATER TOXIC WATER AIR TOT
cziv GEIENT IWATION DISCWAREES 9JBST CES SUPPLY E)USS TINO
CO9131 175 TIOI . 8UIE J ST (DAROS 3 0 2 4 0 0 9
325 Broadway - - ( 3) ( 0) ( 0) (2) (0 (5)
Boulder, CO
CO3490016042 WATh CTR FOR RTMOS €RIC SCH 3 0 2 4 0 0 9
1850 Table I sa Dr. C 3) ( 0) ( 0) (2) (0) C 5)
Boulder, CO
CO9890090005 WAPA - POI R OPE TIONS 4 0 0 4 0 0 8
1800 South Rio Srande C 4) ( 0) C 0) (0) (0) C 4)
Nontroee, 1O -
WY1890031874 &STEJ 4 SEPRCH INST - LMYRC 3 5 0 0 0 0 8
14Y1890031873 9th and Lewis Streets ( 3) C 5) ( 0) (0) (0) C 8)
Lar ie, WY
WAPA - BRUSH F!6.D BR CH 3 0 0 4 0 0 7
17532 )4iy 71 ( 3) ( 0) ( 0) (2) (0) C 5)
Brush, CO
CO1890090003 WAPA - K ILIN6 LIPES 3 0 0 4 0 0 7
13 •zlee South on IWy 9 C 3) C 0) C 0) (0) (0) C 3)
Kreliriq, CO
NO5120514687 TABOLISM & DIATI S LAB 3 4 0 0 0 0 7
1604 College Street C 3) (5) C 0) (0) (0) ( 8)
Farqo,I
1890090029 WAPA - WATERTOIII SUSSIAT ION 3 0 0 4 0 0 7
1 .ilv East of 1—29 ( 3) C 5) ( 0) (0) (0) C 8)
Wat tosm, SD
)614O000O21 USGS — EROS DATA ENTER 0 0 6 0 0 0 6
1000 Pucory Way C 0) (5) C 4) (0) (0) C 9)
krr,tuo,i, GS
CO0180000044 US POBffi . RVI 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
1501 Wynkoop St. ( 3) ( 0) C 0) (0) (0) (3)
Denver, CO
‘ includes 2 points for bulk storage of hazardous .aterials
Nfl — NOT I TED

-------
Table 3 16
FACILITY RATING BY STATE
(1984 Ratings in Parentheses)
FRCILITY I ZARDOIJS SITE POINT DRIM(!NB POINT
ID Pn 99 ) STE CONTAIq— STEIdATER TOXIC I TER AIR TOT ..
C. CITY ) 0€NT IP TION DISD R6ES SU ST CES SUPPLY E ISS TIN6
21OO20769 ROCJ(Y NOLNTAIN ARSEi . 15 14 5 4 0 7 45
North of Stapleton Airport (13) (8) ( 4) (3) (0) (28)
Coerce City, CO
CO789O01O5 US DOE RCO(Y FLATS PLI 4T 13 14 6 4 2 5 44
16 .iles of Denver (3) ( 5) (3) (2) (1
Solden, CO
CO 1382O7 PIE LO DEPOT — US A Y 12 12 7 4 2 7 44
3/4 male E of y 50 ( 9) 1 7) ( 2) (2) (2) (22)
Pueblo, CO
CO 10020150 FORT CARSON 8 12 10 4 2 6 42
DF , Bldg. 304, AF7C (7) 1 6) (4) (2) (1) (20)
Fort Carson, CC
CO1571524130 LOWRY AIR FORCE BASE 9 9 7 4 0 6 35
6th and Quebec 1 3) ( 6) (0) (2) (1) (:2)
l nver, CO
CO—572O2 37 PJKS PLANT (AIR FORCE) 3 11 5 4 1 6 30
12250 South CO ,y 75 (NR) (NR) (NR) (NR) (NR) (NR)
Littletom, CO
(X)9571924191 TERSON AIR FORCE BASE 6 10 5 4 0 5 30
Petmrson B ( 3) (6) (0) (2) (1) (12)
Colorado Springs 1 CO
CO8572924928 (S AIR FORCE ACADE1 Y 3 10 7 4 0 6 30
10 maIms N of Colorado Springs ( 3) (0) (1) (2) (2) (8)
Colorado Springs, CO
CO9570025644 MJDQEY E 3 12 2 4 0 6 27
Bickisy Basi (3) (1) 1 0) (2) (1) (7)
irora, CU
CU 1 1620333 FTIZSINO (B ARItY CENTER 3 6 2 4 0 5 20
C02210020333 Colfax and Peoria (3) C 5) (1) (2) (1) (12)
ircra, CO
W7572025719 PCfi — DEYBI€ U TAIN AFS 3 8 2 4 0 1 18
2 1 East Bajou ( 1 (R) (1(R) (1(R) (1(R) (NR) (NP)
Colorado Springs, CO

