Identification and Evaluation of CERCLA 108(b) Additional Classes National Priority List (NPL) and Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA) Cleanup Case Sites Associated with the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Land and Emergency Management ------- Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Identification of Cleanup Case Universe: 5 2010 ANPRM 5 Additional NPL Sites 5 Additional SAA site 6 Analytical Steps and Methodology: 7 Screening out Legacy Issues and PRP Funded Actions 8 Detailed Review of Sites That May Have had Pollution Issues Arise in 1980 or Later, and/or Incurred Significant Taxpayer Expenditures 9 Results: 10 Appendix 1 - List of Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing NPL and SAA Sites and Associated Pollution Dates 12 Appendix 2 - List of Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing NPL and SAA Sites and Associated Action Lead Designation in SEMS 13 Appendix 3 - Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing NPL Sites for which the Most Recent Pollution Date was Estimated to be in 1980 or Later and were Designated as Mixed Lead or Government Performed Construction in SEMS 14 Appendix 4 - Detailed NPL Cleanup Case Studies for NPL sites where Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Activities Had Occurred 15 Cases with No Further Analysis Needed : 15 Cleanup Case Studies Where Modern Issues May Have Been Identified but No Significant Taxpayer Expenditures Occurred 29 2 ------- Executive Summary EPA sought to evaluate the need for CERCLA 108(b) financial responsibility regulations at classes of facilities in the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing industry. Specifically, to evaluate the need for financial responsibility regulations in the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing industry, EPA sought examples of pollution that occurred under a modern regulatory framework and that required a taxpayer-funded CERCLA cleanup. EPA prioritized identifying and analyzing Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) and Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA)1 sites as those are generally larger cleanups both in terms of amounts of contaminants removed and costs to carry out these cleanups. To identify the cleanup cases, EPA relied on the cases already identified in the 2010 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)2, supplemented with additional NPL sites identified in the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) database and SAA sites identified on EPA's website3. EPA then collected information on the timing and nature of releases or threatened releases at these sites. Specifically, EPA sought to identify, as applicable, facility operation end dates, release dates, sources of contamination, NPL proposal dates, contaminated media, the type of contaminant, the cleanup lead and information on Superfund expenditures at the site as well as other information. For this collection, EPA relied on information either previously collected as part of the 2010 ANPRM, information available in Superfund site documents (e.g. NPL listing narratives, Records of Decision, Five-Year Reviews) and information in EPA's SEMS, as of March 2018. After compiling information about the risks and history of each site, EPA sought to identify instances where releases occurred under a modern regulatory framework that resulted in Fund-financed response actions. EPA applied a sequence of screens to the identified sites. EPA first screened out any NPL sites or sites using the SAA where the contaminant release or cleanup activity occurred before 1980. The 1980 date is intended to serve as a conservative and preliminary screen after which remaining sites would be evaluated in greater detail to determine whether they were the result of legacy practices. EPA chose 1980 as the cutoff point to initially screen out legacy issues because it was the year that CERCLA was enacted, as well as the date of the initial regulations under RCRA Subtitle C governing the generation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. EPA chose to give these significant RCRA and CERCLA milestones the greatest consideration due to the large number of issues of waste management, land disposal and soil contamination identified in the review of the NPL and SAA cases. EPA believes the 1980 cutoff date is a conservative screen (i.e., retains more sites in the analysis) in that only the initial RCRA regulations were in place in 1980 and they were refined, expanded and enhanced several times over the next decades. Moreover, the Agency's enforcement authorities expanded in the 1980s as the RCRA program matured. Notably, the passage in 1984 of Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) resulted in many regulatory changes and enhanced enforcement mechanisms. 1A "Superfund Alternative (SAA) site" is one that has a SAA agreement in place. The SAA uses the same investigation and cleanup process and standards that are used for NPL sites but can potentially save time and resources associated with listing a site on the NPL. To qualify for the SAA, a site must have contamination significant enough to make it eligible for listing on the NPL (i.e., with a Hazard Ranking Score (HRS) > 28.5) and must have a capable PRP who will sign an agreement with EPA to perform the investigation or cleanup. 2 See Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) 75 Fed Reg 816. Identification of Additional Classes of Facilities for Development of Financial Responsibility Requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b). January 6, 2010. 3 See "Sites with Superfund Alternative Approach Agreements" at httpsi//www,epa,gov/enforcement/sites- superfund-alternative-approach-agreements 3 ------- More specifically, HSWA created the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program, which prohibits the land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes. HSWA also substantially expanded corrective action authorities for both permitted RCRA TSD facilities and facilities operating under interim status, requiring facilities to address the release of hazardous wastes and demonstrate financial responsibility for completing the required corrective actions, further reducing the risks that sites would have to be addressed under CERCLA. Next, EPA sought to remove sites from the analysis where significant Fund expenditures had not occurred, because response actions that were paid for by private parties do not support the need for CERCLA Section 108(b) financial responsibility regulations. Using the "Action Lead" field in SEMS associated with each site, EPA screened out the potentially responsible party (PRP) lead sites. This left only the Mixed Lead Construction or Government Performed Construction sites in the analysis, under the assumption that PRP Performed Construction sites did not present significant expenses to the Fund. Retaining Mixed Lead Construction sites is a conservative screen as construction by government entities may have been financed by the PRPs. EPA then reviewed the remaining sites (i.e. those with pollution dates of 1980 or later and mixed or government lead designation in SEMS) individually in greater detail. Specifically, EPA considered the site history and each of the contamination sources at the site in the context of the regulations that would be applicable to that facility today. EPA, in the analysis described above, had identified 34 NPL or SAA sites where petroleum or coal products manufacturing had occurred and had contributed in some way to the pollution at the site. These 34 sites include 23 petroleum refineries, nine coke production facilities and two sites with oil re- refining and/or fuel blending operations. At these 34 sites, land disposal issues were the most prevalent. EPA applied the screens described above to remove PRP-lead sites and sites where the pollution occurred pre-1980 to the 34 NPL sites and sites using the SAA approach. Eight sites remained after those screens that were either mixed-lead or government-lead sites and had at least one source of pollution that arose in 1980 or later. To assess those eight sites, EPA conducted a more detailed review to compare the environmental issues at the sites to the regulations applicable today. Based on the detailed review, EPA concluded that the pollution at six of the eight Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing NPL sites reflect legacy practices. That is to say that while the sites had at least one source of pollution that arose in 1980 or later, the detailed review of the sites' histories concluded that, for six of the eight sites, the pollution arose before the RCRA Subtitle C program was fully in place. This is relevant because four of these sites had land disposal issues, five of these sites had soil contamination resulting from process activities, and four of these sites had abandoned hazardous substances at their sites. These sites pre-dated the enactment of expanded generator regulations, enhanced land disposal unit technical standards, enhanced enforcement provisions (including facility- wide corrective action), Land Disposal Restrictions, and the Loss of Interim Status deadlines for compliance with groundwater monitoring and financial assurance requirements at land disposal facilities, and other protections afforded by HSWA that would have mitigated these issues. The detailed review did suggest that two of the eight NPL sites may have had an environmental issue arise under a regulatory structure like today. Both sites had legacy land disposal issues, due primarily to improper disposal of hazardous waste, which contributed significantly to the site requiring a CERCLA 4 ------- action. However, notwithstanding a designation of mixed or government lead in SEMS, neither of these two sites required significant taxpayer expenditures. Identification of Cleanup Case Universe: EPA sought to evaluate the need for CERCLA 108(b) financial responsibility regulations at classes of facilities in the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing industry. Specifically, EPA sought examples of pollution that occurred under a modern regulatory framework and that required a taxpayer-funded CERCLA cleanup. EPA prioritized identifying and analyzing Superfund NPL and SAA sites as those are generally larger cleanups both in terms of amounts of contaminants removed and costs to carry out these cleanups. A separate report addresses the identification and review of Superfund removal sites and is available in the docket4. 