Identification and Evaluation of CERCLA 108(b) Petroleum and Coal
Products Manufacturing non-National Priorities List (NPL) Removal
Sites.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM)

-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents	i
Identification of CERCLA Removal Action Cases	1
SEMS Query	1
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Sites	1
Screening Out Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Funded Actions	2
Screening Out Additional Non-Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Sites	2
Screening Out Sites with Insufficient Response Documentation	2
Analytical Steps and Methodology	3
Screening Out Legacy Issues	6
Summary of Findings from the Detailed Review of Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry
Removal Sites with Potential Modern Regulation Releases and Risks	7
Appendix I. List of Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Non-NPL Sites	10
Appendix II. List of Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Sites with Fund or Mixed Response Lead
Designation in SEMS	12
Appendix III. Detailed Case Narratives of Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry Removal
Sites with Potential Modern Regulation Releases and Risk	13
1)	Benicia Valero Refinery	15
2)	United Energy	20
3)	St. Rose Air Assessment	23
4)	Lake Charles NRG	28
5)	Browns Island Chemical Spill	32

-------
Identification of CERCLA Removal Action Cases
EPA sought to evaluate the need for CERCLA 108(b) financial responsibility regulations at classes of
facilities in the Chemical Manufacturing, Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing, and the Electric
Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution Industry. Specifically, EPA sought to identify whether
there were examples of pollution caused by activities within these industries that occurred under an
environmental regulatory structure like today's that required taxpayer funded cleanups. EPA believes
that this type of cleanup case would be indicative of the potential need for CERCLA 108(b) financial
responsibility requirements. EPA prioritized identifying and analyzing Superfund National Priorities List
(NPL) sites as those tend to be the largest cleanups with the greatest likelihood of significant taxpayer
expenditures. However, to supplement this evaluation, EPA also examined a number of sites that are
not listed on the NPL, but that required removal actions. This report is focused specifically on EPA's
identification and evaluation of such non-National Priorities List (NPL) Removal Sites within the
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing industry.
SEMS Query
In order to establish a universe of non-NPL sites to investigate, in November 2018 EPA queried the EPA's
Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) database.1 Within SEMS, EPA filtered the 83,000
records for sites that were not on the NPL. EPA also excluded sites at which cleanup occurred under the
Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA) from this analysis. EPA considers those sites in its analysis of NPL
sites.2 This resulted in 7,565 sites. These sites include, sites designated in SEMS as Removal Only Sites
(where no site assessment work needed), Referred to Removal - Needs Further Remedial Assessment,
and Referred to Removal - No Further Remedial Action Planned. This approach erred on the side of
over identifying potential damage cases as some of these candidate sites would be already accounted
for as part of other NPL sites.
Next, EPA filtered the 7,565 sites using SEMS industry identification category (Primary and/or Secondary
Subcategory 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, coke production, chemicals
and allied products, chemicals/chemical waste, and electric power generation and distribution. This
filtering yielded 363 removal sites.
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Sites
The 363 removal sites included sites at which any of the three additional classes - Chemical
Manufacturing, Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing and the Electric Power Generation,
Transmission and Distribution - were identified as the industry Primary and/or Secondary Subcategory
Name3. At this point in the analysis, EPA turned its focus to Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing.
To evaluate whether the removal actions resulted from pollution that occurred under a modern
1	SEMS data for removal cases capture CERCLA responses but are not comprehensive of all potential releases.
Alternative data sources reveal releases unrelated to CERCLA, and therefore not tracked in SEMS (e.g., non-CERCLA
enforcement cases related to the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act)
2	EPA-HQ- SFUND-2019-0087
3	SEMS industrial designations within SEMS were used to identify sites (damage case) for evaluation. Incomplete or
misplaced designations may result in some cases going unidentified. No additional reviews of non-selected sites
were performed unless EPA experience and program knowledge revealed omissions from the list.
1

-------
regulatory regime for these sites, EPA then further eliminated the Electric Power Generation,
Transmission and Distribution, chemicals and allied products, and chemicals/chemical waste sites. This
left the sites for which SEMS listed petroleum and coal products manufacturing as the Primary and/or
Secondary Subcategory Name. From the original 363 removal sites as identified, EPA found that 51 of
these 363 removal sites potentially fall within the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
codes 324110 for Petroleum Refineries, and 324199 for All Other Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing. EPA narrowed its scope to focus on evaluating these 51 sites
Screening Out Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Funded Actions
The focus of EPA's investigation was to identify sites at which pollution occurred in a modern
environmental regulatory structure that required taxpayer funded cleanup. As a result, EPA conducted a
preliminary review of the available site documents for each of the 51 Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing removal sites through the EPA's SEMS and On Scene Coordinator Response (OSC
Response) databases. The information collected as part of this review is available in the docket to this
action.4 The documents available through the SEMS and OSC Response databases largely comprise
Pollution Reports and Removal Action Memoranda. From this initial review, EPA identified23 sites that
appeared to possibly require government funded action or a mix of government and PRP funded action
warranting further review. Twenty-eight sites PRP lead sites were screened out of the analysis.
Screening Out Additional Non-Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Sites
Once EPA identified these 23 Removal sites at which removal actions were funded in part or in full by
the government, EPA conducted initial reviews of site-specific data from the documents available
through the SEMS and OSC Response databases. The data generally included information on the nature
of the operations at the site. With this information, EPA determined that 12 of the 23 removal sites with
government funded removal actions did not have Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry
operations and were therefore outside of the scope of the rulemaking. Once these additional sites were
screened out, 11 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry sites that possibly required
government funded removal actions remained.
Screening Out Sites with Insufficient Response Documentation
EPA conducted thorough reviews of the available site-specific information and documents for each of
those 11 petroleum and coal products manufacturing sites with government funded actions. However,
when EPA consulted the SEMS and OSC Response databases about these sites, there was insufficient
information about removal actions at four of the sites to conduct a thorough analysis of the site. At
three of the 12 sites, there was no removal action documentation at all: E-Biofuels (INN00510768);
Petroleum Products Corporation #2 Fuel Spill (PAN00305647); and New Castle Catalyst Release
(WYN000801987).5 At the Suncor Refinery Yellow Plume site (CON000802548) EPA was able to locate an
OSC pollution report for the site. The pollution report indicated that no response or removal actions
occurred at the site and thus there were no removal documents to analyze.
4	EPA-HQ- SFUND-2019-0087
5	The OSC Response website does have a webpage for the E-Biofuels site. The E-Biofuels webpage lists the site as
"pending." See EPA OSC, "E-Biofuels LLC," accessed May 15, 2019 at:
https://response.epa.gov/site/site profile,aspx?site id=7936.
2

-------
As a result, EPA focused on the remaining seven Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry
removal sites for which the agency located sufficient documentation to conduct analyses of those
removal actions.
Analytical Steps and Methodology
Once EPA identified these seven Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry removal sites at
which removal actions were funded in part or in full by the government and EPA confirmed that sources
documenting the removal actions at those sites were available, EPA collected site-specific data from the
documents available through the SEMS and OSC Response databases. The data collection included site
operation and contamination dates to determine if the site may have operated and/or experienced
contamination under a modern environmental regulatory regime. EPA also collected data on the nature
of the operations at the site, the cleanup activity that occurred at the site, the contamination at the site,
descriptions of the incident that caused the contamination, the sources of contamination, and the
media at the site that was contaminated and was removed in the removal action. The data collected as
described was entered into a spreadsheet for comparative purposes and can be reviewed within the
docket.6
Of the seven Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry removal sites that featured
government funded cleanup activities for which EPA collected data, seven were classified as fully funded
by the government.
Table 1 - Funding Sources for Cleanup Activities at Government Funded Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing Industry Removal Sites
Funding Source
Count
Government
7
Mixed
0
Total:
7
Of the eight Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry removal sites that featured solely
government funded activities for which EPA collected data, seven were associated with industry specific
activities for NAICS 324110 - petroleum refining, one was associated with industry activities for NAICS
324199 - other petroleum and coal products manufacturing. These are shown in Table 2 below with the
associated North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes.
Table 2 - Six Digit NAICS Classifications for Government Funded Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing Industry Removal Sites
Six Digit NAICS
Industry Classification
Count
324110
Petroleum refineries
6
324199
Other petroleum and coal products manufacturing
1

Total:
7
6 EPA-HQ- SFUND-2019-0087
3

-------
EPA also determined whether the contamination at the non-NPL sites were the result of a single,
immediate releases or catastrophic incidents, versus a long-term, gradual release. Of the eight
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry removal sites that featured only government
funded cleanup activities for which EPA collected data, there were three sites that had
single/catastrophic incidents and six sites with long-term releases. Note that the total count in Table 3 is
more than eight because a single site may have experienced both long-term releases and a catastrophic
incident.
Table 3 - Contamination Timing at Government Funded Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
Industry non-NPL Sites
Contamination Timing
Count
Single Incident
3
Long-term Releases
6
Total:
97
EPA also collected the contaminants that necessitated the removal action. At the seven Petroleum and
Coal Products Manufacturing Industry non-NPL sites that featured only government funded cleanup
activities for which EPA collected data, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) required removal at six sites,
lead required removal at two sites, and asbestos, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), sulfides, and
sulfur dioxide all required removal at one site. Note that the total count in Table 4 is more than seven
because at some sites, there was more than one contaminant that necessitated a removal action.
Table 4 - Contaminants that Necessitated Removal at Government Funded Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing Industry non-NPL Sites
Contaminant
Count
Petroleum Hvdrocarbons/VOCs
6
Lead
2
Asbestos
1
Mercury
1
PCB
1
Sulfides
1
Sulfur dioxide
1
Total:
14
EPA also collected data on the cause or causes of single/catastrophic types of incidents that led to
contamination. At the three Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry non-NPL sites at
which a single release necessitated a removal action, mechanical failure led to contamination at two
sites, and flaring led to contamination at the other site, as shown in Table 5 below.
7 The figure does not add up to 7 sites, because multiple issues can occur at one site.
4

