Identification and Evaluation of CERCLA 108(b) Additional Classes
National Priorities List (NPL) Cleanup Case Sites: Chemical
Manufacturing
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents i
Introduction 2
Scope of Analysis: IdenTification of cleanup cases 3
2010 ANPRM 3
Additional NPL Sites 4
Non-NPL Sites 5
Analytical Steps and Methodology 6
A. Screening out Legacy Issues and PRP Funded Actions 7
B. Detailed Review of Sites That May Have had Pollution Issues Arise in 1980 or
Later, and/or Incurred Significant Taxpayer Expenditures 9
Summary of Findings from the Detail Review of NAICS 325 NPL Sites with Potential Post-
Modern Regulation Releases 11
Appendix I. List of NPL Sites and Associated Pollution Dates 13
Appendix II. List of Chemical Manufacturing NPL Sites and Associated Action Lead
Designation in SEMS 17
Appendix III. NPL Sites for which the Most Recent Pollution Date was Estimated to be in 1980
or Later and were Designated as Mixed Lead or Government Performed Construction in SEMS
21
Appendix IV. Summary of Findings 22
Appendix V: detailed case narratives of chemical manufaturing sites with potential releases post
contemporary regulations 24
Appendix V-A: Cases with Release(s) Post-Modern Regulation that Required Taxpayer
Funded Response 25
Appendix V-B: Detailed Review Concluded Issue Pre-Modern Regulation 43
i
-------
INTRODUCTION
Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, establishes certain regulatory authorities concerning financial
responsibility requirements. Specifically, the statutory language addresses the promulgation of
regulations that require classes of facilities to establish and maintain evidence of financial
responsibility consistent with the degree and duration of risk associated with the production,
transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances. On July 28, 2009, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified hard rock mining facilities as the initial
class of facilities that would be subject to financial assurance requirements under CERCLA
108(b).1 In the same notice, EPA stated its belief that additional classes of facilities may also
warrant the development of financial responsibility requirements and state that EPA would
publish an additional notice by December 2009, identifying additional classes of facilities it
plans to evaluate regarding the development of financial responsibility requirements. On January
6, 2010, in Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), EPA identified three additional
classes of facilities for which EPA would develop, as necessary, financial responsibility
regulations: the electric power generation, transmission, and distribution industry (NAICS 2211);
the petroleum and coal products manufacturing industry (NAICS 324); and the chemical
manufacturing industry (NAICS 325).2 This report focuses on the chemical manufacturing
industry.
As part of the 2010 ANRPM, EPA indicated that the agency will carefully examine specific
activities, practices, and processes involving hazardous substances at these facilities, as well as
Federal and State authorities to determine the potential risks posed by these classes of facilities
and whether requirements under CERCLA Sections 108(b) would effectively reduce these risks.
This report documents the findings of the Agency's evaluation environmental releases associated
with the activities of the chemical manufacturing industry and concludes whether or not these
releases occurred during current relevant environmental regulations.
This document first describes the scope of the analysis and the environmental damage cases EPA
considered for this analysis. The following section describes the methodology EPA followed in
identifying cases of environmental damages that occurred under modern regulatory structure,
environmental risk and the resulting conclusions. Next, the report summarizes the results and
conclusion of the analysis. Finally, attached to the report are five appendices. The first presents a
list of chemical manufacturing NPL and Non-NPL sites considered for this analysis, along with
possible pollution dates. The second appendix presents the cleanup action lead at these sites. The
final three appendices are tables and cleanup case narratives of sites considered for detailed
1 74 FR 37213.
2 75 FR 3.
2
-------
reviewed in identifying relevant sites for evaluation of risk at currently operating chemical
manufacturing facilities.
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS: IDENTIFICATION OF CLEANUP CASES
EPA evaluated the need for CERCLA 108(b) financial responsibility regulations at classes of
facilities in the Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 325) industry. Specifically, EPA identified
whether there were examples of pollution caused by activities, practices and processes involving
hazardous substances within this industry that occurred under a regulatory structure like today's
that required a taxpayer funded cleanup. EPA believes examples of 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's National Priorities List
(NPL) sites as these sites tend to be the most costly cleanups with the greatest likelihood of
significant taxpayer expenditures. As part of this analysis, EPA also considered non-NPL sites
that required long term (remedial) clean ups but addressed through EPA's Superfund Alternative
Approach (SAAs)3 as opposed to listing a site on the NPL.