2010 ANPRM EPA initiated its review of potential CERCLA 108(b) cleanup cases by re-examining the NPL cleanup cases identified in the January 6, 2010 Additional Classes ANPRM.5 In that notice EPA explained its rationale for the selection of the three identified additional classes that the Agency would examine regarding the development of financial responsibility requirements. The ANPRM relied primarily upon information related to sites listed on the National Priorities List (NPL), data on the hazardous waste generation from the 2007 RCRA Biennial Report (BR), and data from the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). In its 2017 Notice of Intent to Proceed with Rulemakings, EPA acknowledged limitations on information that can be gained from TRI and BR data and announced its intention to use industry-specific and current sources of data to identify risk for the purposes of the rulemakings. In the analysis discussed here, EPA chose not to rely on TRI and BR data. While the Agency found those data sources appropriate for identifying classes of facilities to examine further at the time of the 2010 ANPRM, it did not find them valuable for assessing current risk in the industry. Accordingly, EPA first prioritized the review of damage cases previously identified in the ANPRM, using an updated methodology for evaluation of risk, as these cases served as an underpinning for the decision to consider these three classes of facilities for potential regulation. The ANPRM referred to 30 NPL sites where Petroleum or Coal Products Manufacturing activities had taken place. Additional NPL Sites EPA sought to identify additional potential damage cases within the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry by looking outside the scope of the ANPRM. EPA first queried EPA's SEMS database in March 2018. EPA searched the SEMS database for additional NPL sites that either (i) may have been missed by EPA's review pre-2010, or that (ii) post-dated the data collection supporting the 2010 ANPRM. To conduct this query EPA first filtered the approximately 83,000 records in the March 2018 SEMS data pull by NPL status. Specifically, EPA filtered out sites identified in SEMS as either Not on the NPL or Not a Valid Site. This yielded 2,365 sites that may presently be or have been on the NPL. These sites include those proposed (but not presently finalized), on the final NPL, deleted from NPL, 4 See Identification and Evaluation of CERCLA 108(b) Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing non-National Priority List (NPL) Removal Sites. (2019) 5 See Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) 75 Fed Reg 816. Identification of Additional Classes of Facilities for Development of Financial Responsibility Requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b). January 6, 2010. 5 ------- removed from the NPL and those that are identified as part of another NPL site. This approach erred on the side of over identifying potential NPL sites as some of these candidate sites would be already accounted for as part of other NPL sites. Next, EPA filtered the 2,365 sites by Primary Sub Category Name in SEMS, which EPA used as a proxy for the type of industrial activity that took place at the site. EPA specifically looked at those identified as oil and gas refining or coke production to identify additional NPL sites where petroleum or coal products manufacturing activities had occurred. This filter resulted in the identification of 23 sites where North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 324 activities (petroleum or coal products manufacturing) had occurred. Of these 23 sites, four sites were newly identified sites not already identified in the ANPRM. Two of these four sites are sites where petroleum refining operations had contributed to contamination at the site and resulted in the site being proposed to the NPL after the information collection for the ANPRM was conducted. One of the four sites is a site that was removed from the NPL, but which had petroleum refining operations at the site. The last of the four newly identified sites is a site that was already accounted for as part of an NPL site identified in the ANPRM. EPA included only the first three of these four additional sites in its analysis. Namely, EPA did not collect information on the site that was accounted for as part of a previously identified site because no new information was available for the portion of the previously identified site. Additional SAA site The final step in producing the universe of NPL and SAA sites for this analysis involved identifying SAA sites that were not already captured in NPL site identification process. EPA reviewed the sites with a Superfund Alternative Approach agreement in place to identify sites potentially associated with petroleum and coal products manufacturing facilities.6 In this process, EPA identified three sites associated with petroleum and coal products manufacturing operations at which CERCLA remedial action was being conducted under a SAA agreement. Two of these sites, Highway 71/72 Refinery and Armco Incorporation-Hamilton Plant, were already in the universe of facilities to be analyzed on account of having been also proposed to the NPL. As a result, only one additional SAA site, Solvay Coke and Gas Company, was added to the analyses as part of this step. Table 1- Industry Subclasses Identified within NAICS 324 NPL and SAA Site Universe Additional Classes Subsectors No. of NPL /SAA Sites Industry Groups Identified on the NPL or as SAA sites Percentage of Industry Groups Identified % (count) Petroleum Refinery and Coal Products Manufacturing (NAICS 324) 34 (NAICS 324110) Petroleum Refinery 68% (23) (NAICS 32419) Coke Production 26% (9) Others 6% (2) 6 EPA maintains a publicly available list of these sites on its website which can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/sites-superfund-alternative-approach-agreements 6 ------- Analytical Steps and Methodology: EPA first collected additional information on the 34 petroleum and coal products manufacturing sites. As a primary matter, EPA collected information on the timing and nature of releases or threatened releases at these NPL sites. Specifically, EPA sought to identify, as applicable, facility operation end dates, release dates, sources of contamination, NPL proposal dates, contaminated media, the type of contaminant, the cleanup lead and information on Superfund expenditures7 at the site among other information. For this collection, EPA relied on information either previously collected as part of the ANPRM, information available in Superfund site documents (e.g. NPL listing narratives, Records of Decision, Five-Year Reviews) and information in the EPA's Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) as of March 2018. The information collected as part of this review process is available in the docket to this action. Collecting this type of information for each site, once compared against the contemporary regulatory landscape and industry practices, would allow EPA to evaluate whether each site demonstrated the type of risk that would support the promulgation of regulations under CERCLA 108(b). Generally, in this stage of the analysis regarding the prevalent sources of contamination, EPA noted that land disposal issues as well as contaminated soil were very commonly present at most of the sites. Other example sources of contamination included abandoned units and materials and waste water management. Table 2 below shows the types and frequency of contamination sources identified at the cleanup cases reviewed. These categories of contamination sources are not mutually exclusive. Table 2- Sources of Contamination Identified at Cleanup Cases Table 2- Primary Sources of Contamination Number of Facilities/Sites Observed Percentage of Sites with Source Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing (NAICS 324) (n=34 NPL and SAA sites) Landfills/Land Disposal 29 85% Contaminated Soil Resulting from Process Activities 19 56% Abandoned Units/Materials 10 29% Wastewater Ponds 9 26% Mismanaged Onsite Runoff 5 15% Discharge to Surface Water 4 12% Pipeline Leak 1 3% Fire 1 3% Unknown 5 15% 7 EPA used data from its Compass/IFMS financial system to identify expenditures for Superfund site cleanups associated with the industry, expressed in constant (inflation adjusted) 2017 dollars. With the exception of Homeland Security Supplemental appropriations and Brownfields expenditures, these data include all EPA expenditures of Superfund appropriated and reimbursable resources for these sites through the end of FY 2017, including intramural (e.g., payroll, travel) and extramural (e.g., contracts, expenses, grants) expenditures. These data do not include costs incurred by potentially responsible parties (PRPs) as PRPs are not required to provide that information to EPA. 7 ------- Screening out Legacy Issues and PRP Funded Actions After compiling information about the risks and history of each site, EPA sought to identify instances where issues arose under a regulatory structure like today's that resulted in taxpayer funded response actions. To do so, EPA first screened out the NPL sites where the date of the pollution incident or activity was pre-1980. EPA chose 1980 as a cutoff point to screen out legacy issues because it was the year that Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 was enacted, as well as the initial establishment of regulations under RCRA Subtitle C governing hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities in May 1980. EPA believes this is a conservative screen in that only the initial RCRA regulations were in place in 1980 and would be refined, expanded and enhanced several times over the next decade. Moreover, the Agency's enforcement authorities expanded, in the 1980s as the RCRA program matured. Notably, the passage in 1984 of Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) resulted in many regulatory changes and enhanced enforcement mechanisms. The dates of RCRA and CERCLA were given greatest consideration due to the large number of instances of waste management, land disposal and contaminated soil issues identified in the review of the NPL cleanup cases. In many cases, the Superfund site documents would note dates where specific releases occurred or polluting activities (e.g., land disposal in unlined impoundments) ceased. At sites where there were multiple releases and/or activities with varying dates, EPA used the most recent date to err on the side of being over inclusive. For example, if an NPL site had documented issues in 1968 and 1981, the site would not have been screened out because at least one of the dates was 1980 or later. In instances where EPA could not identify pollution activity or release dates with enough confidence, EPA used the relevant operation's end date. For example, at a facility where the exact dates of releases were unknown, but petroleum refining ceased at the site in 1985, EPA would have used 1985 as the date for applying the screen. In such an example, the site would not have been screened out of the analysis of petroleum and coal products manufacturing NPL sites. This analytic approach resulted in EPA erring, again, on the side of being over inclusive. As shown in Table 3 below, 16 of the 34 petroleum and coal products manufacturing NPL and SAA sites identified had pollution or ceased operation dates pre-1980. A complete list of the NPL sites and the date used to make the determination is available in Appendix 1 below. Table 3- Summary of Results of Pre-1980 Pollution Screen on NPL and SAA Site Universe NAICS Category Total # of NPL/SAA Sites Identified # of NPL/SAA Sites Screened Out (Due to PRPs having Performed Construction) # of NPL/SAA Sites Remaining (Due to Pollution Possibly Occurring in 1980 or Later) NAICS 324 - Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing 34 16 18 8 ------- EPA also sought to remove sites where significant taxpayer expenditures had not occurred from the