-------
Table 5 - Causes of Contaminating Incidents at Government Funded Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing Industry non-NPL Sites
Cause of Contaminating Incident
Count
Mechanical Failure (e.g., leaks from tanks and drums;
malfunctioning regenerative thermal oxidizer)
2
Flaring
1
Total:
3
EPA also collected data on the sources of contamination or the contamination vectors that occurred at
each site. Of the seven Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry non-NPL sites that featured
government funded cleanup activities for which EPA collected data, five involved releases from
hazardous substances or waste stored in abandoned drums or tanks (primarily abandoned tanks and
drums containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or volatile organic carbons (VOCs), three involved
contaminated soils (e.g., PCB discharges from equipment or storage containers), two involved
abandoned asbestos-afflicted material (e.g., debris piles), and one each involved buried drums or tanks
containing waste, mismanaged onsite runoff, waste disposal pits or depressions, flaring causing air
emissions, and equipment malfunction causing air emissions. Note that the total count is more than
because a single site may have had multiple sources of contamination, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6 - Contamination Sources/Vectors at Government Funded Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing Industry non-NPL Sites
Contamination Source
Count
Storage of hazardous substance or waste in drums or
tanks (primarily abandoned tanks and drums containing
PCB or VOCs)
5
Contaminated soil -
3
Abandoned asbestos afflicted material (e.g., debris piles)
2
Buried drums or tanks containing waste
1
Mismanaged onsite runoff
1
Waste disposal pits (unlined) or depressions (natural or
excavated)
1
Flaring causing air emissions
1
Equipment malfunction causing air emissions
1
Total:
15
Finally, EPA also collected information about the contaminated media at each site that needed to be
removed or contained as part of cleanup activities. At the seven Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing Industry non-NPL sites that featured government funded cleanup activities for which EPA
collected data, cleanup involved: the removal of debris at four sites; soil at four sites; the removal of
building and structures (primarily storage tanks) at three sites); the containment and monitoring of air
emissions at two sites; the removal of liquid wastes at two sites; the removal of, specifically, surface soil,
at two sites; the removal of sludge at one site; and the removal of, specifically, subsurface soil at one
site. Note that more than one type of media may have been contaminated at a site, which is why the
total number of contaminated media shown in Table 7 is greater than seven.
5

-------
Table 7- Contaminated Media at Government Funded Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
Industry non-NPL Sites
Contamination Source
Count
Debris
4
Soil
4
Buildings and structures (primarily storage tanks)
3
Air
2
Liquid waste
2
Surface soil
2
Sludge
1
Subsurface soil
1
Total:
19
Based on Tables 6 and 7, abandoned tanks and drums containing hazardous substances and wastes,
particularly PCB and VOCs, as well as corresponding leaks of hazardous materials from those abandoned
containers to surrounding soils, were the primary causes of contamination that necessitated response
actions at the seven Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry removal sites.
Screening Out Legacy Issues
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 removal 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 removal cases.
In many cases, the Superfund site documents would not date 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 a removal site had documented issues in 1968 and 1981 the site
would not have been screened out because at least one of the dates occurred in 1980 or later. In
instances where EPA could not identify pollution activity or release dates with sufficient confidence, EPA
used the relevant operation's end date. For example, at a facility where the exact dates of releases were
unknown but industrial activity 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. This
analytic approach resulted in EPA erring, again, on the side of being over inclusive.
6

-------
Based on the data collection about site operations, dates of operation, and contamination dates at the
seven Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry sites that required government or mixed
funded cleanup activities, EPA determined that the pollution at two of the sites was related to legacy
practices. In accordance with the methodology, EPA views such legacy occurrences as not representative
of the types of current-day risks that would warrant regulation under CERCLA 108(b).
The two legacy sites that EPA identified and determined were not representative of modern risks and
therefore did not warrant further investigations were Ida Refinery & Dump (LAN00067364) in Ida,
Louisiana, and Hot Springs Refinery (SD0010171860), in Hot Springs, South Dakota. At both sites,
contamination resulted from refinery operations prior to the 1970s.
At the Ida Refinery & Dump, Grand National Oil Company constructed and operated a petroleum
refinery from the 1940s to 1957, at which point Ida Oil and Gas Company took over the facility and
continued operations to 1966. There was no industrial activity at the site after 1966.
Refining operations at the Hot Springs Refinery started in 1932 and continued into the 1940s. According
to the site documents, the operators of the refinery disposed of waste products from the refining
process in earthen pits approximately 20 by 30 feet and covered the pits with teakwood planks.
Although refining operations ceased in the 1940s, the site continued as a bulk petroleum storage facility
into the 1990s. Contamination at the site was impacted by the construction of a state highway over the
main waste pit from the legacy refining operations.
The removal of the above legacy sites left five sites where the pollution at issue may have occurred
under modern regulatory regimes. For these five sites, EPA cross referenced the site operation and
contamination dates with the implementation of relevant federal and, if available, state environmental
regulations to determine if those relevant regulations were in place at the time of operations and when
the pollution occurred. Detailed case narratives were prepared for each of these five cases and are
included in Appendix III. The key findings of EPA's detailed evaluations for these five sites are
summarized below.
Summary of Findings from the Detailed Review of Petroleum and Coal
Products Manufacturing Industry Removal Sites with SYienlial Modern
Regulation Releases and Risks
To assess the five sites that remained after those screens, EPA first conducted a detailed review of case
files to compare the environmental issues at the sites to the regulations applicable today. At two of the
five removal sites (United Energy in Evanston, Indiana; and Browns Island Emergency Response in
Weirton, West Virginia), while the environmental releases had occurred recently, EPA concluded that
they had resulted from legacy waste management practices. For instance, at the United Energy site, the
refinery operations ceased during the 1970s and the site was abandoned. Though long abandoned, the
presence of former tars pits and waste oil lagoons, PCB-stained soil, and PCB oils tanks at the site posed
threats to public health and the environment resulting EPA's removal response in 2012s. Similarly, at
8 2012 Action Memorandum - Request for Approval and Funding for Removal Action at the United Energy Site,
Spencer County, Evanston, Indiana.
7

-------
the Browns Island site, while operations at the former coke by-product plant ceased in 1982, in March
2008, 300 gallons of liquid organic chemicals (primarily naphthalene) spilled from an abandoned tank,
as the current owner of the facility was in the process of facility demolition. EPA's case files on site
showed the current owner notified the National Response Center (NRC) to report the spill and
subsequently conducted the cleanup activity with EPA's oversight; total fund expenditure reported at
this site was $6,700.
At two other sites (Benicia Valero Refinery in Benicia, California; and St. Rose Air Assessment Site in St.
Rose, Louisiana), EPA concluded that the releases were caused by a one-time incident (e.g.,
malfunctioning of sulfur removal equipment at the St. Rose site and power outage at the Benicia) which
resulted in release of air pollutants (e.g., hydrogen sulfide and other organic vapors at the St. Rose Site
and sulfur dioxide at Benicia).910 Although not designated as PRP-lead actions in the SEMS database,
according to EPA's review of site documents, the PRPs largely financed and performed the response
actions with oversight of EPA and state agencies. SEMS expenditure data show EPA incurred $75,000 in
Fund expenditures to conduct an air quality monitoring and assessment at the St. Rose site, after the
state requested assistance from EPA. No Fund expenditures were reported at the Benicia site.
Finally, the remaining removal site was Lake Charles NRG, located in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Petroleum
refinery operations occurred at this site from 1983 to 1999. The refinery operations consisted of
processing petroleum feedstocks into naphtha, fuel oil, and residual fuel oil. Rebel Energy, Inc.
constructed the site and began intermittent operation in 1983. Following several ownership changes
and bankruptcies, the site was transferred to NRG in 1998. NRG operated the facility for a short time
during 1999 and subsequently abandoned it. Site assessment beginning in 2000 identified hundreds of
storage systems (including above-ground tanks, sludge boxes, vessels, and drums) and process
equipment containing over 200,000 gallons of hazardous liquids, solid sludge, and acid liquid.11 A
subsequent visit by EPA also revealed a tank that had failed, and oil was leaking from the secondary
containment structures.
EPA concludes this site represents a case where a release or threatened release of hazardous substances
took place under the modern regulatory framework and required taxpayer funded cleanup. As described
in more detail in the Role of Federal and State Programs section below, the primary regulations
governing Above Ground Storage Tanks (ASTs) used for storing oil and petroleum products are the Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations, 40 CFR 112. These regulations have been
in place since 1990. Tank systems used to store hazardous waste have also been regulated under RCRA
(40 CFR Parts 264 and 265) since 1986. Moreover, according to EPA's records, no financially viable PRPs
were identified for this site, and SEMS expenditure data show that EPA incurred an estimated cost of
$2.3 million for response and enforcement activities.
Table 8 below presents an overview of EPA's methodology for determining the five sites that warranted
further investigation, and EPA's conclusions regarding whether the release events that occurred at those
sites are representative of contemporary risks.
9	2017 Pollution Report for Benicia Valero Refinery Site.
10	2014 and 2015 Pollution Reports for St. Rosa Air Assessment.
11	2012 Pollution Report for Lake Charles NRG site.
8

-------
Table 8 - Overview of EPA's Review of Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry Removal
Sites and Results of Detailed Review of Sites Potentially Representing Contemporary Risks
Total
superfund
removal cases
evaluated
Number of
removal cases
screened out based
on pre-1980, or PRP
lead status
Detailed review
concluded
release occurred
prior to modern
regulations
Detailed review
identified a possible
modern regulation
release, but minimal
or no taxpayer
expenditures
Cases with
release(s) under
modern
regulation that
required taxpayer
funded response
51
30(16)12
2
2
1
More information about the five sites subject to the detailed review is available in Appendix III of this
document. Appendix III provides the operational history of each site, an overview of any regulatory and
enforcement actions that occurred, and EPA's evaluation of the applicable regulations for the types of
releases that occurred at each site.
12 The number in parenthesis indicates the sites that were also removed at this stage in the analysis: 12 sites for
which EPA determined the industrial activities did not involve either petroleum refining or coal products
manufacturing, and four sites for which there was not enough documentation to be included in the analysis.
9

-------
Appendix I. List of Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Norv-NPL
Sites
Row
EPA ID
Site Name
City
County
State


