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

-------