subsequent stages of the analysis as those, the Agency believes, would not be indicative of a need for CERCLA 108(b) financial responsibility regulations. EPA used the Action Lead field in SEMS associated with each NPL or SAA site. NPL cleanup cases sites reviewed in this analysis had one of three values for action lead in the SEMS database: 1. Mixed Lead Construction; 2. PRP Performed Construction; or 3. Government Performed Construction. For the purposes of this analysis EPA focused on the sites that were either Mixed Lead Construction or Government Performed Construction under the assumption that PRP Performed Construction sites did not present significant expenses to the taxpayer. As shown below, 19 of the petroleum and coal products manufacturing NPL and SAA sites identified were designated as PRP Performed Construction in SEMS and thus were not further analyzed. A complete list of the NPL and SAA sites and the action lead designation in SEMS used to make the determination is available in Appendix 2 below. Table 4- Summary Results of the PRP-Lead Screen on NPL and SAA Site Universe NAICS Category Total # of NPL/SAA Sites Identified # of NPL/SAA Sites Screened Out (Due to PRPs having Performed Construction) # of NPL/SAA Sites Remaining (Due to Mixed or Govt. Performed Construction) NAICS 324 - Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing 34 19 15 Detailed Review of Sites That May Have had Pollution Issues Arise in 1980 or Later, and/or Incurred Significant Taxpayer Expenditures Ultimately, EPA was interested in identifying instances where issues arose both under a regulatory structure like today's and that resulted in taxpayer funded response actions. EPA compared the universe of sites at which the most recent pollution date was estimated to be in 1980 or later and the universe of sites designated as mixed lead or government performed construction in SEMS to identify which sites met both of those criteria. Eight petroleum and coal product manufacturing NPL sites met both criteria and thus considered for further detailed analysis. A complete list of these sites along with the relevant information is included in Appendix 3. Figure 1 below demonstrate how reliance upon the subject filtering criteria leads to a specific set of cases of most concern. For example, EPA identified eight NPL sites where both: 1) the sources of contamination may have occurred in 1980 or later; and 2) the costs of cleanup appear likely to have been borne by the government and not by the PRPs. These eight sites become the focus of the next phase of analyses, as highlighted in the Venn diagram below. 9 ------- Figure 1- Overlap of Universes of Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing NPL and SAA Sites with Pollution Dates of 1980 or Later, and Mixed Lead or Government Construction Designations 10 8 7 NPL Sites with Possible 1980 or Later Pollution (n = 18) Mixed Lead or Government Construction NPL Sites (n=15) EPA proceeded to conduct a detailed case-by-case review of each of these eight NAICS 324 NPL sites at which the pollution may have occurred in a regulatory structure like today's, while also resulting in significant taxpayer expenditures. To do so, EPA compiled the history and profile for each of these sites based on the relevant and available information. EPA relied primarily on the SEMS database, Superfund site documents (e.g. Records of Decision) and the RCRAInfo database. These site profiles were then analyzed considering the regulations that are applicable today to petroleum and coal product manufacturing facilities and the key implementation dates for those regulations. The information compiled by EPA on the applicable regulations is available in a petroleum and coal products manufacturing industry-specific document in the docket to this rulemaking.8 In addition, some enforcement cases were also considered to understand site operations and practices. The site profiles, as well as a discussion of the regulations applicable today and the Agency's preliminary conclusion regarding the appropriateness of using this NPL case study to demonstrate ongoing risk are presented in Appendix 4 below. Results: Because of this detailed review, EPA concluded that the pollution at six of the eight petroleum and coal products manufacturing NPL sites reflect legacy practices. That is to say that while the sites had at least one source of pollution that arose in 1980 or later, the detailed review of the sites' histories concluded that, for six of the eight sites, the pollution arose before the RCRA Subtitle C program was fully in place. Several of the sites had long operational histories pre-1980 that contributed to a portion, if not all, of the pollution. Additionally, at most of the sites it was evident that pollution arose prior to HSWA's implementation. This is relevant because four of these sites had land disposal issues, five of these sites had soil contamination resulting from process activities, and four of these sites had abandoned hazardous substances at their sites. These sites pre-dated the enactment of expanded generator regulations, enhanced land disposal unit technical standards, enhanced enforcement provisions 8 See Summary Report: Federal and State Environmental Regulations and Industry Voluntary Programs in Place to Address CERCLA Hazardous Substances at Petroleum Refineries and Other Petroleum and Coal Product Manufacturing Facilities. 10 ------- (including facility-wide corrective action), land disposal restrictions, and the Loss of Interim Status deadlines for compliance with groundwater monitoring and financial assurance requirements for Interim Status land disposal facilities, among other protections afforded by HSWA. The detailed review did suggest that two of the eight NPL sites may have had an environmental issue arise under a regulatory structure like today. These two sites are the Indian Refinery Texaco Lawrenceville site and the Koch Refining Co./N-Ren Corporation site. In the case of the Koch Refining Co./N-Ren Corporation site, a 1987 pipeline spill of leaded gasoline occurred and post-dates the most substantive Federal applicable regulations which became effective in 1981. These regulations are the Department of Transportation Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR Parts 190, 195) which were designed to ensure the safety in the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and spill response planning of hazardous liquid transportation pipelines. Regarding the Indian Refinery Texaco Lawrenceville site, in 1997, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) discovered ongoing oil release and associated contaminated area. However, there was not enough information to determine if the release identified in 1997 was from contaminated media from legacy land disposal practices or a more current issue. As such, EPA was concerned the site may present an example of ongoing risk at the site. It is important to note that both sites had significant legacy land disposal issues which certainly contributed to the site requiring a CERCLA action. Ultimately, neither of these two sites required significant taxpayer expenditures. Cases not representing modern risks and not requiring taxpayer Expenditures Problem Cases Total NPL and SAA Sites Number of Sites Screened Out Based on Pre-1980, or PRP lead Detailed Review Concluded Issue Pre-Modern Regulation Detailed Review Identified a Possible Post-Modern Regulation Issue but no Significant Taxpayer Expenditures Cases with release(s) post-modern regulation that required taxpayer funded response 34 26 6 2 0 11 ------- Appendix 1 - List of Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing NPL and SAA Sites and Associated Pollution Dates EPA ID Site Name Most recent pollution date (if unknown, ceased operation date) CAD980636781 PACIFIC COAST PIPE LINES 1950 COD980717953 SAND CREEK INDUSTRIAL 1956 ILD042671248 INDIAN REFINERY-TEXACO LAWRENCEVILLE 1997 KSD000829846 PESTER REFINERY CO. 1987 KSD980500789 ARKANSAS CITY DUMP 1927 LA0000187518 MALLARD BAY LANDING BULK PLANT 1987 LAD981054075 HIGHWAY 71/72 REFINERY 1948 MND000686071 KOCH REFINING CO./N-REN CORP. 1988 MND000819359 KOPPERS COKE 1979 NJD092226000 DIAMOND HEAD OIL REFINERY DIV. 1979 NJD980654099 IMPERIAL OIL CO., INC. / CHAMPION CHEMICALS 2007 NMD980622773 PREWITT ABANDONED REFINERY 1957 OHD043730217 ALLIED CHEMICAL & IRONTON COKE 1987 OHD074705930 ARMCO INCORPORATION-HAMILTON PLANT 1982 OHD980610042 REILLY TAR & CHEMICAL CORP. (DOVER PLANT) 1956 OHD980611909 DIAMOND SHAMROCK CORP. (PAINESVILLE WORKS) 1972 OK0001010917 WILCOX OIL COMPANY 1963 OK0002024099 IMPERIAL REFINING COMPANY 1934 OKD082471988 HUDSON REFINERY 1982 OKD091598870 OKLAHOMA REFINING CO. 1984 OKD980696470 FOURTH STREET ABANDONED REFINERY 1968 OKD980748446 SAND SPRINGS PETROCHEMICAL COMPLEX 1949 PAD002384865 DOUGLASSVILLE DISPOSAL 1981 PAD980419097 CRATER RESOURCES, INC./KEYSTONE COKE CO./ALAN WOOD STEEL CO. 1980 TND071516959 TENNESSEE PRODUCTS 1990 TXD057577579 R & H OIL/TROPICANA 1989 TXD086278058 FALCON REFINERY 1985 TXD980625453 BRIO REFINING, INC. 1980 UTD093119196 PETROCHEM RECYCLING CORP./EKOTEK PLANT 1988 WAD000641548 NORTH MARKET STREET 1970 WVD000800441 SHARON STEEL CORP (FAIRMONT COKE WORKS) 1979 ARD008049207 MACMILLAN RING FREE OIL 1987 WIN000508215 SOLVAY COKE AND GAS COMPANY 1983 TXD980795736 RIO GRANDE OIL CO. REFINERY 1935 12 ------- Appendix 2 - List of Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing NPL and SAA Sites and Associated Action Lead Designation in SEMS EPA ID Site Name Action Lead CAD980636781 PACIFIC COAST PIPE LINES PRP Performed Construction COD980717953 SAND CREEK INDUSTRIAL Mixed Lead Construction ILD042671248 INDIAN REFINERY-TEXACO LAWRENCEVILLE Mixed Lead Construction KSD000829846 PESTER REFINERY CO. PRP Performed Construction KSD980500789 ARKANSAS CITY DUMP GOVT Performed Construction LA0000187518 MALLARD BAY LANDING BULK PLANT GOVT Performed Construction LAD981054075 HIGHWAY 71/72 REFINERY PRP Performed Construction MND000686071 KOCH REFINING CO./N-REN CORP. GOVT Performed Construction MND000819359 KOPPERS COKE GOVT Performed Construction NJD092226000 DIAMOND HEAD OIL REFINERY DIV. GOVT Performed Construction NJD980654099 IMPERIAL OIL CO., INC. / CHAMPION CHEMICALS GOVT Performed Construction NMD980622773 PREWITT ABANDONED REFINERY PRP Performed Construction OHD043730217 ALLIED CHEMICAL & IRONTON COKE PRP Performed Construction OHD074705930 ARMCO INCORPORATION-HAMILTON PLANT PRP Performed Construction OHD980610042 REILLY TAR & CHEMICAL CORP. (DOVER PLANT) PRP Performed Construction OHD980611909 DIAMOND SHAMROCK CORP. (PAINESVILLE WORKS) PRP Performed Construction OK0001010917 WILCOX OIL COMPANY GOVT Performed Construction OK0002024099 IMPERIAL REFINING COMPANY GOVT Performed Construction OKD082471988 HUDSON REFINERY PRP Performed Construction OKD091598870 OKLAHOMA REFINING CO. GOVT Performed Construction OKD980696470 FOURTH STREET ABANDONED REFINERY GOVT Performed Construction OKD980748446 SAND SPRINGS PETROCHEMICAL COMPLEX PRP Performed Construction PAD002384865 DOUGLASSVILLE DISPOSAL Mixed Lead Construction PAD980419097 CRATER RESOURCES, INC./KEYSTONE COKE CO./ALAN WOOD STEEL CO. PRP Performed Construction TND071516959 TENNESSEE PRODUCTS PRP Performed Construction TXD057577579 R & H OIL/TROPICANA