BENICIA VALERO



1
CAN000900063
REFINERY
BENICIA
SOLANO
CA


SUNCOR REFINERY



2
CON000802548
YELLOW PLUME
BRIGHTON
DENVER
CO


MOTIVA ENTERPRISES-



3
DEN000305976
TANK 320
DELAWARE CITY
NEW CASTLE
DE


LAKE ALLATOONA GAS



4
GAN000407429
CYLINDER
CARTERSVILLE
BARROW
GA


REDDY ICE AMMONIA



5
GAN000410593
RELEASE
DALTON

GA
6
ILN000508676
76TH AND PARNELL
CHICAGO
COOK
IL


ACME STEEL COKE



7
ILN000509241
PLANT
CHICAGO
COOK
IL
8
INN000510768
E-BIOFUELS
MIDDLETOWN
HENRY
IN
9
INN000510822
UNITED ENERGY
EVANSTON
SPENCER
IN


COFFEYVILLE





RESOURCES VESSEL



10
KSN000706273
EXPLOSION
COFFEYVILLE
MONTGOMERY
KS


7UP SNAPPLE BOTTLING





COMPANY AMMONIA



11
KYN000410783
RELEASE
LOUISVILLE

KY
12
LAN000605343
ST. ROSE
SAINT ROSE
ST. CHARLES
LA


CONOCO PHILLIPS BELLE



13
LAN000605630
CHASE EXPLOSION
BELLE CHASE

LA
14
LAN000607016
LAKE CHARLES NRG
LAKE CHARLES
CALCASIEU
LA
15
LAN000607364
IDA REFINERY & DUMP
IDA
CADDO
LA
16
MIN000502247
FORT STREET ER
DETROIT
WAYNE
MI
17
MIN000509943
BROWN 19 GAS PLANT
BROWN TWP.
MANISTEE
MI
18
MIN000510547
PLEASANT STREET
DETROIT
WAYNE
MI
19
MIN000510823
LIEBOLD STREET
DETROIT
WAYNE
MI
20
MON000706270
OAK MILL ACID
ST JOSEPH
BUCHANAN
MO
21
MSN000400004
JNS BIOFUELS FIRE
NEW ALBANY
UNION
MS
22
NCN000410226
CRUM CONSTRUCTION
BUXTON
DARE
NC


HIGH ROCK PROPERTIES



23
NCN000410551
(AKA NC FINISHING)
SALISBURY

NC
24
NMN000605313
WPX NAGEEZI FIRE
NAGEEZI
SAN JUAN
NM


GIANT INDUSTRIES



25
NMN000605639
EXPLOSION
CINIZA

NM
26
OHN000505639
HUSKY REFINERY FIRE
LIMA
ALLEN
OH


TAYLOR INDUSTRIAL



27
OHN000510780
SERVICES
MT. GILEAD
MORROW
OH


BUFFALO COMPRESSOR



28
OK0000605396
STATION
BUFFALO

OK
29
OK0000963389
DRUMRIGHT STATION
DRUMRIGHT
CREEK
OK
10

-------
Row
EPA ID
Site Name
City
County
State
30
OKN000606651
WEBB COMPRESSOR
STATION
NARDIN

OK
31
OKN000606766
BLACKWELL
COMPRESSOR STATION
BLACKWELL
KAY
OK
32
PA0002021731
ROUTE 522 BRIDGE SITE
LEWISTOWN
MIFFLIN
PA
33
PAN000305647
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
CORPORATION #2 FUEL
SPILL
MIDDLETOWN
DAUPHIN
PA
34
PAN000306205
BUCKEYE PIPE LINE
COMPANY
SOUTH WHITEHALL
LEHIGH
PA
35
SD0010171860
HOT SPRINGS REFINERY
HOT SPRINGS
FALL RIVER
SD
36
TNN000403046
SOUTHERN ENERGY
BIODIESEL
SHELBYVILLE
BEDFORD
TN
37
TXD980809909
EXXON MOBIL BAYTOWN
FIRE
BAYTOWN
HARRIS
TX
38
TXD981157522
LYONDELLBASELL FIRE
HOUSTON
HARRIS
TX
39
TXN000605303
PRSI FIRE
PASADENA
HARRIS
TX
40
TXN000607355
PASADENA REFINING
FIRE
PASADENA
HARRIS
TX
41
TXN000607381
CITGO REFINERY
CORPUS
NUECES
TX
42
TXN000607449
CHEVRON ETHYLENE
FIRE
PORT ARTHUR
JEFFERSON
TX
43
VAN000305666
COAL TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION
BRISTOL
BRISTOL CITY
VA
44
VID980536080
HOVENSA LLC
CHRISTIAN STED
ST. CROIX
VI
45
VTN000103777
BARRE COAL TAR
BARRE
WASHINGTON
VT
46
WAD009275082
SHELL OIL CO
ANACORTES
SKAGIT
WA
47
WAD069548154
ARCO PETROLEUM PROD
CO CHERRY PT
BLAINE
WHATCOM
WA
48
WAH000050091
TREOIL INDUSTRIES
BIOREFINERY
FERNDALE
WHATCOM
WA
49
WAN001001366
ODESSA BIODIESEL
ODESSA
LINCOLN
WA
50
WVN000306615
BROWNS ISLAND
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
WEIRTON
HANCOCK
WV
51
WYN000801987
NEW CASTLE CATALYST
RELEASE
NEW CASTLE
WESTON
WY
11

-------
Appendix II. List of Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Sites
with Fund or Mixed Response Lead Designation in SEMS
Row
EPA ID
Site Name
Action Lead
1
CAN000900063
BENICIA VALERO
REFINERY
Fund
2
CON000802548
SUNCOR REFINERY
YELLOW PLUME
Fund
3
INN000510768
E-BIOFUELS
Fund
4
INN000510822
UNITED ENERGY
Fund
5
LAN000605343
ST. ROSE
Fund
6
LAN000607016
LAKE CHARLES NRG
Fund
7
LAN000607364
IDA REFINERY & DUMP
Fund
8
PAN000305647
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
CORPORATION #2 FUEL
SPILL
Fund
9
SD0010171860
HOT SPRINGS REFINERY
Fund
10
WVN000306615
BROWNS ISLAND
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Fund
11
WYN000801987
NEW CASTLE CATALYST
RELEASE
Fund

-------
Appendix III. Detailed Case Narratives of Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing Industry Removal Sites with Potential Modern Regulation
Releases and Risk
EPA sought to identify examples of releases in the petroleum and coal products manufacturing industry
that occurred under an environmental regulatory structure like today's and that required a taxpayer
funded cleanup. EPA used these examples to evaluate the current risk of release at Petroleum and Coal
Products Manufacturing Industry facilities. As part of this effort, EPA developed the risk profile using
petroleum and coal products manufacturing sites that experienced releases requiring assessments
and/or removal actions, but that were not on the NPL. To identify this universe of petroleum and coal
products manufacturing facilities, EPA used the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS)
database and queried for non-NPL sites. EPA further winnowed the results to Petroleum and Coal
Products Manufacturing Industry facilities, which resulted in 51 petroleum and coal products
manufacturing facilities that experienced a release that were not on the NPL. From these 51 facilities,
EPA further screened out PRP funded assessments and actions, sites for which operational activities
were not in Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Industry and were therefore outside the scope
of the rule, and sites which did not have enough response documentation to conduct a detailed analysis,
which left eight facilities. Finally, EPA collected data from the seven sites at which the government
either fully or partially funded assessment or removal actions to determine if the releases that occurred
were the result of legacy issues or if they occurred under modern conditions. This data collection
process yielded five sites, which EPA designated for further investigation to determine if the releases at
the sites were relevant to risks at currently operating petroleum and coal products manufacturing sites.
Those sites are: Benicia Valero Refinery (CAN000900063;United Energy (INN000610822); St. Rose Air
Assessment (LAN000605343); Lake Charles NRG (LAN000607016); and Browns Island Chemical Spill
(WVN000306615).
EPA collected additional data in order to develop release case narratives for each of these sites. To
assess whether the releases at those sites are potentially indicative of the risk profile at currently
operating facilities, EPA then compared those case narratives with the regulations under which those
sites were operating at the time of the releases.
As part of its rulemaking effort, EPA collected information about the implementation dates and contents
of federal environmental and safety regulations relevant to petroleum and coal products manufacturing
facilities. At each of the five sites listed above, EPA investigated the relevant federal environmental and
safety regulations that were in place at the time of releases
EPA also reviewed state environmental and safety regulations relevant to petroleum and coal products
manufacturing facilities. In order to focus its review, EPA selected a sample of states that comprised the
11 states with the highest number of petroleum refineries and coal products manufacturing facilities
that in the aggregate constitute over 50 percent of the petroleum refineries and coal products
manufacturing facilities in the United States. The states for which EPA collected regulatory information
are: Texas, Louisiana, California, Alaska, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Illinois,
13

-------
and Virginia. Four of the five sites are in states for which EPA conducted a review of state regulations.
For the remaining two sites, the standing federal policy at the time illuminates the implications and risks
at petroleum and coal products manufacturing sites.
14