-------
Table 3 (cont.) 17
EP F ILITY I 1RRDOLS SITE POINT DRIPI(IIE POINT
ID ADV S I STE CONT — W STEW TER TOXIC TER AIR TOT
P C. CITY P 1 GOENT H TION DISD R6ES 9JBST CES SUPPLY EMISS T1M6
0LO DQ (cont.)
CO6470000500 OEM R FEDE ffER 3 5 0 4 0 5 17
CO46 09OO10 6th and Kipling (3) (5) (0) (2) (0) (10)
CO
CO2142306966 US BU J OF 0 5 8 4 0 0 17
Lsadville Dr. Tunnel ( 0) 1 5) (5) (0) (0) (:0)
Leadville, CO
CO 45153411 LJSSOR — TER & POPER S SERV 4 4 2 4 0 0 14
910 Van Buren (3) ( 0) (0) (0) (0) 1 3)
Loveland, CO
4890OOO017 SCLRR EJERSY RESCH INSTITUTE 3 5 2 0 0 1 11
1617 Cole Blvd. 1 3) ( 5) I 0) (0) (0) 1 8)
Soldan, CO
CO9890031876 IL POINTS OIL SI# .E FAC 3 5 0 2 0 0 10
8 ailes West of Rifle 1 3) (1) ( 0) (0) (0) ( 4)
Rifle, CO
W9131505175 I TIIPA. øJ J OF ST IDAROS 3 0 2 4 0 0 9
325 oadway 1 3) C 0) C 0) (2) (0) C 5)
Boulder, CO
Q33490016042 PTI. dR FOR AThOSPIERIC SCH 3 0 2 4 0 0 9
(850 Table M a Dr. 1 3) (0) 1 0) (2) (0) C 5)
Boulder, CO
____ — POIER OPE TI 6 4 0 0 4 0 0 8
1800 South Rio ande (4) C 0) C 0) (0) (0) C 4)
trou
889OO9O0O6 —B 9$FICJ9 D 3 0 0 4 0 0 7
17 P sy 11 C 3) C 0) ( 0) (2) (0) 1 51
CO1890090003 - K 1ILIP LIPES 3 0 0 4 0 0 7
13 uiles South on Wy 9 C 3) (0) (0) (0) (0) (3)
Kreling, CO
a 1aooooo44 L POST . RvIr1s 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
1501 IJyn)toop St. (3) 1 0) ( 0) (0) (0) (3)
CO