PRP Performed Construction TXD086278058 FALCON REFINERY Mixed Lead Construction TXD980625453 BRIO REFINING, INC. PRP Performed Construction UTD093119196 PETROCHEM RECYCLING CORP./EKOTEK PLANT PRP Performed Construction WAD000641548 NORTH MARKET STREET PRP Performed Construction WVD000800441 SHARON STEEL CORP (FAIRMONT COKE WORKS) PRP Performed Construction ARD008049207 MACMILLAN RING FREE OIL GOVT Performed Construction WIN000508215 SOLVAY COKE AND GAS COMPANY PRP Performed Construction TXD980795736 RIO GRANDE OIL CO. REFINERY PRP Performed Construction 13 ------- Appendix 3 - Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing NPL Sites for which the Most Recent Pollution Date was Estimated to be in 1980 or Later and were Designated as Mixed Lead or Government Performed Construction in SEMS EPA ID Site Name Action Lead Most recent pollution date (if unknown, ceased operation date) ILD042671248 INDIAN REFINERY-TEXACO LAWRENCEVILLE Mixed Lead Construction 1997 LA0000187518 MALLARD BAY LANDING BULK PLANT GOVT Performed Construction 1987 MND000686071 KOCH REFINING CO./N-REN CORP. GOVT Performed Construction 1988 NJD980654099 IMPERIAL OIL CO., INC./ CHAMPION CHEMICALS GOVT Performed Construction 2007 OKD091598870 OKLAHOMA REFINING CO. GOVT Performed Construction 1984 PAD002384865 DOUGLASSVILLE DISPOSAL Mixed Lead Construction 1981 TXD086278058 FALCON REFINERY Mixed Lead Construction 1985 ARD008049207 MACMILLAN RING FREE OIL GOVT Performed Construction 1987 14 ------- Appendix 4 - Detailed NPL Cleanup Case Studies for NPL sites where Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Activities Had Occurred Cases with No Further Analysis Needed: Facility Name: Falcon Refinery EPA Region/State: R6 - TX EPA SEMS ID: TXD086278058 EPA FRS ID:110005065455 Operation: 1980 -1987 Action Lead: Mixed Lead Construction Superfund Expenditures to Date (2017 USD): $3,024,521.41 (Total) $1,762,390.65 (Non SA) Site Background/Description: Falcon refinery occupies approximately 104 acres in San Patricio County, Texas. The Falcon Refinery a.k.a. National Oil Recovery Corporation (NORCO) site (the "site") consists of a refinery that operated intermittently since 1980 and, as of 1987, is currently inactive. When in operation, the refinery operated at a 40,000 barrels per day capacity with primary products consisting of naphtha, jet fuel, kerosene, diesel and fuel oil. According to RCRAInfo, the facility notified as a small quantity generator in October of 1980. The facility did not file a Part A permit application to treat, store or dispose of hazardous waste. The refinery filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1985. When in operation, the refinery also processed material that consisted of listed hazardous substances in addition to crude oil, from the following sources; K048 (dissolved air flotation float), K049 (slop oil emulsion solids), K050 (heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge), and K05I (API separator sludge). No other federal enforcement is noted at the site during operation. In 2004, the two CERCLA enforcement orders at the site included citations for D002 (corrosive) and F037 (wastewater containing arsenic or chromium) wastes and required the removal of 34,196 cubic yards of benzo(a)pyrene contaminated soils. Other hazardous substances at the site included vinyl acetate detected inside tanks during an EPA investigation conducted in the 1990s, chromium detected in cooling tower sludge, and untreated wastewater released inside tank berms during the 1980s. The Falcon Refinery site was proposed to the National Priorities List (NPL) on September 5, 2002. The Potentially Responsible Party for the site, NORCO, entered into an "Administrative Order on Consent" with EPA on June 9, 2004, to perform and finance the removal action and Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the site. The removal action planned to address the wastes from the tanks, equipment and piping. The removal action included the disposal of liquid waste, highly contaminated soils and asbestos wrapping on pipelines and recycling of on-site metals and used oil and oil filters. EPA approved the RI/FS Work Plan, Field Sampling Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan on October 22, 2007; and Addendum 1 on May 8, 2009. On March 28, 2011 EPA issued work take over letters to the PRP for the RI/FS and added the facility to the final NPL. The RI/FS was to be completed in 2013. Work done via removal at the site includes cleaning and demolishing approximately 23 above ground storage tanks that had been abandoned and disposing of contaminated soil and debris. The contaminated soil included: • Petroleum contaminated soil and oily debris - 40 cubic yards 15 ------- • Hazardous solid waste (oily sludge and soil) -15 cubic yards • Hazardous waste-caustic tank bottoms - 57,760 pounds • Hazardous waste-tank bottoms -166,160 pounds. Remedial work is ongoing with EPA as the lead to address contamination at the wetlands, intercoastal waterway and soils. A 2010 crude oil spill at the site is not being considered in this analysis as the only operation at the site was a crude oil storage facility (i.e. not in NAICS 324 petroleum and coal products manufacturing). Moreover, the relevance of the oil spill is questionable because of CERCLA's petroleum exclusion. Discussion of federal/state regulations applicable today: The site appears to have been a generator of hazardous wastes and not a treatment, storage, or disposal facility. Notably, the facility only began operating in 1980 and had minimal, if any, pre-RCRA operations. Nevertheless, spills and releases resulted in significant contamination. HSWA was passed only shortly before the owner operator declared bankruptcy and added provisions requiring EPA to establish regulations for small quantity generators at §3001(d). These regulations were not promulgated until 1986, after the bankruptcy of the owner operator. An additional issue is the possibility that the facility should have had a RCRA permit as it reportedly processed material that consisted of listed hazardous substances in addition to crude oil, from the following sources; K048 (dissolved air flotation float), K049 (slop oil emulsion solids), K050 (heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge), and K05I (API separator sludge). This activity would have occurred largely before HSWA had been passed. HSWA included enhanced enforcement and compliance provisions that would reduce the risk of this lack of a permit today was that in an issue at this site. Preliminary conclusion regarding the appropriateness of using this NPL case study to demonstrate ongoing risk at modern NAICS 324 facilities: This case study does not represent an example of pollution occurring under a regulatory structure substantially like today's structure as the hazardous waste generator regulations for small quantity generators were not yet in place. References: • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Operable Unit 1: Record of Decision, Falcon Refinery Superfund Site, Aransas Pass, Texas, Region 6, September 2017. • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NPL Listing Narrative, Falcon Refinery Superfund Site, Ingleside, Texas, Region 6, September 2011 • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6. Site Status Summary, Falcon Refinery Site, Ingleside, Texas, July 2015. • U.S. Department of Justice. Press Release, "Texas Oil Company to Pay $1.6 Million Civil Penalty in Settlement of Alleged Oil Spill and Spill Prevention Violations" October 29, 2014. • Superfund Enterprise Management System data as of March 29 2018. Available in docket as a spreadsheet titled "Copy of SEMS data_108b_March 2018.xlsx" • RCRAInfo - EPA's Hazardous Waste Program National Database. 16 ------- Facility Name: Macmillan Ring Free Oil EPA Region/State: R6 - AR EPA SEMS ID: ARD008049207 EPA FRS IDs: 110055264672, 110002043253 and 110050480467 Operation: 1929- 1987 Action Lead: Government Lead Construction Superfund Expenditures to Date (2017 USD): $ 7,910,271.80 (Total) $ 7,910,271.80 (Non-SA) Site Background/Description: The site operated as a crude oil refinery and manufacturer of lubrication oil and asphalt products as early as 1929. MacMillan Ring-Free Oil Refinery closed in 1987. The facility notified that they generated dissolved air flotation (DAF) float, a listed hazardous waste. The facility was inactive from 1987 until 1989, when the property was sold to Nor-Ark Industrial Corp (Nor-Ark) who used the on-site storage tanks for asphalt products until March of 1991, when the company filed for bankruptcy. The facility was refurbished by Norphlet Chemical as a chemical manufacturing plant in early 2004 to produce tetrafluoroethane (Freon 134A) refrigerant used in automobiles. The plant never operated as intended and failed to produce the product. In 2007, the facility was abandoned and has remained vacant. Surface and ground water are contaminated. Sampling conducted by the EPA and Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality indicate that there may be as much as a foot of petroleum product underlying the facility. There were several active seeps of waste discharging into surface drainage pathways and into wetland areas north of the site. Extensive assessment and removal actions were completed at MacMillan in the early 1990s addressing free liquids in the impoundments and active releases to surface water. Wastes were treated on-site, and treated materials were used to backfill the impoundments. In April 2009, an EPA removal action of tanks containing anhydrous hydrofluoric acid (AHF) and AHF mixtures was conducted; these tanks were associated with Norphlet Chemical operations. ADEQ asked EPA to reevaluate the site for NPL consideration in November 2011. Multiple phases of investigation have occurred at the property since 1980. During ownership of the facility, MacMillan encountered both state and federal enforcement actions for multiple violations, including release of oilfield waste to Arkansas state waters, improper storage of hazardous waste, failure to perform required ground water monitoring and failure to implement approved closure plans for on- property impoundments In 1980, MacMillan Refinery filed a Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity Part A application with EPA. During its operations, MacMillan used dissolved DAF systems as a part of their wastewater treatment process from 1975 until 1987. The DAF sludge located in three surface impoundments on the property (Ponds, 705, 706, and 707) contained petroleum waste products classified as hazardous waste (K048) under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §261.32. Since the DAF impoundments contained a hazardous waste, a ground water monitoring system was required. During that time, several overflows to Hayes Creek from the DAF impoundments and other impoundments occurred. On September 21, 1984, the EPA issued a Compliance Order and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing against MacMillan Refinery charging the company with failure to install a ground water monitoring system. In August 1985, Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPC&E) ordered MacMillan to either install the necessary controls for the impoundments containing hazardous