-------
1) Benicia Valero Refinery
Facility Name: Benicia Valero Refinery
EPA Region/State: R9 - California
EPA SEMS ID: CAN000900063
FRSID:110033145353
Contamination Dates: 5/5/2017
Operation Dates: 1968 - present
Response Action Lead: Mixed Lead
Expenditures: None Reported
Site Background/Description:
The Benicia Valero Refinery is an oil and gas refining site. Built in 1968, the site has undergone
significant modifications and upgrades to become one of the most complex refineries in the United
States. The refinery's products include propane, butane, California Air Resource Board (CARB) gasoline,
ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD), jet fuel, fuel oil, residual oil, and asphalt. Currently, CARB gasoline makes
up about 70% of the refinery's total production, but it also produces a significant portion of northern
California's asphalt supply. The facility occupies 800 acres in an industrial park on the Carquinez Strait, a
tributary of San Francisco Bay, Benicia, Solano County, California. Businesses immediately surround the
industrial park, with residential neighborhoods within one mile. Benicia has approximately 30,000
residents.
On May 5, 2017, a power outage triggered a flaring event at the site, releasing sulfur dioxide into the air.
Valero blamed the power company, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), for the power outage but Superfund
documents indicate Valero is the responsible party. Sulfur dioxide is an irritant smoke which causes
acute respiratory issues. This significant release impacted the surrounding neighborhoods, including
businesses, residences and schools. Solano County ordered a shelter-in-place for the city of Benicia.
Sources differ on the duration and quantity of the release. The September 29, 2017 Pollution Report
notes that flaring ceased at the site the same day flaring began. EPA's OSC response page for the Valero
Benicia Refinery notes 50,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide were released from the refinery over two days.
KQED, National Public Radio's Northern California branch, reports that the Valero Benicia Refinery
flaring released 31,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide on May 5, 2017, the day of the power outage, but that it
released a total of over 80,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide over several weeks as a result of the same
power outage. By comparison, the refinery released an estimated total of 13,800 pounds of sulfur
dioxide over the entirety of 2016, and 15,400 pounds of sulfur dioxide in 2015.
An EPA spokesman quoted in a local news story stated that concentrations of toxic gases from the flares,
such as hydrogen sulfide, peaked at 10 times normal background levels for the area.
A report that Valero issued to the California Office of Emergency Services in June 2017 further indicated
that monitoring did not show an increase in ambient sulfur dioxide levels outside the refinery site and
that exposure to sulfur dioxide was limited to people at the refinery.
15

-------
Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response:
On May 5, 2017, approximately one hour after the outage and subsequent flaring, warning systems
were activated in Benicia. EPA's Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) arrived at
the incident command post (ICP) at the Benicia Fire Department at 1115 hours. EPA START personnel
integrated into unified command with representatives from Solano County and Valero Corporation and
participated in all response decisions and communications throughout the day. At 11:30 AM, Solano
County issued a shelter-in-place order for all areas of Benicia and advised businesses and structures
downwind from the refinery to evacuate and for all persons to avoid the refinery area. START performed
clearance sampling to assist with Solano County's Health Department decision-making regarding the
shelter-in-place order. Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the California Air Resources Board
also collected limited air samples in canisters for documentation. Valero Corporation conducted some
monitoring and handled securing the response.
START first performed air monitoring at two schools: Matthew Turner Elementary, located at 540 Rose
Drive, and Robert Semple Elementary, located at 2015 E 3rd Street. The wind was blowing out of the
west/southwest at approximately 15 to 20 miles per hour and both schools were located upwind of the
flaring at the refinery. Using AreaRAEs to measure sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide and a Personal
DataRAM (PDR) to measure particulates, START monitored air at seven locations at each school
beginning at 1145 hours. All seven locations at Matthew Turner Elementary measured readings of 0.0
parts per million (ppm) for sulfur dioxide, 0 ppm for hydrogen sulfide, and 0.015 milligrams per cubic
meter (mg/m3) for particulates. All sampling locations at Robert Semple Elementary measured readings
of 0.0 ppm for sulfur dioxide, 0 ppm for hydrogen sulfide, and particulates equal to or below 0.040
mg/m3. The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) is 2 ppm for
sulfur dioxide, 10 ppm for hydrogen sulfide, and 10 mg/m3 for particulates.
Following the clearance of the elementary schools, START conducted air monitoring at 4201 Industrial
Way in the Benicia Industrial Park, downwind of the flaring at the refinery. From this location, the smoke
plume appeared to be descending onto Suisun Bay in the direction of the Ghost Fleet. Sulfur dioxide
measured readings of 0.0 ppm, hydrogen sulfide measured 0 ppm, and particulates measured 0.070
mg/m3. At 1640 hours, flaring was not occurring. After this time, START conducted air monitoring at
three locations in the Benicia Industrial Park using the AreaRAE and PDR. There were no visible smoke
emissions from the stacks at the refinery at that time. At the first location, directly downwind of the
flaring at corner of Stone Road and Getty Court, sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide readings measured
at background (0 ppm) and particulates measured at 0.012 mg/m3. At 1700 hours, START again
monitored the location adjacent to 4201 Industrial Way. START observed hazy air and a slight sulfur/tar-
like odor but no longer saw smoke descending on Suisun Bay. Sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide
readings were not detected above background and particulates ranged from 0.016 to 0.033 mg/m3. At
1725 hours, at the final location on the corner of Stone Road and Park Road, START noted a similar
sulfur/tarlike odor. Sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide readings did not measure above background and
particulates readings were 0.043 mg/m3.
The September 29, 2017 Pollution Report notes that flaring ceased at the site sometime before 1650
hours on May 5, 2017 and does not document EPA involvement at the site after May 5, the day flaring
began.
16

-------
The Bay Area Quality Management District issued four notices of violation against Valero: three for
excessive smoke and one for causing a public nuisance. Two investigations, by the California Division of
Occupational Safety and Health and the Solano County Environmental Division, cleared Valero of
wrongdoing.
Benecia Valero has been the subject of three federal enforcement actions, one each in CAA, EPCRA and
RCRA statutes. The inflation adjusted total enforcement values of these three cases is $200,533,304.
The RCRA case concluded in March 2005, and involved the contaminants benzene, benzo(a)pyrene,
chrysene, lead, chromium, and sulfuric acid. The November 2005 judicial CAA case was a Region 9
portion of EPA's national petroleum refinery initiative. It included violations at Valero Refining
Company-California's Benicia Refinery and Ultramar, Inc.'s Wilmington Refinery. The violations were for
new source review and prevention of significant deterioration requirements; new source performance
standards codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subparts J, VV, GGG; and national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subparts J, V, and FF, and Part 63, Subparts F, H,
and CC. Finally, the September 2016 EPCRA case cited the facility for violations discovered during
routine compliance evaluation inspections.
Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile:
Modern environmental regulations were in place at the time of the 2017 release at this site. The
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 40 CFR Part 50, include primary and second air quality
standards for sulfur dioxide and particulate matter. Sulfur dioxide was the principal contaminant
released at the site. California's ambient air quality standards, 17 CCR 70100-70201, are more stringent
than NAAQS for sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, and further establish standards for visible
pollutants and hydrogen sulfide.
Emissions of sulfur dioxide at petroleum refineries are governed by 40 CFR Part 60.104, within Subpart J,
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Petroleum Refineries. Under Part 60.104(f(a)), these
standards do not apply to combustion in a flare that is released as a result of emergency malfunctions.
EPA also monitored hydrogen sulfide.
All the monitoring EPA conducted at and near the site measured during the 2017 release showed all
sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and particulates at or below background levels.
Public media reports that the flaring event at this site also released the gas carbonyl sulfide. Carbonyl
sulfide is a hazardous substance under 40 CFR Part 63, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS), Subpart CC, which governs emissions at petroleum refineries. 40 CFR Part 63.655
of this subpart dictates hazardous air pollutant release reporting requirements. Carbonyl sulfide is also a
hazardous and toxic chemical under the Superfund, Emergency Planning, and Community Right-to-Know
Programs (40 CFR Parts 300-399). Release reporting of carbonyl sulfide is therefore also regulated under
40 CFR Part 302, Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification and 40 CFR Part 372, CERCLA Toxic
Chemical Release Reporting.
In addition to reporting requirements, the CERCLA rules specify emergency preparedness and response
provisions for facilities handling toxic and hazardous substances. For example, 40 CFR Part 355, the
CERCLA Emergency Planning and Notification regulation, requires disclosure of facility information to
17

-------
allow state and local authorities to develop and implement chemical emergency response plans. 40 CFR
Part 370, CERCLA Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Community Right to Know, further establishes
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and inventory reporting requirements for hazardous materials held
over certain thresholds at a facility. Separately, 40 CFR Parts 63.670 and 63.671 dictate requirements for
flare control and for flare monitoring systems, respectively.
General emergency planning and response regulations also applied to the Valero Benicia Refinery at the
time of the release. For example, employers are required to have Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) under
the OSHA (29 CFR Part 1910). EAPs must include procedures for reporting a fire or other emergencies,
procedures for emergency evacuation, and other procedures (29 CFR Part 1910.38 Subpart E).
In 1977, the State of California promulgated 8 CCR 1, Subchapter 15, Petroleum Safety Orders -
Refining, Transportation and Handling. These rules govern equipment maintenance, gas and vapor
testing, and other safety practices at California petroleum refiners. 19 CCR Part 2631, Immediate
Reporting of a Release or a Threatened Release, requires reporting or releases of hazardous materials to
the California Emergency Management Agency. The Benicia Valley Refinery was thus subject not only to
federal emergency planning, response, and reporting regulations, but also California regulations, at the
time of the release.
On October 1, 2017, five months after the flaring incident, the California Environmental Protection
Agency implemented new California Division of Occupational Safety and Health worker safety
regulations and California Accidental Release Prevention Program regulations. The regulations can be
found at 19 CCR 2735.1, Chapter 4.5). Specifically with respect to refineries, the regulations increased
employer accountability for the mechanical integrity of refinery equipment, requires refineries to adopt
safer designs and systems, requires that refineries conduct investigations to determine the root causes
of any incidents that occur and develop interim and permanent corrective measures, and require
refineries to submit annual, public reports of safety metrics.
Despite the significant release of contaminants that resulted from the flare, it does not appear that
Valero Corporation violated any air quality standards as a result of the release. The only agency that
noticed violations to Valero Corporation was the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; the
violations were for excessive smoke and a public nuisance. While public press documents indicated
significant public health concerns regarding the release, all sampling was below OSHA PELs. Further, it
appears that Valero Corporation was compliant with all federal and state emergency response
regulations.
The only Pollution Report available for this site only describes the removal assessments and response
actions that took place and does not describe or anticipate any future removal actions associated with
this release.
This review therefore demonstrates that modern environmental regulations applicable to the flaring
event were in place at the time of the release, and that Valero Corporation was not in violation of these
regulations. EPA therefore concludes that this non-NPL removal case represents an example of current
risk within the petroleum and coal products manufacturing industry. Additionally, Valero Corporation
handled the response and conducted monitoring in conjunction with EPA and Solano County, which
indicates that the company bore at least some of the response costs at the site.
18