2010 ANPRM
EPA initiated its review of potential CERCLA 108(b) cleanup cases by re-examining the cleanup
cases identified in the January 6, 2010 Additional Classes ANPRM.4 In that notice EPA
explained its rationale for the selection of the three identified additional industry classes that the
Agency would examine regarding the development of financial responsibility requirements. The
ANPRM relied primarily upon information related to sites listed on the NPL, data on hazardous
waste generation from the 2007 RCRA Biennial Report (BR), and data from the Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI). As noted above and explained in the 2017 Final Action regarding CERCLA
108(b) financial responsibility for classes of facilities in the hard rock mining industry5, EPA
now believes additional information beyond TRI and BR data are needed in evaluating the
necessity of financial responsibility regulations under CERCLA 108(b). Accordingly, EPA first
prioritized the review of cleanup cases previously identified in the ANPRM, using an updated
3 The Superfund alternative approach (SAA) uses the same investigation and cleanup process and
standards that are used for sites listed on the NPL. The SA approach is an alternative to listing a site on
the NPL; it is not an alternative to Superfund or the Superfund process
4 See Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) 75 Fed Reg 816. Identification of
Additional Classes of Facilities for Development of Financial Responsibility Requirements under
CERCLA Section 108(b). January 6, 2010.
5 See 83 Fed Reg 7570. Section titled "Use of Data That Did Not Directly Demonstrate Risk at Current
Hardrock Mining Operations" February 21, 2018.
3
-------
methodology for evaluation of risk, as these cases served as an underpinning for the decision to
consider these three classes of facilities for potential regulation.
The ANPRM referred to 181 NPL sites6 where NAICS 325 (Chemical Manufacturing) activities
had taken place. While this report focuses on NAICS 325, the 2010 ANPRM also identified 30
NPL sites where NAICS 324 (Petroleum or Coal Products Manufacturing) activities had taken
place and 27 damage cases involving Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs, a byproduct of the
Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution, within the NAICS 2211 industry).
Separate documents are available for these industries presenting similar analysis and findings.
Additional NPL Sites
EPA sought to identify additional potential cleanup cases by looking outside the scope of the
ANPRM as well. To this end, EPA first queried the EPA's Superfund Enterprise Management
System (SEMS) database7 in March 2018. EPA searched SEMS for additional NPL sites that
either (i) may have been missed by EPA's review pre-2010, or that (ii) post-dated the data
collection supporting the 2010 ANPRM. To conduct this query EPA first filtered the
approximately 83,000 records in the March 2018 SEMS data pull by NPL status. Specifically,
EPA filtered out sites identified in SEMS as either "Not on the NPL" or "Not a Valid Site." This
filtering yielded 2,365 sites that may presently be or have been on the NPL. The sites include
those proposed (but not presently finalized), those on the final NPL, those deleted from NPL,
those removed from the NPL, and those that are identified as part of another NPL site. This
approach erred on the side of over identifying potential cleanup cases as some of these candidate
sites would be already accounted for as part of other NPL sites. Next, EPA filtered the 2,365
sites by "Primary Sub Category Name'Vand or "Secondary Sub Category Name" in SEMS,
which EPA used as a proxy for the type of industrial activity that took place at the site. EPA,
specifically looked at sites categorized as chemical, and chemicals/chemical waste. It should be
noted that because of time and resource limitations, the search for potentially relevant cleanup
cases did not include a search into other categories. In addition, incomplete or misplaced
designations may also result in some cases going unidentified. As such, EPA believes that the
cases identified and analyzed in this report in effect represent the cases that were relatively easy
to find, and that there are likely to be some number of additional relevant cases that were not
identified. Due to the nature of the approach employed, there is some uncertainty surrounding the
total number of NPL sites which may reflect on the results of the analysis.
This filtering resulted in the identification of 22 newly identified NPL sites where, according to
SEMS, chemical manufacturing activities had occurred. SEMS records showed that all these
sites were on the final NPL list. SEMS records also revealed that 9 of these new sites were
6 While the ANPRM references 181 NPL sites, recent review of this list identified 177 unique records and 4
duplicates. Thus, EPA analysis relied on the 177 unique sites.