waste to comply with its RCRA Part B Permit or submit a closure plan. The MacMillan facility did not comply with either order and, in 1986, 17 ------- ADPC&E terminated MacMillan's status as a Treatment, Storage, Disposal (TSD) facility, and directed them to implement a closure plan for the on-property surface impoundments (ponds). A closure plan was prepared by MacMillan and modified by ADEQ in May 1986, but the facility filed for bankruptcy before the plan was implemented. Nor-Ark purchased the property in 1989, assuming liability for all chemicals and contaminated media on the property, but did not implement any financial assurance, ground water monitoring or the impoundment closure plan mandated by ADEQ. Nor-Ark also incurred several environmental violations during its ownership of the property. These violations ranged from failure to close the hazardous waste impoundments, monitor ground water, failure to maintain 12-inch freeboard on the impoundments, unpermitted discharges, improper storage of hazardous wastes, and failure to meet administrative and reporting requirements, to violations of asbestos regulations. By 1990, Nor-Ark had dismantled most of the facility and sold most of the equipment and fixtures. In March 1991, Nor-Ark filed for bankruptcy. During its ownership under Nor-Ark, and after the Nor-Ark bankruptcy, a number of facility visits by EPA, EPA contractors, and ADPC&E documented evidence of overflow from the ponds and oily material released to the environment. A series of EPA Superfund removal actions were conducted from 1992 through 1997 to address the immediate issue of releases to the environment. These removal actions included the following: • In 1992, approximately 31,500 gallons of free-floating oil materials were recovered from impoundments, and oil and oil-contaminated vegetation along Hayes Creek and Massey Creek were removed. • In 1993, approximately 9,600 gallons of composite waste/flammable corrosive liquids and 50,080 gallons of waste oil were removed and transported off-property. Asbestos on the facility (found in buildings and piping) was also abated and transported off-property for disposal. Removal activities of CERCLA regulated wastes had ceased, and the remaining waste at the facility was slated for removal under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) because, at that time, regulators were not aware that the petroleum had been mixed with listed hazardous wastes. • From 1994 through 1997, removal actions continued with pumping, treating, and discharging of OPA and CERCLA-regulated wastes from the impoundments into the surrounding creeks and conducting on- site bioremediation of approximately 43,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil. The on-site impoundment sediments were treated on-site using biodegradation within land treatment units (LTUs). OPA and CERCLA wastes were treated at the same time within 13 separate batches, and bioremediated soils from all impoundments (OPA and CERCLA) were used to backfill the impoundments. EPA's removal actions were conducted to mitigate the imminent threat to the public health and environment; however, these removal actions did not address environmental concerns of total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH)-contaminated soil and contaminated surface water runoff that existed at the facility. The facility historically has had a mix of OPA and CERCLA wastes. It was discovered near the end of the OPA response, from state records and conversations with a former employee, that the impoundments (ponds) had been contaminated with the following listed RCRA hazardous wastes generated by petroleum refining operations: K048- Dissolved air flotation (DAF) float, K049 - slop oil emulsion solids, K050 - heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge, K051- American Petroleum Institute (API) separator sludge, and K052 - tank bottoms (leaded). These RCRA hazardous wastes also constitute hazardous substances pursuant to Section 101(14) of CERCLA. These RCRA hazardous wastes have commingled with the contents of impoundments that had been considered OPA regulated. In April 18 ------- 2009, an ADEQ inspection prompted the State to request an emergency removal action by EPA. ADEQ had reported corrosion on tank relief valves associated with tanks containing anhydrous hydrofluoric acid (AHF) and AHF mixtures. The tanks (associated with Norphlet Chemical operations and not MacMillan) were located approximately 500 feet from the Norphlet Public School complex. Initial emergency actions conducted by EPA included removal of the AHF and AHF mixtures, construction of a scrubber to neutralize residual AHF remaining in tanks and flow lines, and decontamination of the associated tanks and piping. Although EPA Emergency Response and Removal Actions took place on the property from 1992-1997, and in 2009, the activities performed to date were conducted to stabilize the site, and all source materials cited in this report currently remained on-site awaiting remedial action. Discussion of federal/state regulations applicable today: The site had a long history of operating pre-RCRA and pre-HSWA including land disposal of refinery wastes in surface impoundments that were not designed to meet the unit standards in the RCRA Subtitle C regulations. After the passage of RCRA the facility did not initially comply with the Subtitle C requirements for the units, refusing to install required groundwater monitoring. It is notable that HSWA was passed only towards the end of the operational life of the petroleum refinery. HSWA led to more robust technical standards for land disposal facilities and set deadlines for certifying compliance with the groundwater monitoring and financial assurance requirements and issuing permits for facilities with land disposal units. After HSWA back and forth between regulators and the owner operator occurred as regulators attempted to bring the facility up to the more robust standards. The owner operator never installed groundwater management systems and defaulted on an order to install proper controls at the impoundments. As a result, the facility was ordered to submit a closure plan, which was amended by the State, and then close the facility in accordance with the plan. The owner operator declared bankruptcy before the plan was implemented. This appears to be a case where the owner operator of a facility with extensive legacy contamination issues, either couldn't or decided not to meet the stringent RCRA Subtitle C regulations and abandoned the facility in bankruptcy. Preliminary conclusion regarding the appropriateness of using this NPL case study to demonstrate ongoing risk at modern NAICS 324 facilities: Modern risks do not appear to be evident at this NPL site. Refining operations dating as far back as 1920 created significant issues. The owner operator, despite filing for permits, did not attempt or was not able to meet the stringent RCRA Subtitle C standards that would have been applicable at the facility by November 1985. References: • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NPL Listing Narrative, Macmillan Ring Free Oil Superfund Site, Norphlet, Arkansas, Region 6, May 2014. • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Macmillan Ring Free Oil Hazard Ranking System Report, Norphlet, Arkansas, December 2013 • Superfund Enterprise Management System data as of March 29, 2018. Available in docket as a spreadsheet titled "Copy of SEMS data_108b_March 2018.xlsx" 19 ------- Facility Name: Mallard Bay Landing Bulk Plant EPA Region/State: R6 - LA EPASEMS ID: LA0000187518 EPA FRS ID: 110009336414 Operation: 1980 -1987 Action Lead: Government Lead Construction Superfund Expenditures to Date (2017 USD): $ 8,225,620.04 (Total) $ 8,225,620.04 (Non SA) Site Background/Description: Mallard Bay Landing is an inactive and abandoned crude oil refinery and bulk storage facility that operated between 1980 and 1987. In early 1980 through 1983, the Mallard Bay Landing Bulk Plant (MRI) facility operated as a crude oil refinery. Mixed crude oil was refined to produce naphtha, diesel fuel, and No. 6 fuel oil. On August 6, 1982, EPA received from MRI a Hazardous Waste Part A Permit application. MRI operated as a hazardous waste Treatment/Storage/Disposal (TSD) facility, and a hazardous waste generator of petroleum refining industry-listed wastes. During the time period of 1983 through 1987, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) conducted several Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) site inspections. In 1983, MRI failed to file a Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity form and was sent a Notice of Violation which was followed by an Outstanding Violation letter. Letters of response to LDEQ stated that the RCRA violations were being addressed; however, in November 1983, an inspection reported that the facility was not in operation and that there were no indications that the violations were being corrected. As a result, LDEQ issued a Letter of Warning to MRI, which filed for Chapter 11 in bankruptcy proceedings and sold the facility to Cameron Resources, Inc., (CRI) contingent upon CRI obtaining certification to operate the plant after renovations and repairs were made. In March 1985, facility status changed from a treatment, storage and disposal (TSD) facility to a hazardous waste generator, and CRI began crude oil refining operations anew in August 1985. In 1987 the owners filed for bankruptcy and the facility was closed. In a state conducted site investigation in response to the bankruptcy, LDEQ noted that the facility had allegedly accepted hazardous waste fuels for which it was not permitted and had received and attempted to process styrene, a compound commonly used to produce plastics, resulting in serious operational problems within the refinery, which ultimately led to its closure. From January to March 1999, EPA oversaw the removal and off-site disposal of approximately 866,304 gallons of oil/waste material from on-site tanks. An additional 152,392 gallons of thick, sludge-like oil/waste material could not be removed from some tanks due to its consistency and remains on site. Chemical analyses of this remaining tank waste revealed elevated concentrations of styrene, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, 2-methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, vanadium, and zinc. Sediment samples collected from the wetlands adjacent to the area containing the tank waste revealed elevated levels of arsenic, barium, copper, manganese, mercury, nickel, vanadium, and zinc. A record of decision (ROD) was signed in 2003. Discussion of federal/state regulations applicable today: As a TSD, the RCRA Subtitle C regulations that were in place as of 1980 should have subjected the facility to closure requirements and related financial assurance provisions. However, prior to the initial bankruptcy in 1983 the owner operator appears to have not met these standards. Of note is that during 20 ------- the period the facility was a TSD it likely operated under interim status for much, if not all of that time prior to the 1983 bankruptcy. During that pre-HSWA timeframe, corrective action authorities for interim status facilities (now found at § 3008(h)) were not yet in