-------
References:
•	Pollution Report #1, September 9, 2017
•	"New Regulations Improve Safety at Oil Refineries/' California Environmental Protection Agency,
August 4, 2017. Accessed April 24, 2019 at: https://calepa.ca.gov/new-regulations-improve-
safetv-at-oil-refineries/.
•	Valero, "Benicia Refinery Overview," 2019. Accessed April 19, 2019 at:
https://www.valero.com/en-us/Paees/Benicia.aspx.
•	Craig Miller, Don Clyde, and Ted Goldberg, "Air Regulators Penalize Valero for Benicia Refinery
Flaring," KQED News, May 8, 2017. Accessed April 19, 2019 at:
https://www.kqed.org/news/11441696/benicia-refinerv-power-outage-triggers-evacuations.
•	Ted Goldberg, "Valero's Benicia Refinery Outage Triggered 'Huge' Release of Pollution," KQED
News, June 12, 2017. Accessed April 19, 2019 at: https://www.kqed.org/news/115Q0307/valero-
outage-sent-37-tons-of-toxic-gas-into-air-over-two-weeks.
•	Ted Goldberg, "Benicia Still Looking for Answers From Valero Six Months After Refinery Outage,"
KQED News, November 14, 2017. Accessed April 19, 2019 at:
https://www.kqed.org/news/11630350/benicia-still-looking-for-answers-from-valero-six-
months-after-refinery-outage.
•	EPA enforcement cases:
o 09-2005-0058 concluded 31 March 2005
o 09-2005-0208 concluded 23 November 2005
o 09-2016-3000 concluded 30 September 2016
19

-------
2) United Energy
Facility Name: United Energy
EPA Region/State: R5 - Indiana
EPA SEMS ID: INN000510822
FRSIDs: 110044763592, 110063859793, 110058715047
Contamination Dates: Throughout operation, exacerbated by 1997 flood
Operation Dates: 1920s-1970s
Response Action Lead: Fund Lead
Expenditures: Approximately $580,000
Site Background/Description:
The United Energy Site is an abandoned former refinery and bulk petroleum storage facility located at
the intersection of Anderson Creek and the Ohio River in southeast Spencer County. The site operated
under the names Troy Refining, Jarvis Refining Company, Somerset Oil, Inc., and United Energy. The site,
built in the 1920s, functioned as a refinery, a petroleum distribution facility, and a gasoline station until
the 1970s. There have been no operations at the site since the 1970s.
The site is divided by State Road 66, and there is a public park between the abandoned refinery and
Anderson Creek. United Energy obtained the site in 1980 and transferred it to Fremon Kline in 1996. A
significant flood of the Ohio River occurred in 1997, which put 75 percent of the site underwater and
exacerbated contamination. The Spencer County government obtained title to the site property from
Fremon Kline in 2001.
As of 2012, tar pits, waste oil lagoons, semi-buried storage tanks, above ground storage tanks (ASTs),
abandoned drums, and debris were still present at the site. Many of the tanks had dark staining in the
surrounding soil. EPA documented polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) contaminated soils and the release
of PCB oils that resulted from historic operations at concentrations which exceed levels that warrant a
removal action. Analysis of the site contamination revealed that PCB concentrations in the soils were
above TSCA remediation waste clean-up standards of 25 milligrams per kilogram, and elevated levels of
PCB-1242 were found in the waste oils in the USTs. Ultimately, 6,000 gallons of PCB oils were found in
the underground storage tanks (USTs) and 30,000 gallons of other waste oils in ASTs were found at the
site. Significant levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons - gasoline range organics, total petroleum
hydrocarbons - extended range organics, lead, selenium, mercury, benzene, ethylbenzene, xylene, n-
hexane, naphthalene, and other petroleum related compounds were observed in soils at the site.
Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response:
In March 1997, the Immediate Removal Section of the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) conducted a site assessment of the property in response to the flooding along the
Ohio River. Approximately 75 percent of the property was underwater. A mass of floating oil sludge and
heavy sheen of oil could be seen from the highway. IDEM observed the presence of former tars pits and
waste oil lagoons, PCB stained soils, and PCB oils in two semi-buried horizontal tanks. Between March
20

-------
and July 1997, IDEM removed soils contaminated with petroleum and PCBs from the property. Oil,
sludge from tanks and settling basins and 3,000 waste tires were removed from the site.
In the summer of 2009, the Indiana 15 Regional Planning Commission, in conjunction with the site
owner, Spencer County, contracted ATC Associates, Inc. (ATC) to perform a Phase I Environmental
Assessment (ESA) of the site. The ESA was funded through a U.S. EPA Brownfield Grant. The ESA
identified, documented, and evaluated environmental conditions. One year later, in the summer of
2010, ATC was retained by the Indiana 15 Regional Planning Commission to perform an Asbestos
Investigation Report and a Phase II Limited Subsurface Investigation to further assess areas of concern
that the 2009 ESA identified. None of the subsequent site response documents noted the presence of
asbestos or the need to remove asbestos following the Asbestos Investigation Report. In July and August
of 2011, ATC returned to the site to inspect the ASTs and USTs and collect representative samples of
each tank's contents.
As a result of ATC's assessments of the site, in August of 2012 EPA mobilized ERRS and START
contractors to assist with the removal of PCB impacted oils contained in the ASTs and USTs and
impacted soil at the site. The EPA contractors conducted clearing and grubbing activities at the site,
removed liquids from the tanks, decommissioned and scrapped the ASTs and USTs, removed other
debris found on site, removed petroleum impacted soils, and disposed of contaminated materials
offsite. Spencer County aided the response activities by providing coal ash to solidify the contents of
ASTs prior to removal.
No federal enforcement actions were found at the United Energy site.
Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) at 40 CFR Part 761 (PCBs Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions) regulates the handling and disposal of PCBs. EPA
implemented 40 CFR Part 761 in 1979. Under the TSCA, United Energy, Fremon Kline, Spencer County,
and any other owners and operators of the site were responsible for determining the concentration of
PCBs in the storage tanks being stored on site and the PCBs that contaminated soils at the site.
The site owners and operators failed to manage the PCB wastes and PCB contamination in compliance
with the TSCA. Upon acquiring the site, United Energy and subsequent owners and operators were
required to dispose of the PCB liquids in the ASTs and USTs in accordance with 40 CFR Part 761.60. TSCA
requires that facilities dispose of PCB waste within one year of the date when the facility placed the
waste in storage. None of the owners or operators of the site since 1980 complied with these
regulations.
In 1998, Subpart D of the 40 CFR Part 761, which regulates the disposal and storage of PCB materials,
underwent substantial revisions and additions. Provisions added at this time further governed how the
facility owners should have cleaned up the site. For example, 40 CFR Part 761.79 sets forth
decontamination standards and procedures for PCB containers. 40 CFR Part 761.61 governs the cleanup
and management of PCB waste generated as the result of PCB spills. With respect to the PCB soil
contamination, the owners and operators of the site failed to follow TSCA regulations at 40 CFR Part
761.125. That subpart requires sampling of PCB concentrations present in the spill and categorizes
responses the spill based on PCB concentrations and total weight spilled. Spills that exceed one pound
21

-------
or more of PCBs by weight necessitate the owner or operator report the spill to the National Response
Center. Spills that exceed ten pounds or more of PCBs by weight require the owner or operator to notify
the EPA regional office about the spill, cordon off or delineate the area, record the area of visible
concentration, and remove visible traces of the spill fluid and affected media. Based on the total amount
of PCB liquids found at the site in the storage tanks, it is possible that the contaminated soil at the site
contained at least ten pounds of PCBs by weight, which meant these regulations would have applied to
the site.
Additional standards and practices are in place under 40 CFR Part 761.125 for spills that contaminate
surface water, sewers, or drinking water, and it appears these practices may have applied to the site, as
well. None of the owners and operators at the site since 1980 complied with these regulations.
Removal actions at the site were also required under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), which states that facilities must remove, treat, or dispose of PCB waste within one year of the
date when the facility placed the waste in storage. RCRA regulations with respect to the storage of PCB
wastes were effective on July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25791). United Energy was the owner of the site at that
time, and Fremon Kline and Spencer County were subsequent owners of the site. Additionally, the
Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage, and Disposal Facilities, 40
CFR Part 264-265, establishes minimum national standards defining acceptable hazardous waste
management. Part 265 of Hazardous Waste Management and Disposal outlines general facility
standards, preparedness and prevention, recordkeeping and reporting, ground-water monitoring
system, closure and post-closure plans, use and management of containers, tanks, and more. Effective
since May 19, 1980 required the owners of the site to safely dispose of PCB and other hazardous waste.
RCRA regulations under 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart E require that prohibited wastes, including PCBs, be
stored in containers at disposal facilities and may only be stored to facilitate their property recovery,
treatment, and disposal. The subpart prohibits storage of PCBs for more than one year, unless storage is
necessary to accumulate sufficient waste to facilitate recovery, treatment, or disposal. Further, the
subpart requires that liquid hazardous wastes containing PCBs at concentrations of above 50 parts per
million are stored in proper facilities and treated or disposed within one year of storage. These
regulations were effective as of November 8, 1986, and all of the owners subsequent to that date stored
PCB liquids for longer than one year at the site and failed to treat or dispose those liquids.
It appears that the legacy PCB contamination at the site was associated with historical operations. This
review demonstrates, however, that contamination continued and worsened because owners of the site
were not in compliance with relevant regulations for PCB storage, disposal, and contamination.
EPA did not review Indiana state environmental and safety regulations relevant to petroleum and coal
products manufacturing.
References:
•	Action Memorandum, August 9, 2012.
•	Pollution Report #1, August 30, 2012.
•	Pollution Report #3, September 26, 2012.
22