-------
Table 3 (cont.) 18
EPR FACILITY ZARD US SITE POINT DRIPI(IMG POINT
ID QDD SS ) STE C (J4T ) — S’TEI TER TOXIC 1ER AIR U]
HO. CITY SE)ENT D TIOI DISD RGES 9J8ST ICES SUPPLY E ISS TING
MONT
T8571924 6 JSTROM AIR FORCE BASE 4 10 5 4 0 8 31
F i1ity 1501 Pen.. ( 3) C 6) (0) (2) (2) (13)
Great Fails, NT
NORTH D (OTA
1C4571924758 NINOT AIR FORCE BASE 12 12 6 4 2 9 45
Faclity 1982 (10) C 6) ( 1) (2) 1
Ninot, ND
HO3571 4759 G FO (S AiR FORCE BASE 5 12 5 4 2 1 29
Grand Forks AFB C 4) (6) (3) (2) (2) U7)
Grand Forks, ND
HO0971528807 6 (D FO (S DFSP - USDOD DIJ ( 3 10 5 2 0 0 20
ND0971528836 Grand Forks B, 42 N C 3) (5) C 2) (0) (0) (10)
Grand Forks, MD
HO9210022779 NISSLE EARLY WARNING STATION 5 5 2 4 1 I 18
Dot 1 57 AD/DE C 3) C 5) ( 0) (2) (0) (10)
Concrete, ND
1C5120514687 TF OLISM & DIATION S LRB 3 4 0 0 0 0 7
1604 College Street C 3) (5) C 0) (0) (0) C 8)
Fargo, ND
SOUTH M(ATD
SO2571924644 ELLSIdORTH AIR FORCE BASE 7 12 6 4 2 4 35
44 CSG/SAC C 6) C 6) C 4) (2) (1) (19)
Rapid City, SO
SO236O0102 VA HOSPIT . — HOT SPRINGS 0 10 0 4 1 1 16
5th St., c. 13—T79-R C 0) C 5) ( 0) (2) (1) C 8)
bt S inge,
SO6640090035 TVA SIL R KING NIPCS 3 9 0 0 0 0 12
US Highway 18 C 3) C 5) C 0) (0) (0) C 8)
f g ort, SD
SO1890090029 WAPA — WATE2TO 14 SL STATION 3 0 0 4 0 0 7
hue East of 1—29 (3) C 5) ( 0) (0) (0) C 8)
Watert m, SD
SD6140000021 US GS - E )S DATA CENTER 0 0 6 0 0 0 6
1000 Pocory ay ( 0) C 5) C 4) (0) (0) C 9)
6arrctcor., SD

-------
Table 3 (cont.) 19
EPA FACIUTY ZPRDOUS SITE POINT DRIMUNS POINT
ID I STE CO T 1— IP STEI TER TOXIC TER AIR TOT .
(C. CITY O€WT IP TI l DISD ES SUBST CES 9JP Y ENISS TIM6
UT 4
(JTO 71724.350 HILL AIR FORCE SE 11 14 6 4 2 8 45
2849 B/DEEXX (10) (9) ( 4) (2) 2) (27)
H 11 UT
1115210090002 TO .E R Y DEPOT 11 14 5 4 2 3 39
UT3213820894 State IWy 36 (11) (8) ( 0) (2) (2) (23)
locele, UI
1110570090001 UT *I TEST 4 T INIM6 R E 14 10 2 4 2 0 32
7 iileg SE of Wendover (13) (5) ( 0) (2) (0) (20)
We idover, UT
UT4570026233 AIR FORCE PL 4T 78 - 4 10 6 4 2 6 32
30ui1es onRt.83 C ) C ) C ) () () C
‘i hae City, UT
UT 375021 1259 DI.8dAY PROVIP€ 6ROIJ S 4 12 5 4 2 4 31
45 cues W of Tooele C 3) (1) ( 0) (2) (1) C 7)
Dugway 1 UT
(1T9210020922 OGDEN DEFENSE DEPOT - DOD DIR 3 14 2 4 2 6 31
UT7971549A 500 West 12th Street (3) C 6) C 0) (0) (1) (10)
C dm’ , UI
UT 7002 61 LITTLE JCTAIN TEST lI€X 0 7 0 4 0 0 11
900 South 10 00 West C 0) (5) ( 0) (2) (0) ( 7)
UT
WY IN6
WY 71924179 WAREN AIR FORCE SE 4 12 5 4 2 3 30
Warrse B (3) (1) (1) (2) (2) (9)
WY7360010329 VA CENTER - 9€RID 3 4 0 2 1 1 11
Fort RD C 0) (0) C 0) (2) (1) C 3)
W’Y3890090001 PA - CRS R FIELD B CI 3 5 0 2 0 0 10
West of Mt. View (3) C 5) 1 0) (0) (0) C 8)
MiI Is 1 WY -
WY1890031874 I&bIuai SEARD INST - LMYRC 3 5 0 0 0 0 8
WY1890031873 9th and Lewis Streets (3) C 5) C 0) (0) (0) 1 8)
Larui, WY
(CT TED

-------