place. Additional requirements in HSWA at § 3007(e) also include the requirement that each TSD be inspected, at a minimum, once every two years. Moreover, HSWA enhanced the enforcement provisions at § 3008 by allowing the administrator to assess civil penalties in instances of noncompliance for past or current violations (3008(a)), expanded the criminal penalty provisions to include knowingly violating interim status regulations among other things (3008(d)). A second owner operator operated the facility from 1985-1987 as a generator, not a TSD, but appears as if it accepted hazardous wastes for processing nevertheless. The facility's abandonment in 1987 is seven years after the initial hazardous waste generator regulations were finalized but only one year after the small quantity generator regulations were finalized. It is notable that the inspections and violations began in 1983 before any of the additional enforcement authorities or technical standards of HSWA were in place. Although state enforcement occurred at the site, no federal enforcement resulted in site compliance. Preliminary conclusion regarding the appropriateness of using this NPL case study to demonstrate ongoing risk at modern NAICS 324 facilities: This case study does not represent an instance of pollution occurring when the applicable regulatory structure was substantially like today. The initial years of the facility's operation were pre-HSWA. The facility was operated (but not as a TSD) for two years after HSWA was passed - prior to a second bankruptcy - but many of HSWA's provisions would not be in effect until later. References: • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Record of Decision Summary, Mallard Bay Landing Bulk Plant Superfund Site, Cameron Parish, Louisiana, Region 6, March 2003. • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NPL Listing Narrative, Mallard Bay Landing Bulk Plant Superfund Site, Grand Cheniere, Louisiana, Region 6, July 2000 • Superfund Enterprise Management System data as of March 29, 2018. Available in docket as a spreadsheet titled "Copy of SEMS data_108b_March 2018.xlsx" 21 ------- Facility Name: Douglassville Disposal EPA Region/State: R3 - PA EPA SEMS ID: PAD002384865 EPA FRS ID: 110007755385 Operation: 1941 -1986 Action Lead: Mixed Lead Construction Superfund Expenditures to Date (2017 USD): $ 36,449,208.62 (Total) $ 28,185,108.21 (Non SA) Site Background/Description: The Douglassville Disposal site occupies approximately 50 acres of land in Union Township, southeastern Berks County, Pennsylvania, along the southern bank of the Schuylkill River. Waste oil processing operations were conducted on the site between approximately 1941 and 1986. Those operations included waste oil storage lagoons, land farming areas, and various other waste disposal areas. From 1941 to 1972, waste oil sludge was placed in on-site lagoons. The contents were washed into the Schuylkill River during flooding in 1970 and 1972. Initial operations involved recycling of waste solvents and lubrication oil. In approximately 1979, the operation was converted to the refining of waste oil for use as fuel. Sludge generated in the oil recovery process was land farmed on the site. From 1979 to 1982, about 700 drums, many leaking, were stored on the site. Pennsylvania ordered the facility to remove the drums and surface soil contaminated by their storage. This work was completed in April 1982. Sampling on the site indicated that ground water and soil in a drainage ditch have been contaminated with organic compounds and lead. In addition, in 1983, some pollutants were still being released into the Schuylkill River. The drinking water intake for the City of Pottstown is 2.3 miles downstream from the site. Operations ceased in early 1986. The non-operating facility currently consists of a former waste oil processing area located in the southern portion of the site and various areas which were used for waste disposal. A filter cake disposal area is located just north of the former processing facility/tank farm area. Various trenches and impoundments have been noted on-site. The lagoons formerly used for waste disposal have been backfilled. The site was the subject of three federal enforcement orders concluded from 1990 through 1997. In the first CERCLA 107 1990 case, the outcome included a Total Compliance Action Cost of $19M, a requested Cost Recovery of $11M, and an awarded Cost Recovery of $3M. It included over 150 PRPs identified as contributing to the contamination. At the time, the clean-up involved two operable units and the estimated remediation cost was $65M. The 1993 order dealt with a bankruptcy of one of the site Responsible Parties. The 1997 CERCLA order was for imminent and substantial EPA response. Discussion of federal/state regulations applicable today: The RCRA Subtitle C regulations would make illegal the land disposal of the refinery wastes absent a variety of protections. The disposal of the hazardous wastes would require the facility to obtain a RCRA permit, meet unit standards for the design and operation of the land disposal units and meet land disposal restriction pretreatment standards prior to disposal. It is notable that the disposal of waste oil 22 ------- sludge in lagoons ceased in 1972. The landfarming and storage of leaky drums also appears to be pre- HSWA. Preliminary conclusion regarding the appropriateness of using this NPL case study to demonstrate ongoing risk at modern NAICS 324 facilities: Given the dates of facility operation (1941-1986) it is likely that much, if not all, of the contamination from land disposal is a legacy issue. Of note is the RCRA regulations coming into place in 1980 and the RCRA LDRs, which required pre-treatment of wastes prior to land disposal, coming into place later in the 1980s. In addition to LDRs, HSWA also included expanded enforcement authorities, enhanced technical standards for land disposal units and set deadlines for land disposal facilities to demonstrate FA and install groundwater monitoring. This facility appears to be an example of a facility with significant legacy contamination unable or unwilling to meet stringent RCRA Subtitle C regulations that came into place over the course of the 1980s. References: • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Record of Decision, Douglassville Disposal Superfund Site, Union Township, Pennsylvania, Region 3, June 1989. • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NPL Listing Narrative, Douglassville Disposal Superfund Site, Douglassville, Pennsylvania, Region 3, July 1983. • Superfund Enterprise Management System data as of March 29, 2018. Available in docket as a spreadsheet titled "Copy of SEMS data_108b_March 2018.xlsx" 23 ------- Facility Name: Imperial Oil Co., Inc. / Champion Chemicals EPA Region/State: R2 - NJ EPA SEMS ID: NJD980654099 EPA FRS ID: 110006706225 Operation: 1950-2007 (oil reclamation and blending) 1912-2007 (all industrial activity) Action Lead: Government Lead Construction Superfund Expenditures to Date (2017 USD): $ 107,241,713.48 (Total) $ 100,535,737.29 (Non-SA) Site Background/Description: The Imperial Oil Company/Champion Chemical Company (IOC/CC) site includes a 15 acre plant and surrounding contaminated properties located in the Morganville section of Marlboro Township in northwest Monmouth County, New Jersey. The Champion Chemical Company is the owner of the real property. Since 1969, the premises have been leased to the Imperial Oil Company, Inc., which operated an oil blending facility until 2007. Industrial activities have been ongoing at the site since approximately 1912. Initially, ketchup and tomato paste were manufactured at the facility until approximately 1917, at which time it was converted to a chemical processing plant. The products of the chemical plant may have included arsenic acid and calcium arsenate, followed by the manufacturing of flavors and essences. In approximately 1950, the plant was purchased by Champion Chemical Company and became an oil reclamation facility. The waste products of the reclamation process included wash water, waste oils and sludge, and spent filter clay. Reportedly, the waste filter clay containing lead, zinc, iron, and other heavy metals was piled outside near the settling tank for temporary storage. Wash water was discharged into a lagoon located on-site for settling. This operation continued until approximately 1965. Imperial Oil Company leased the site from Champion Chemical in 1969 and began conducting oil blending operations, including mixing and repackaging unused oil for delivery. Raw products (refined clean oil) are delivered by truck and transferred to above-ground tanks on the site. At some point in the facility's operation, contaminated waste oil and sludges were buried in drums that later were the focus of a 1993 removal action. Extensive soil and groundwater contamination occurred from spills and hazardous substance management practices during facility operations. In April 1981, a state site inspection found oil-contaminated soils and numerous large puddles at the base of Tank Farms 1 and 2. In May 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a limited sampling program at the off-site areas - Birch Swamp Brook and the waste filter clay pile. In June and August of 1981, the State conducted two site inspections and identified several potential sources of contamination. In August 1981, the state conducted an inspection of the off-site waste oil contaminated areas. In December 1981, Imperial Oil Company, Inc./Champion Chemicals (OC/CC) entered into an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) with the state which IOC/CC agreed to cease discharging hazardous and other pollutants into the waters of the state and agreed to comply with specified discharge limits set forth by the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. In addition, the ACO required IOC/CC to repair the oil/water separators and dispose of the oil/water separator sludge in a manner acceptable to the state. 