-------
3) St. Rose Air Assessment
Facility Name: St. Rose Air Assessment
EPA Region/State: R6 - Louisiana
EPA ID: LAN000605343
Contamination Dates: June 8, 2014 - June 20, 2014
Operation Dates: Unknown-present
Response Action Lead: Mixed Lead
Expenditures: Approximately $75,000
Site Background/Description:
On June 8th, 2014, residents in St. Rose, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, began reporting odors and health
concerns from emissions suspected to originate from an International-Matex Tank Terminals (IMTT) and
Shell joint petrochemical refinery. The site is currently under the corporate names Equilon Enterprises
LLC, Shell St Rose, and IMTT. This facility is located within the IMTT campus in St. Rose at 11842 River
Road (29.9385° N, 90.3301° W) and primarily processes bitumen to produce asphalt. Residential homes,
industrial facilities, an IMTT tank farm, forested swamp area, and the Mississippi River surround the
facility. The residential neighborhoods extend approximately 0.24 miles to the east of the facility and
0.15 miles to the west of the facility. Around 130 people from these neighborhoods complained of
sulfurous odors and resulting illness emanating from the Shell Refinery and IMTT Joint Bitumen Project
beginning June 8, 2014.
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) investigated these complaints and
documented the presences of sulfur and petroleum odors. LDEQ interviewed personnel from the facility
and determined that a malfunction in a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) used by the facility to
remove sulfur compounds and organic vapors from its exhaust resulted in the odors and emissions.
IMTT/Shell and LDEQ identified the use of a high bitumen crude oil not normally used in IMTT/Shell's
processes for creating asphalt compounds as a potential cause of the malfunction.
The facility addressed the RTO issues and removed the high bitumen crude from the site, and LDEQ noted
that the odors receded within one week. St. Rose residents continued to complain of odors and health
problems at least into May 2015, leading LDEQ and EPA to establish an air monitoring program in St. Rose.
Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response:
In October 2012, Shell Chemical St Rose was the subject of a CAA federal judicial enforcement case. The
2017 inflation adjusted total enforcement value of this case is $3,133,728. The case was a Region 6
portion of EPA's national petroleum refinery initiative. It included violations at Shell Chemical
petroleum refineries in Saraland, Alabama and St. Rose, Louisiana. The Consent Decree also resolved
separate but related state law claims brought by co-plaintiffs Alabama and Louisiana. It resolved
allegations asserted in complaints filed under Section 113(b) of the Clean Air Act, 42 (JSC 7413(b). In
addition to the payment of civil penalties, the settlement required Shell to perform injunctive relief to
reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and benzene.
23

-------
More recently, after the initial reports of odor and illness in June of 2014, LDEQ investigated the
emissions causing these issues and identified the malfunctioning RTO at the Shell Refinery and IMTT
Joint Bitumen Project. Shell and IMTT acknowledged its facility released emissions over ten days in June.
LDEQ, in coordination with EPA R6, directed Shell IMTT to perform maintenance on the malfunctioning
RTO and remove the waste generated by the cleanup of the RTO.
At the end of September 2014, LDEQ, Shell and IMTT, and St. Charles Parish officials met with St. Rose
residents, many of whom continued to report health issues from emissions from the facility. In October
of the same year, in response to ongoing community mobilization, complaints, and health concerns of
residents, including plans to rally at the Shell/IMTT facility, the LDEQ requested assistance from EPA to
conduct air monitoring in St. Rose.
Upon receiving the LDEQ's request to assist in the assessment of air quality, the EPA began discussing
monitoring capabilities and logistics. LDEQ compiled a monitoring and sampling plan for hydrogen
sulfide (H2S) and VOC monitoring at 18 locations in the area of concern. The monitoring and sampling
plan detailed air monitoring to be conducted with Summa canister at one or more of the monitoring
locations each day, as determined by the LDEQ's Project Leader. Additionally, the plan called for LDEQ to
monitor air at four-hour intervals at the 18 locations over two weeks. After reviewing the plan and
discussing project objectives with the LDEQ, the EPA agreed to independently check H2S and VOC levels
at each of the monitoring locations during the last four days of the LDEQ assessment. If monitoring
results exceeded action levels (70 ppb for H2S and five ppm for VOCs) at any locations, EPA agreed to
collect 24-hour air samples using Summa canisters at the locations where the exceedance was detected
and at an upwind location. LDEQ met with community leaders to communicate this plan and its
objectives prior to initiating the air assessment program.
On October 31, 2014 an EPA representative mobilized to the site to meet with the LDEQ Project Leader
and a resident who granted access to private property for deployment of an air monitoring instrument.
EPA and LDEQ also reviewed and discussed the other monitoring locations, the history and issues which
prompted the response, and EPA's plan to mobilize to the site on November 3 at 0830.
The EPA mobilized to the site on Monday, November 3, 2014 at 0830 and deployed Honeywell Single
Point Monitors (SPM) with low level H2S specific sample media at two locations: the American Legion
Hall near the Oaklawn subdivision west of the facility (monitoring point 15) and a Preston Hollow
residence east of the facility (near monitoring point 7). The SPMs were programmed to alarm at a low-
level setting of four ppb and a high-level setting of 80 ppb over a four-day period. After placing the
SPMs, EPA began air monitoring at the LDEQ monitoring points using a Jerome H2S Analyzer to detect
hydrogen sulfide and a MultiRAE monitor to detect VOCs. EPA recorded monitoring information along
with any observations related to the monitoring activities on field data sheets. Monitoring of all 18 LDEQ
points was completed approximately once every 34 hours and continued throughout the day and night.
Personnel detected hydrogen sulfide in exceedance of the 70 ppb action level at location 12 at
approximately 0630 on Tuesday, November 4. Location 12 sits at the north end of 4th Street near St.
Charles Parish's wastewater and stormwater lift stations. EPA used a Summa canister to sample six liters
of air over a 24-hour period at both location 12 and the American Legion Hall upwind of location 12. Air
monitoring continued throughout the day and night, and no other exceedances were detected.
24

-------
On Wednesday, November 5, personnel again detected a H2S exceedance at location 12. After the 24-
hour sample period, EPA collected the Summa canisters deployed on November 3 and deployed new
canisters to the same locations to collect air samples over the next 24 hours. Air monitoring activities
continued throughout the day and night, and no other exceedances were detected.
On Thursday, November 6, EPA continued to conduct air monitoring activities and collected the Summa
canisters from location 12 and the American Legion Hall. During this operational period, EPA personnel
interviewed a St. Charles Parish wastewater maintenance representative to determine the operation
and design of the wastewater lift station near location 12. The representative provided access to the lift
station and information on its functions. The lift station is comprised of two large pumps, piping, and a
below ground concrete sump. Wastewater flows into the sump until it reaches a specific level which
activates the pumps to lift the material from the sump via the associated piping. The wastewater
representative lifted the manhole cover and allowed the EPA to conduct air monitoring at the opening.
EPA personnel detected 30 ppm H2S and documented possible cross contamination from the lift station.
Thursday afternoon, EPA and LDEQ met with a Parrish official to discuss the assessment and delivery of
the final report. The official did not express any concerns and requested that both EPA and LDEQ attend
a future community meeting to report the results of the assessment. Air monitoring activities continued
throughout the day and night, and no other exceedances were detected.
On Friday November 7, 2014, the EPA concluded air monitoring activities at 0800 hours. Air samples
were shipped to ALS Laboratories in Simi Valley, CA. All equipment and personnel demobilized from the
site by 1030. EPA planned to compile and send the information gathered during the response to LDEQ
for inclusion into a comprehensive assessment report. LDEQ assumed responsibility for distributing all
data and information regarding this assessment to the public. EPA did not conduct any enforcement
activities.
The Shell Refinery and IMTT Joint Bitumen Project was identified as a potentially responsible party. In
June 2014, Shell and IMTT released a joint statement asserting all emissions for its St. Rose Bitumen
Project facility met EPA air quality standards according to sampling conducted by LDEQ. The companies
also stated at this time that they were working to install additional odor control equipment and improve
their process for notifying state and local officials. In May of 2015, residents conducted a rally outside of
the facility and continued to complain of health concerns as a result of its emissions.
Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile:
The primary pollutant of concern at this site was hydrogen sulfide. EPA also monitored VOCs but did not
measure any exceedances. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
hydrogen sulfide is a "colorless, flammable, and extremely hazardous gas" which occurs naturally in
crude petroleum. Repeated exposure to hydrogen sulfide can result in adverse health impacts ranging
from irritation of the eyes and respiratory system to convulsions and asphyxiation, depending on the
exposure concentrations.
According to local media reporting, Shell and IMTT admitted to releasing emissions over ten days in June
2014 but claimed these emissions did not lead to any exceedance of state-wide regulations. Federal
regulations do not establish ambient air criteria for hydrogen sulfide; neither the National Ambient Air
25