7 https://www.epa.gov/enviro/sems-overview
4
-------
engaged in manufacturing chemicals and allied products, while 10 other sites were currently
coded as involved in chemical waste recovery activity. The industrial activities for the remaining
three sites were not immediately clear, therefore, they were carried forward for consideration
with a detailed review. In addition, although most chemical waste recovery activities may fall
outside of the NAICS 325 subsector, EPA initially kept all these sites under consideration until a
detailed review of a site's activities was completed.
Table 1 below presents the total number of NPL sites considered for this evaluation and the
industry subclasses identified within the universe of sites. The total number NPL sites reflects
the 177 sites identified in 2010 ANPRM and the 22 additional sites found in Spring 2018 SEMS
data query.
Table 1- Industry Subclasses Identified Within Additional Classes NPL Site Universes
Additional Classes
Subsectors
No. of
NPL
Sites
Industry Groups Identified on the NPL
Percentage of Industry
Groups Identified
Chemical
Manufacturing
(NAICS 325)
199
(NAICS 3251) Basic Chemical Manufacturing
38%
(NAICS 3252) Resin, Synthetic Rubber, and Artificial
Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
7%
(NAICS 3253) Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other
Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
42%
(NAICS 3254) Pharmaceutical and Medicine
Manufacturing
4%
(NAICS 3255) Paint, Coating, and Adhesive
Manufacturing
10%
(NAICS 3256) Soap, Cleaning Compound, and Toilet
Preparation Manufacturing
6%
(NAICS 3259) Other Chemical Product and
Preparation Manufacturing
15%
Non-NPL Sites
As mention above, as part of this analysis, EPA also considered non-NPL sites addressed
through EPA's Superfund Alternative Approach (SAAs). An SAA site is a site that requires
long-term response, remedial action, and where site contaminants are significant enough that the
site is eligible for, but not listed on, the National Priorities List (NPL). SAA sites must also have
financially viable and capable potentially responsible parties (PRPs) that are willing to perform
the cleanup work under a settlement agreement with EPA.
Applying the same methodology described above to identify sites in SEMS, EPA's filtering
resulted in the identification of eight non-NPL sites addressed through SAA where, according to
SEMS, chemical manufacturing activities had occurred. SEMS records also revealed that 6 of
5
-------
these new sites were engaged in manufacturing chemicals and allied products, while 2 other sites
were currently indicated as involved in chemical waste recovery activity.
ANALYTICAL STEPS AND METHODOLOGY
Once the cleanup cases identified, EPA gathered relevant information on these 199 chemical
manufacturing NPL and 8 non-NPL SAA sites. As a primary matter, EPA collected information
on the timing and nature of releases or threatened releases at these sites. Specifically, EPA
sought to identify, as applicable, facility operation end dates, approximate dates when the release
of hazardous substances occurred, sources of contamination, NPL proposal dates, contaminated
media, the type of contaminant, the cleanup lead and information on Superfund expenditures at
the site among other information. For this collection, EPA relied on information either
previously collected as part of the ANPRM, information available in Superfund site documents
(e.g. NPL listing narratives, Records of Decision, Five-Year Reviews), information in the EPA's
Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) as of March 2018. This information for each
site was essential for the later stages of this analysis where environmental releases at a site
compared against the regulatory landscape to evaluate whether each site demonstrated the type
of risk that would support the promulgation of regulations.
Table 2 below shows the types and frequency of contamination sources identified at the cleanup
cases that were reviewed. Generally, in this stage of the analysis regarding the prevalent sources
of contamination, EPA noted that land disposal issues as well as discharges to ground & surface
water were common at most of the sites. Other example sources of contamination included
abandoned units and materials, failures of dikes at surface impoundments, and contaminated soil
resulting from process activities, etc. Note that there is some overlap regarding the sources of
contamination found at the 207 sites, since at a number of sites more than one type source
appears to have caused the release of hazardous substances.