24 ------- Several removal actions have been completed by EPA at the site. In November 1991, as part of a removal action, EPA excavated the waste filter clay down to ground level. Also, in 1991, EPA installed extraction wells to remove the floating product layer that lies above the groundwater beneath the waste filter clay disposal area. In April 1993, EPA began the removal of buried drums. Initial identification of the material from the buried drums indicated contaminated waste oil and sludge. The action involved the excavation and removal of the buried drums to minimize the possibility of further migration of contaminated materials already in the ground. Operable Unit (OU) 1: OU1 includes the wetlands and off-site soils located in what is known as Off-site Areas 1 and 2 and four residential properties located near the facility. The OU1 ROD identified PCBs, arsenic, lead, and semi-volatile and volatile organic compounds as the major contaminants of concern in the soils associated with Off-site Areas 1 & 2. The ROD estimated that 3,700 cubic yards of contaminated soil would need to be remediated. The ROD indicated that the volume would be adjusted following the completion of the Remedial Design (RD). OU 2: EPA has installed extraction wells to remove a petroleum-like product layer from the ground water. The removal of the petroleum-like product, which began in the fall of 1991, was undertaken to try to eliminate a major source of ground water contamination and, consequently, reduce the time needed to restore the aquifer to a usable condition. Currently, the extracted petroleum product is being stored on the site in storage tanks for ultimate treatment and disposal. OU3: OU3 includes the contaminated site soils, including the remaining waste filter clay material. A ROD for OU3 was complete in September 1999. The site was the subject of 6 federal enforcement orders from 1990 through 2010. The only CWA 107 1990 case simply required compliance with Spill Prevention Planning requirements. All five of the remaining orders from 1993 through 2010 are CERCLA. Several parties (2 companies and 2 individuals) were identified as contributing to the contamination and approximately $5M in cost recovery and bankruptcy proceedings. One of the remaining cases that included this site requested $31M in cost recovery from 16 entities but was only awarded $17M. SEMS expenditures recorded at the site are over $107M, and the site was abandoned in bankruptcy twice. $40M in costs were attempted for bankruptcy recovery. Discussion of federal/state regulations applicable today: The RCRA Subtitle C regulations would make illegal the land disposal and storage of the refinery and oil blending wastes absent a variety of protections. The disposal of the hazardous wastes would require the facility to obtain a RCRA permit, meet unit standards for the design and operation of the land disposal units and meet land disposal restriction pretreatment standards prior to disposal. Much of the contamination from land disposal and treatment practices (i.e. the placement of waste water in lagoons, waste filter clay containing lead, zinc, iron, and other heavy metals being pilled outside near the settling tank for temporary storage) ceased in 1965. The burying of waste oils and sludges in drums is another land disposal practice that RCRA prevents. While the date of that activity is unclear, it is likely, given the facility's long history that some of the activity occurred pre- RCRA. Discharging hazardous and other pollutants into surface waters was a practice that ceased at the site in 1981 under a consent agreement with the state whereby the facility began complying with specified 25 ------- discharge limits set forth by the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The CWA NPDES permits contained effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) that were established and modified between 1974 and 1985 for petroleum refining point sources (40 CFR Part 419) and established and modified between 1981 and 2005 general standards for existing and new sources (40 CFR Part 403). Preliminary conclusion regarding the appropriateness of using this NPL case study to demonstrate ongoing risk at modern NAICS 324 facilities: Much of land disposal issues are legacy as are the discharges to surface water. Unclear for the buried drums but likely that much of that activity was legacy. This is substantiated by the discovery of significant sources of pollution as early as 1981 and a pre-HSWA listing to the NPL in 1983. References: • Superfund Site Profile Webpage, Imperial Oil Co., Inc./Champion Chemicals, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Retrieved May 2018 • Superfund Enterprise Management System data as of March 29, 2018. Available in docket as a spreadsheet titled "Copy of SEMS data_108b_March 2018.xlsx" 26 ------- Facility Name: Oklahoma Refining Co. EPA Region/State: R6 - OK EPA SEMS ID: OKD091598870 EPA FRS IDs: 110010695863, 110001631477 & 110064193395 and 110004758959 Operation: 1920 -1984 Action Lead: Government Lead Construction Superfund Expenditures to Date (2017 USD): $ 50,098,579.66 (Total) $ 48,906,057.87 (Non SA) Site Background/Description: The Oklahoma Refining Company (ORC) Superfund Site (Site) is a former refinery located in Caddo County, on the eastern edge of Cyril, Oklahoma, approximately 75 miles southwest of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The northwest portion is also known as Cyril Petrochemical Corporation (CPC) and as Oklahoma Energy Incorporated. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) is the lead agency for the remediation of the Site, under a cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Anderson and Pritchard Company (APCO) operated a refinery at the Site, from 1920 to 1978. ORC purchased the refinery in 1978 and operated it until 1984. The facility acquired Interim Status under Subtitle C of RCRA when the owner filed a Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity and Part A of a permit application. ORC filed for bankruptcy protection in September of 1984 and ceased operations at that time. In 1986, the bankruptcy court granted the bankruptcy trustee's motion to delete the southeastern portion of the Site from the bankrupt estate. During its operating life, ORC placed process wastes, including some listed as hazardous under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), in impoundments (many unlined), treated them, or tilled them into the soil in a land farming operation. Approximately 100 impoundments still containing wastes and 1 waste pile remained on-site when Superfund began remedial activities. In 1980, EPA issued an Administrative Order requiring ORC to reduce its discharge to Gladys Creek under its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. OSDH entered into a separate Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) with CPC on January 28, 1992. By that order, CPC agreed to address ground water contamination, storm water drainage and above-ground and underground storage tanks. The refinery is currently inactive. The ODEQ referred the CPC facility to the EPA on October 30, 1997. CPC defaulted on the CAFO and subsequent Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) order. Two records of federal CERCLA enforcement cases for this site were concluded in 2001 and 2013. The second claimed a bankruptcy cost recovery of $14M, less than 30% of actual SEMS recorded costs. The entire ORC Site was added to the EPA National Priorities List in June 1988. Discussion of applicable federal/state regulations today: The RCRA Subtitle C regulations made illegal the land disposal of the refinery wastes absent a variety of protections. The disposal of the hazardous wastes would require the facility to obtain a RCRA permit, meet unit standards for the design and operation of the land disposal units. This facility operated for decades prior to RCRA. Some land disposal may have occurred after RCRA regulations first became effective in 1980. However, HSWA was not passed until 1984 and many of its provisions didn't become 27 ------- effective until 1986 (loss of interim status for land disposal facilities) or later (LDRs). All the practices resulting in releases at ORC appear to be pre-HSWA. HSWA led to more robust technical standards for land disposal facilities and set deadlines for certifying compliance with the groundwater monitoring and financial assurance requirements and issuing permits for facilities with land disposal units. HSWA also expanded corrective action authorities (e.g. facility-wide corrective action) that today would require owners and operators to address more of the contamination. Preliminary conclusion regarding the appropriateness of using this NPL case study to demonstrate ongoing risk at modern NAICS 324 facilities: It is likely that the six decades of pre-RCRA land disposal practices and operations contributed very significantly to the contamination. This appears to be a case where the owner operator of a facility with extensive legacy contamination and issues either couldn't or decided not to meet the stringent RCRA Subtitle C regulations that developed over the course of the 1980s and rather abandoned the facility in bankruptcy. References: • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NPL Listing Narrative, Oklahoma Refining Company Superfund Site, Cyrill, Oklahoma, Region 6, February 1990. • Superfund Enterprise Management System data as of March 29, 2018. Available in docket as a spreadsheet titled "Copy of SEMS data_108b_March 2018.xlsx" 28 ------- Cleanup Case Studies Where Modern Issues May Have Been Identified but No Significant Taxpayer Expenditures Occurred Facility Name: Indian Refinery-Texaco Lawrenceville EPA Region/State: R5 - IL EPA SEMS ID: ILD042671248 EPA FRS ID: Operation: 1907 -1995 Action Lead: Mixed Lead Construction Superfund Expenditures to Date (2017 USD): $ 720,511.27 (Total) $ 720,511.27 (Non SA) Site Background/Description: The facility began operations in 1907 and ceased operation in 1995. A variety of operations occurred on the property as part of the crude oil refining process. The northeastern portion of the site, referred to currently as Indian Acres and Indian Acres North, was dedicated to lube oil refining and production. The lube oil production facility was abandoned and demolished sometime after World War II and the area was used for land disposal. Typical refinery wastes deposited within this area included: lube oil filter clay sludge; acid sludge; and spent filter clays. These wastes are highly acidic and have an extremely low pH. Other parts of the site hosted more recent refining operations including a wastewater treatment area, process units, refinery equipment, settling basins, API separators, tanks, disposal areas, and land treatment units. According to RCRAInfo, the owner operator filed a Part A RCRA permit application in November 1980. In 1983 and 1984, U.S. EPA conducted a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) Preliminary Assessment and Screening Site Inspection (PA/SI), respectively. In 1985, Texaco conducted an investigation of the Indian Acres property which revealed that the area was a waste disposal area for lube oil acid sludge and lube oil filter cake sludge. These wastes are highly acidic and have an extremely low pH. In 1986, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) conducted a preliminary review and visual site inspection pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA) at the refinery, identifying 33 solid waste management units (SWMUs). This action eventually led to the May 1992 Consent Decree between IEPA and IRC, in which IRC agreed to conduct investigations of the 33 SWMUs. In 1997, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) discovered ongoing oil release and associated contaminated area. An assessment of the release confirmed that a subsurface oil product, floating on groundwater, was releasing through several discharge points into wetlands beyond the refinery fence line. Most of the vegetation in the wooded wetlands area, impacted by the oil release, had been killed. Samples revealed the presence of benzene, toluene, xylene, methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, 1,3,5- trimethylbenzene, and total petroleum hydrocarbons. Because American Western Refining did not have sufficient funds available to respond to the requirements as outlined by U.S. EPA, U.S. EPA mobilized. In September 2011, ownership transferred to Texaco Downstream Properties, Inc. Texaco is