-------
Quality Standards (NAAQS, 40 CFR Part 50) nor the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS, 40 CFR Part 63) include standards for hydrogen sulfide. The state of Louisiana
regulates ambient air concentrations of hydrogen sulfide under LAC 33: III 51, Comprehensive Toxic Air
Pollutant Emission Control Program, effective in December of 1991. In addition to adopting the federal
NESHAPS, this Chapter sets ambient air standards for toxic air pollutants in Part 5105 and Table 51.2.
Under this rule, the eight-hour average of ambient air concentrations of hydrogen sulfide may not
exceed 330 ug/m3 (approximately 230 ppm). The response documents do not describe any air
monitoring performed by LDEQ or EPA at the time of the initial release in June 2014. EPA therefore
cannot conclude if the June release violated Louisiana regulation. The highest reading of hydrogen
sulfide registered during the EPA's November 2014 monitoring efforts was 30 ppm at the lift station
near location 12.
Though EPA did not document any exceedances of federal or state ambient air quality regulations from
the Shell Refinery and IMTT Joint Bitumen Project between June and November of 2014, releases of
sulfide were reportable under several federal and Louisiana state laws at the time of the incident in June
2014. Hydrogen sulfide is a hazardous and toxic chemical under the federal Superfund, Emergency
Planning, and Community Right-to-Know Programs (40 CFR Parts 300-399). 40 CFR Part 302.4
(Designation of hazardous substances), requires reporting of hydrogen sulfide releases of 100 pounds or
more. 40 CFR Part 372, CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting, requires reporting of releases of toxic
substances, including hydrogen sulfide, of any quantity from applicable facilities. 40 CFR Part 372.23 (SIC
and NAICS codes to which this Part applies) and 40 CFR Part 372.25 (thresholds for reporting) indicate
the facilities to which this regulation applies. As a petroleum and coal manufacturing facility (NAICS
324), the Shell Refinery and IMTT Joint Bitumen Project facility was required to report the 2014
hydrogen sulfide release under 40 CFR Part 372.23. 40 CFR Part 372.25 requires release reporting for
facilities using 10,000 pounds or more of the hydrogen sulfide. Response documents indicate that the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality learned of the June 2014 release from St. Rose
community members rather than from Shell and IMTT, suggesting the companies may not have
reported the release.
In addition to these reporting requirements, the Shell Refinery and IMTT Joint Bitumen Project facility
was also subject to the federal Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions (40 CFR Part 68), adopted by
Louisiana in LAC 33: III 59 (Chemical Accident Prevention and Minimization of Consequences). These
regulations require and/or set guidance for the prevention and detection of accidental releases of
hazardous substances including hydrogen sulfide (as set forth in 40 CFR Part 68.130) from stationary
sources of over certain threshold amounts of the subject substance. The rules address the use,
operation, repair, and maintenance of equipment to monitor, detect, inspect, and control releases,
including the training of personnel. Subchapter G of this Part includes the requirement for regulated
facilities to submit Risk Management Plans (RMPs), comprising hazard assessments, prevention
programs, and emergency response programs. The Shell Refinery and IMTT Joint Bitumen Project may
have been in violation of these regulations.
Finally, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulates hydrogen sulfide as a highly
hazardous substance under 40 CFR Part 1910. These rules prohibit worker exposure to hydrogen sulfide
and other toxic and hazardous substances over 20 ppm or over 50 ppm if no other measurable
exposures occur within an eight-hour period. While EPA was not involved with sampling at the time of
the acute hydrogen sulfide release in June of 2014, monitoring efforts in October 2014 measured
26

-------
hydrogen sulfide at 30 ppm, suggesting concentrations could likely have been above OSHA permissible
exposure limits (PEL) during the release cause by the RTO malfunction.
This review demonstrates that modern federal and state ambient air quality standards, toxic release
reporting requirements, worker safety rules, and emergency response and preparedness regulations
were in place and applicable to the 2014 hydrogen sulfide emissions releases. It further demonstrates
that the IMTT and Shell Joint Bitumen Project likely violated toxic reporting and worker safety
regulations and may also have violated ambient air quality and emergency response and preparedness
rules. EPA therefore concludes that this non-NPL removal case represents an example of current risk
within the petroleum and coal products manufacturing industry.
References:
•	Kyle Barnett, "State reconsiders air monitoring after group threatens rally," St. Charles Herald
Guid, October 3, 2014. Accessed April 26, 2019, at: https://www.heraldeuide.com/news/state"
recoiisiders-air-moriitors-after-group-threateris-rallv/.
•	Littice Bacon-Blood, "St. Rose asphalt plant to add odor control equipment, improve public
notification," Nola.com, June 20, 2014. Accessed April 26, 2019, at:
https://www.nola.com/environment/2014/06/st rose asphalt plant will add.html.
•	Littice Bacon-Blood, "St. Rose residents push for 24/7 air monitoring of plants," Nola.com, May
5, 2015. Accessed April 26, 2019, at:
https://www.nola.com/politics/2015/05/st rose residents push for 247.html
•	OSHA, OSHA Fact Sheet: Hydrogen Sulfide, October 2005. Accessed April 26, 2019 at:
https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data Hurricane Facts/hydrogen sulfide fact.pdf.
•	Pollution Report #1, November 6, 2014.
•	Pollution Report #2, September 25, 2015
•	US EPA START-3, Air Monitoring Filed Log, St. Rose Air Assessment, posted to OSC site page
November 10, 2014.
•	EPA enforcement case 06-2007-3404 concluded 28 October 2010
27

-------
4) Lake Charles NRG
Facility Name: Lake Charles NRG
EPA Region/State: R6 - Louisiana
EPA SEMS ID: LAN000607016
FRSID:110009576075
Contamination Dates: 1983-2011
Operation Dates: 1983-1999
Action Lead: Government Led
Expenditures: Approximately $2.3 million
Site Background/Description:
The Lake Charles NRG site is located on 4.4 acres of land in an industrial park on the eastern side of Lake
Charles, Louisiana. Undeveloped, wooded lots border the site on the north, east, and west. Commercial
and light industrial activity zones are in the area surrounding the site. The site is also approximately
2,500 feet from the closest residential properties.
Refinery operations occurred at the site from 1983 to 1999. The refinery operations consisted of
salvaging petroleum feed stocks into naphtha, number 2 fuel oil, and residual fuel oil. Rebel Energy, Inc.
constructed the site in 1983 and sold it to Westate, Inc. 1989. Westate, Inc. subsequently filed for
bankruptcy in 1994. National Resources, Inc. acquired the site in 1996 and operated it as the National
Resources Refinery, although some site materials indicate that National Resources, Inc. leased the site
with an option to purchase that it never exercised; National Resources, Inc. entered involuntary
bankruptcy in 2001. The site was then transferred to NRG in 1998. Site operations ceased in 1999, and
remediation and removal have been the only site activities since 2000. In 2003, Primergy International,
LLC expressed the intention to purchase the property, but the sale never went through. The Calcasieu
Parish Police Jury adjudicated the property on back taxes in 2008, and Calcasieu Parish currently
controls the property. Of the former non-governmental owners of the site, no viable PRPs were
identified.
The site contains a refinery plant, 24 above ground cylindrical steel tanks, two frac-tanks, two sludge
boxes, a tractor trailer truck with attached tank trailer, nine poly tote tanks, one rectangular wastewater
treatment steel tank, 25 steel and poly drums, and a roll-off box. Secondary containment structures are
in place around the tanks, though site reports note that those containment structures are leaking.
A 2010 site visit discovered that a tank had failed, and oil was leaking from the containment structure
surrounding its tank farms. It appeared that containment liquid had overflown onto the adjacent
property north of the site. Subsequent site inspections uncovered oil staining at a second tank farm due
to the failure of another tank. Tanks and drums at the site contained approximately 200,000 gallons of
hazardous liquids. These liquids were an oily-water mixture and included volatile and semi-volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). Samples collected from the vertical tanks and frac-tanks at the site detected
VOCs at concentrations in the percent range, specifically for naphthalene. Hazardous sludge and an
additional hazardous acid liquids were present at the site. Analysis of soil at the site reflected
contamination by Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), and VOCs.
28

-------
These contaminants were present in the soil at levels deemed to require removal but were not classified
as hazardous.
Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response:
During a January 25, 2010 site visit by representatives from EPA and the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality, a layer of oil was discovered in the containment structure for one of the tank
farms (900 series tanks), with evidence that the containment had overflown onto the property north of
the site, due to the failure of one of the three tanks in the tank farm. During sampling for
characterization of the site for NPL assessment conducted in May 2010, oil staining was found in a
second tank farm (400/500 series tanks), due to failure of an additional tank. An NPL site assessment
determined the site is not eligible for NPL ranking. Secondary containments continued to collect
rainwater and overflow liquids potentially containing oil or waste from leaking tanks. Ultimately, the
assessment determined that the tanks and drums contained approximately 200,000 gallons of
hazardous substances (not including the liquids in the secondary containments).
The following year, on February 14, 2011, EPA mobilized to the site to begin emergency stabilization.
Emergency removal action (stabilization) is a temporary step to prevent the ongoing release of
hazardous substances from the site and prevent unimpeded access to the property. From February 15 to
February 18, 40,000 gallons of contaminated liquid was removed from the secondary containments,
open drums, and sumps. EPA also conducted sampling for disposal profiling on February 17 and 18. Site
stabilization activities concluded on February 18, 2011.
EPA activities restarted at the site in July 2011 and continued through March 2012. Site work included
the re-gauging of tanks and collecting oil and sludge samples prior to off-site disposal. EPA removal
actions transported 220,803 gallons of hazardous liquids, 240 cubic yards of hazardous solid sludge, and
4,375 gallons of hazardous acid liquids. Additionally, EPA removed 49,456 gallons of non-hazardous
contaminated water, 39.4 tons of naturally occurring radioactive material debris, 190 cubic yards of non-
hazardous debris, 576 cubic yards of non-hazardous soils, and 591,360 pounds of scrap metal for off-site
disposal and/or recycling. The tanks, process equipment, and ancillary tank piping at the site were cut,
pressure washed, and removed. Once EPA removed hazardous material from on-site tanks and
associated equipment, those tanks were decontaminated and sent off-site as scrap metal. EPA also
decontaminated the containment structures at the site to prevent additional rainwater contamination.
The removal of the 100/200 series tanks uncovered stained soil in the tanks' footprint. EPA excavated
and stockpiled the top layer of the affected soil. EPA sent samples of the soil for analysis for disposal
preparation and contamination assessment. EPA also collected soil samples from other areas of concern
at the site. The samples contained low levels of TPH, PAH, and VOC contamination. The contamination
necessitated removal and disposal of the affected soil but did not classify the soil as hazardous material.
EPA ultimately removed 576 cubic yards of this non-hazardous, contaminated soil.
The tanker truck and tanker trailer remained on site, but EPA removed the contents and a vendor
cleaned and decontaminated the tanker.
No federal enforcement actions were found at the Lake Charles NRG site.
29