represented by Chevron Environmental Management Company (CEMC), which is performing the cleanup work. EPA's primary involvement at the site was oversight of two short-term cleanups, or removal actions, prior to 29 ------- the site's listing on the Superfund program's National Priorities List (NPL) in 2000. After the site's listing on the NPL, cleanup has continued under Illinois EPA oversight. Five records of federal CERCLA enforcement cases for this site were concluded in 1997, 1998 and 2001. The CERCLA 1997 case included a cost recovery removal for off-site acid sludge contaminating a residential area. The CERCLA 2001 case included cost recovery of $86IK which went to the Coast Guard. Discussion of federal/state regulations applicable today: Today, the RCRA Subtitle C regulations would make illegal the land disposal of the refinery wastes absent a variety of protections. The disposal of the hazardous wastes would require the facility to obtain a RCRA permit, meet unit standards for the design and operation of the land disposal units and meet land disposal restriction pretreatment standards prior to disposal among other provisions. The Indian Refinery operated for almost seven decades prior to the passage of RCRA and thus it is assumed a significant portion of the contamination from land disposal was pre-RCRA. This is reinforced by the fact that the inspections and assessments at the site identifying pollution occurred in 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. This strongly indicates that those land disposal issues were legacy pre-HSWA issues. The nature of the release identified by USFWS in 1997 is not clear from available information. It is possible this release stemmed from contamination resulting from legacy land disposal practice; however, it may be a separate more recent issue. Preliminary conclusion regarding the appropriateness of using this NPL case study to demonstrate ongoing risk at contemporary NAICS 324 facilities: The site does not demonstrate ongoing risk at contemporary NAICS 324 facilities. There were significant legacy land disposal issues that resulted in most, if not all, of the contamination. While it is unclear if the release identified in 1997 was from contaminated media from legacy land disposal practices or a more current issue, according to the site's EPA website, CMEC is handling the cleanup. This is further evidenced by the relatively limited Superfund expenditures to date at the site. References: • Superfund Site Profile Webpage, Indian Refinery-Texaco Lawrenceville, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Retrieved October 2018 • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NPL Listing Narrative, Indian Refinery-Texaco Lawrenceville Superfund Site, Lawrenceville, Illinois, Region 5, December 2000. • Superfund Site NPL Fact Sheet, Indian Refinery-Texaco Lawrenceville, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Retrieved December 2009. • Superfund Enterprise Management System data as of March 29, 2018. Available in docket as a spreadsheet titled "Copy of SEMS data_108b_March 2018.xlsx" • RCRAInfo - EPA's Hazardous Waste Program National Database. 30 ------- Facility Name: Koch Refining Co./N-Ren Corporation EPA Region/State: R5 - MN EPA SEMS ID: MND000686071 EPA FRS ID: 110000424611 Operation: 1955 - Present Action Lead: Government Lead Construction Superfund Expenditures to Date (2017 USD): $ 26,659.56 (Total) $ 26,659.56 (Non SA) Site Background/Description: The Koch Refining/N-ReN Corporation site is the site of a currently operating oil refinery. In 1955, the Great Northern Oil Company was formed to construct and operate a petroleum refinery in the Pine Bend area of Rosemount, Minnesota. In 1969, Koch acquired majority ownership of the refinery. The refining facility was renamed Koch Refining Company (Koch) in 1972. Koch purchased the North Star Chemical, Inc. plant from N-ReN Corporation on December 30, 1980, and renamed it the Koch Sulfuric Acid Unit (KSAU). Operations at Koch consist of refining sour western Canadian crude oil into gasolines, jet fuels, residential and commercial heating oil, kerosene, diesel fuel, industrial boiler fuel, asphalt, petroleum coke, sulfur, carbon dioxide, butane, and propane. Originally operating at a capacity of 25,000 barrels per day, Koch has expanded over the years to its current capacity more than 200,000 barrels per day. In 1972, the State made an extensive investigation of wells in and near the site, which is now an industrial park. The investigation indicated that persistent seepage from holding ponds, lagoons, and spent bauxite piles on property owned by Koch and N-Ren was contaminating ground water with lead and phenols. According to an NPL listing narrative, by 1984, the units have been closed or upgraded and obtained proper permits. More recently in 1987, there was a release of leaded gasoline from the barge dock pipeline. The following is a list of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants found in the ground water monitoring wells at or near the Site in 1984: 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-Trichlorethylene; 1,1- Dichloroethylene, Methylene Chloride; 1,1-Oichloroethane; 1,2-Dichloroethane; Di-lsopropyl Ether; Tetrachloroethane; 3,3-Dimethy-l-Butane; (E)-4-Methyl-2-Pentene; (E)-3-Methyl-2-Pentene; 4,4- Dimethyl-2-Pentene; 3-Ethyl-2-Pentene; 2-(Ethylthio)-Propane; 2,3-Dimethyl-2-Pentene; 2,3,4- Trimethyl-2-Pentene; 4-Methyl-3-Heptene; 2,2'-Thiobis-Propane; 2,3-Dimethyl-2-Heoene; Methyl Isobutyl Ketone; Benzene; Chloroform; Carbon Tetrachloride; Napthalene, Chrysene; Anthracene; and Penanthrene. In October 1984, the Site received a Hazardous Ranking System (HRS) score of 31. Consequently, the Site was placed on the state Permanent List of Priorities and the National Priorities List. The 1986 and 1988, investigations identified several areas of concern resulting from leaks, spills and discharges from active and inactive wastewater lagoons, process areas, internal pipelines, and waste treatment areas. In 1988, the MPCA issued Koch a hazardous waste treatment permit for a land treatment unit. This prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action program, to investigate and subsequently identify the six (6) to eight (8) solid waste management units. 31 ------- The State indicated that the barge dock pipeline release was discovered during a hydrostatic test conducted in August 1987. The leak was found in a short section of the pipe that was buried 6 to 9 feet below ground surface. The line, used to transport leaded gasoline to the barge dock located on the Mississippi River, was repaired and put back into service. The pipeline release resulted in leaded gasoline contamination of the unsaturated zone, accumulation of leaded gasoline at the saturated zone, and migration of the soluble constituents of the leaded gasoline to the upper most portion of the water table aquifer. The volume of leaded gasoline released is unknown, but the release is estimated to have contaminated 15,500 cubic yards of soil and caused gasoline to enter the uppermost aquifer (the layer of ground water lying nearest the surface). About 62,700 gallons of gasoline are estimated to be suspended in the soils, and about 35,000 gallons of gasoline are estimated to be on the water table near the location of the release. Enforcement at this site included 7 separate federal cases from 1989 through 2001. The first was a 1989 Clean Water Act sections 309, 402, and 301 case for violations of an existing administrative order and NPDES discharges without a permit, based on 88 direct discharges of effluents from the refinery since Jan 1984($1.5M penalty). The second case, in 2000, was a RCRA sections 3005A, 3008A, and 3002 requiring a $3.5M penalty. This was based on RCRA violations noted during a June 15, 1998 facility inspection and resulted in the $2.2M remediation of 6000 cubic yards of F037 (wastewater...containing arsenic or chromium) wastes in a sludge lagoon. The last relevant enforcement action was a 2001 multi-site national CAA 113A case requiring a $4.5M penalty with $102M in compliance actions. While the MN site was only one of the three sites, the case notes describe ordered removal of 20,000 cubic yards of F037 wastes to the land. Discussion of federal/state regulations applicable today: The RCRA Subtitle C regulations would make illegal the land disposal of the refinery wastes absent a variety of protections. The disposal of the hazardous wastes would require the facility to obtain a RCRA permit, meet unit standards for the design and operation of the land disposal units and meet land disposal restriction pretreatment standards prior to disposal. This would greatly reduce the risk of the types of seeping units identified at the site occurring today. These regulations were first promulgated in 1980 but were significantly enhanced following the 1984 passage of HSWA. Some of the most recently identified spills and leaks (the exact timing of which are unknown) were identified from units in 1986 and 1988 investigations. This suggests the issues likely arose pre-HSWA. Moreover, the RCRA corrective action authorities (which were themselves also substantially enhanced by HSWA) were successful in identifying them and ordering cleanup. Regarding the 1987 pipeline spill for which the Superfund program was mobilized, the most substantive Federal regulatory structure became effective in 1981. The Department of Transportation Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR Parts 190, 195) were designed to ensure the safety in the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and spill response planning of hazardous liquid transportation pipelines. Preliminary conclusion regarding the appropriateness of using this NPL case study to demonstrate ongoing risk at modern NAICS 324 facilities: 32 ------- This site had one or more issues prior to contemporary regulations and one issue after today's regulatory structure was in place. The land disposal and contamination from older units is a legacy issue. Furthermore, the RCRA corrective action authority has been successful in identifying and requiring cleanup of contamination (which may or may not have been pre-RCRA) identified in the mid to late 1980s and did not require taxpayer expenditures. However, the pipeline spill occurred after the most recent pipeline regulations were implemented and is an example of ongoing risk as it post-dates the relevant pipeline regulations. It is worth noting that notwithstanding a designation as mixed lead site in the Superfund Enterprise Management System database, as of early 2018, the Superfund program has only spent $26, 659 at the site. This suggests that the PRP handled the clear majority, if not all, of the cleanup. References: • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Record of Decision Summary, Koch Refining/N-Ren Corporation Superfund Site, Rosemont, Minnesota, Region 5, September 1991. • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NPL Listing Narrative, Koch Refining/N-Ren Corporation Superfund Site, Pine Bend, Minnesota, Region 5, June 1986 • Superfund Enterprise Management System data as of March 29, 2018. Available in docket as a spreadsheet titled "Copy of SEMS data_108b_March 2018.xlsx" 33 ------- |