-------
Discussion: Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile
In 1980, the Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities went into effect through the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). For the
following 19 years, additional regulations were added that, had Lake Charles NRG owners and operators
followed, would have mitigated the extent of the contaminations. Effective since 1981, 40 CFR Part 264,
Subpart I, requires owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities to keep containers closed, ensure
containers are handled and stored in such a manner to avoid rupture or leakage, and conduct weekly
inspections. At closure, all hazardous wastes and hazardous waste residues must be removed from the
containment system and containers must be decontaminated.
In 1992, Subpart DD of the 40 CFR Part 264, which establishes design and operating standards for
containment buildings that treat or store hazardous waste, went into effect. The regulation requires
owners and operators of facilities with containment buildings to remove or decontaminate all waste
residues, containment system components, subsoils, and structures and equipment contaminated with
waste or leachate, and manage them as hazardous waste. Owners and operators must generate closure
plans and cost estimates, perform closure activities, and acquire financial responsibilities for
containment buildings. If owners and operators cannot remove or decontaminate contaminated
components, subsoils, structures, and equipment, they must close the facility and perform post-closure
care, including acquiring financial responsibility. The owners of Lake Charles NRG, since 1992, failed to
comply with these regulations.
RCRA regulations under 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart E require that prohibited wastes, be stored in
containers at disposal facilities and may only be stored to facilitate their property recovery, treatment,
and disposal. The subpart prohibits storage of prohibited wastes for more than one year, unless storage
is necessary to accumulate enough waste to facilitate recovery, treatment, or disposal. These
regulations were effective as of November 8, 1986, and all of the owners subsequent to that date stored
hazardous wastes in tanks and drums on site for longer than one year and failed to treat or dispose
those liquids.
Finally, the owners and operators of Lake Charles NRG did not follow closure and post-closure
requirements which apply for 30 years after closure and include implementation of closure standards,
implementation of closure plan, and time allowed for closure activities. Owners and operators much
also submit a post-closure plan, post-closure property use and care guidelines, and notification and
security requirements if hazardous waste remains on the facility after post-closure period. These
regulations were effective as of October 29th, 1986 per 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, 6925, 6935, 6936,
and 6937 under RCRA. The regulations establish guidelines for disposal or decontamination of
equipment, structures, and soils. Upon completion of closure of a hazardous waste disposal unit, owners
and operators must submit a certification of closure to the EPA regional office. This is yet another
regulation with which Charles Lake NRG owners and operators failed to comply, contributing to the site
contamination and necessitating the removal actions.
Louisiana has a suite of hazardous waste regulations at LAC Title 33 Part V that largely adopt the federal
regulations relevant to this site. Additionally, LAC Title 33 Part V Chapter 15 establishes siting
requirements for the construction of hazardous waste facilities that includes regulations applicable to
onsite discharges and preparedness and prevention. These regulations were effective in 1984, the year
after the Lake Charles NRG plant went into operation. Given the abandonment, tank failures, and
30

-------
contamination related to leaks that occurred at the Lake Charles NRG site, it appears that the site's
owners and operators were not in compliance with these state regulations.
Several owners and operators at the Lake Charles site entered bankruptcy proceedings both during the
site's operation and after its closure. As a result, EPA was unable to locate any viable PRPs to aid with
removal actions at the site. It therefore appears that contamination occurred at the site under the
modern environmental regulatory regime at both the federal and state level, and bankruptcies shifted
the cost of the removal action at the site to the taxpayer.
References:
•	Draft Site Assessment Report, February 10, 2011.
•	Pollution Report #1, February 15, 2011.
•	Pollution Report #2, February 22, 2011.
•	Pollution Report #8, April 4, 2012.
31

-------
5) Browns Island Chemical Spill
Facility Name: Browns Island Chemical Spill
EPA Region/State: R3 - West Virginia
EPA SEMS ID: WVN000306615, WVD980538607
FRSID:110017766880
Contamination Dates: March 20, 2008
Operation Dates: 1973 -1982
Response Action Lead: Fund
Expenditures: None Reported
Site Background/Description:
The facility is a former coke by-product plant operated by Weirton Steel between 1973 and 1982. It is
located on Browns Island in the Ohio River in Weirton, West Virginia. The facility is currently owned by
Arcelor Mittal Tecumseh Redevelopment Corp. (Arcelor), which was in the process of facility demolition
and environmental cleanup activities at the time of the spill. Asbestos abatement activities were
ongoing for several months prior to the chemical spill. Two previous issues at the site (coal tar tanks and
a Prussian blue release) had resulted in corrective actions with the US EPA. The facility is listed in
CERCLIS as the National Steel Corp (WVD980538607). The facility is accessed from a backwater bridge
on the west side of the river, in Costoni, Ohio.
On Thursday, March 20, 2008, Arcelor Mittal Tecumseh Redevelopment Corp. contacted the National
Response Center (NRC, report # 865550) to report a spill of approximately 300 gallons of an unknown
liquid at the facility. Analytical results from the tank's material indicated the largest constituents of the
leaked material were naphthalene at 20,600 ppm, 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene at 9,240 ppm, and total
xylenes at 3,380 ppm. The tank was actively leaking from a weld of saddle support and the spill path
extended approximately 25-30 feet away from the leak, reaching water puddles along the south end of
process area.
Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response:
EPA arrived on scene at about 1345 hours on March 20, 2008 and met with a representative from the
Arcelor. An emergency response and environmental cleanup contractor hired by the PRP was on scene
and had already laid out absorbent pads around the pooled areas of spilled liquid. West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) representatives arrived later. EPA noted the leaking
tank was labelled #36 and painted with lines and arrows. EPA used a Raytec noncontact thermometer to
record a ten-degree difference approximately one foot from the top of the tank. The PRP at first
believed the tank to be empty. However, upon inspection, the PRP contractor determined
approximately two feet of material remained in the tank. A vacuum tanker was ordered to offload the
remaining material from tank #36.
The following day, March 21, 2008, EPA returned to the site to document the progress on spill
containment and recovery. The PRP contractor had transferred approximately 1,100 gallons of liquid
from tank #36 to tank #143 as an emergency temporary storage measure. Tank #143 was secure, not
32

-------
leaking, and in relatively better shape than tank #36, but its valve area showed signs of deterioration
and past spill events. The contractor also moved tank #36 from the spill area, scraped the spill area,
placed contaminated soil into a covered roll off present on site, and covered the spill area in plastic. In a
low area of the original tank location where the saturated soils had begun to seep out liquid material,
the contractor set up an earthen berm.
EPA took no further action for this site. Arcelor disposed of the material and continued securing the site,
while WVDEP continued to investigate conditions at the facility.
Although there were extensive federal enforcement activities at National Steel, no federal enforcement
actions were found at the Browns Island site.
Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile:
Naphthalene, xylenes, and 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene were the primary constituents of the liquid in the
tank that spilled. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) defines hazardous wastes
through 40 CFR Part 261, which was effective November 19, 1980. That regulation designates both
naphthalene and xylenes as hazardous wastes.
The facility's generation and storage of hazardous wastes meant that a suite of RCRA regulations applied
to its waste handling, storage, and disposal, including the liquid that ultimately spilled in the 2008
incident. Effective since 1981, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I, requires owners and operators of hazardous
waste facilities to keep containers closed, ensure containers are handled and stored in such a manner to
avoid rupture or leakage, and conduct weekly inspections. At closure, all hazardous wastes and
hazardous waste residues must be removed from the containment system and containers must be
decontaminated. It appears that both Weirton Steel and Arcelor failed to comply with this regulation.
Subpart J of 40 CFR Part 264, which was effective as of January 12, 1987, addresses the storage of
hazardous waste in tank systems, such as the tanks present at the Browns Island Chemical Spill site. The
regulations under Subpart J require facility owners and operators to assess the integrity of existing tank
systems that do not have a secondary containment structure to determine that the tank system is not
leaking and is fit for use. Because the leak at the site traveled directly to the surrounding soil, it does not
appear that a secondary containment system existed for the tank storing the spilled substance. As a
result, it appears that, depending on the time of the transfer of ownership of the facility, at least one of
- if not both - Weirton Steel and Arcelor did not comply with this regulation.
Subpart J of 40 CFR Part 264 also establishes requirements for responses to leaks or spills from
hazardous waste storage tank systems at 40 CFR Part 264.196. It requires owners and operators of a
facility that experiences a leak from a tank to remove the tank from use, contain any visible releases to
the environment, and report the leak to EPA. Arcelor's conduct following the leak appears to have put it
in compliance with this section of Subpart J.
RCRA regulations under 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart E require that prohibited wastes, be stored in
containers at disposal facilities and may only be stored to facilitate their property recovery, treatment,
and disposal. The subpart prohibits storage of prohibited wastes for more than one year, unless storage
is necessary to accumulate enough waste to facilitate recovery, treatment, or disposal. These
33

-------
regulations were effective as of November 8, 1986. It is unclear when ownership of the facility was
transferred from Weirton Steel, but at least one of Weirton Steel and Arcelor and possibly both entities
stored hazardous wastes in tanks and drums on site for longer than one year and failed to treat or
dispose those liquids.
Naphthalene and xylenes are also designated as hazardous substances under 40 CFR 302. Regulations
under this part were effective April 4, 1985, and were implemented under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). In addition to hazardous substance
designation, 40 CFR Prat 302 also establishes reporting requirements for releases of hazardous
substances above certain reportable quantity thresholds. If releases contain hazardous substances in
amounts above reportable quantities, the regulations require the facility owner or operator to
immediately notify the NRC. With respect to the Browns Island Chemical Spill site, it does not appear
that the amount of naphthalene or xylene in the 300-gallon spill exceeded the reportable quantity for
either substance. Nonetheless, Arcelor, the current owner of the Browns Island Chemical Spill site,
contacted the NRC after it discovered the spill, which would have put the facility in compliance with 40
CFR 302 had the spill contained reportable quantities of a hazardous substance.
Thus, while it appears that Arcelor complied with modern environmental hazardous substance release
reporting regulations under CERCLA, neither Arcelor nor the site's previous owner, Weirton Steel,
complied with the hazardous waste storage, maintenance, and disposal regulations under RCRA.
Additionally, while Arcelor did move the hazardous waste from the leaking tank to a secure tank, EPA
response personnel noted that the new storage tank's valve area showed signs of deterioration and past
spill events, potentially putting Arcelor in violation of 40 CFR Part 264, Subparts I and J, with respect to
insuring the integrity of hazardous waste storage systems.
References:
•	EPA OSC Site Response Page, Browns Island Chemical Spill, Images. Accessed May 1, 2019 at:
https://response.epa.gov/site/site profile.aspx?site id=4070.
•	Jane Kraina, "Browns Island," The West Virgina Encyclopedia, January 7, 2011. Accessed May 1,
2019 at: https ://www.wvencvclopedia.org/articles/671.
Pollution Report #1, April 30, 2008.
34

-------