6
-------
Table 2- Sources of Contamination Identified at Cleanup Cases
Primary Sources of Contamination
Number of
Facilities/Sites Observed
Percentage of Sites with Source
Contaminated Soil
109
62%
Unlined Waste/Wastewater
Ponds/Lagoons
71
40%
Abandoned Drummed Waste/Unused
Hazardous Materials
56
32%
Discharge to Surface Water
36
20%
Unlined Landfills
30
17%
Mismanaged On-site Runoff
26
15%
Unlined Waste Disposal
Pits/Depression
26
14%
Buried Drums/Tanks Containing Waste
25
14%
Others
53
30%
A. Screening out Legacy Issues and PRP Funded Actions
After compiling information about the risks and history of each site EPA sought to identify
instances where issues arose under a regulatory structure like today's that resulted in taxpayer
funded response actions. To do so, EPA first screened out 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
cleanup cases.
In many cases, the Superfund site documents would note dates where specific releases occurred
or polluting activities (e.g., land disposal in unlined impoundments) ceased. At sites where there
were multiple releases and/or activities with varying dates, EPA used the most recent date to err
on the side of being over inclusive. If an NPL site had documented issues in 1968 and 1981 the
site would not have been screened out as at least one of the dates was 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
7
-------
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 on the side of being over inclusive.
As shown in Table 3 below, 104 of the 199 chemical manufacturing NPL sites identified had the
releases of hazardous substances or pollution activities occurred due to activities that predate
1980, thus EPA screened out these sites. Similarly, 6 of the 8 SAA sites were also screened out
due to legacy activities. When the timeframe of a release of hazardous substance could not be
determined for a site, the site was carried through the analysis for further review. A complete list
of the NPL sites and the date used to make the determination is available in Appendix I below.
Table 3- Summary of Results of Pre-1980 Pollution Screen on NPL and SAA Site Universe
Type of Site
Total # of Sites
Identified
# of Sites
Screened Out
(Due to Pollution
Occurring pre-1980)
# of Sites Remaining
(Due to Pollution
Possibly Occurring in
1980 or Later)
Chem. Manuf. - NPL Sites
199
104
95 s
Chem. Manuf. - SAA Sites
8
6
2
EPA also sought to remove sites where significant taxpayer expenditures had not occurred from
the subsequent stages of the analysis as those, the Agency believes, would not be indicative of a
need for CERCLA 108(b) financial responsibility regulations. To do so EPA used the Action
Lead field in SEMS associated with each NPL or SAA site. Cleanup cases sites reviewed in this
analysis had one of three values for action lead in the SEMS database: 1. Mixed Lead
Construction; 2. PRP Performed Construction; or 3. Govt Performed Construction. For the
purposes of this analysis EPA focused on the sites that were either Mixed Lead Construction or
Government Performed Construction under the assumption that PRP Performed Construction
sites did not present significant expenses to the taxpayer. NPL or SAA sites that are Federal
Facilities were also treated as PRP led sites.
As shown below in Table 4, applying the action lead filter on the chemical manufacturing NPL
sites resulted in the exclusion of 82 PRP lead sites. Similarly, all the SAA sites were PRP lead
sites, therefore, excluded from further review. Note that Table 4 figures are presented
irrespective of the pollution dates, as discussed above. Complete lists of the NPL sites and the
action lead designations (from SEMS) that were used to make these determinations are available
in Appendix II below.
8 This figure includes 9 sites that the approximate timeframes of when the releases of hazardous
substances occurred at these are unknown.
8
-------
Table 4- Summary Results of the PRP-Lead Screen on NPL Site Universe
Type of Site
Total # of NPL
Sites Identified
# of NPL Sites
Screened Out
(Due to PRPs having
Performed
Construction)
# of NPL Sites
Remaining
(Due to Mixed or
Govt. Performed
Construction)
Chem. Manuf. - NPL Sites
199
82
117
Chem. Manuf. - SAA Sites
8
89
0
In addition to the pre-1980 and PRP screening criteria, EPA also filtered out sites where the
industrial activities that resulted in sites being listed on the NPL fall outside of the relevant
classes of facilities under consideration. As mentioned before, the data pull from SEMS used
Primary Sub Category Name which EPA initially used as a proxy for the type of industrial
activity that took place at the site. For NAICS 325 subsectors, EPA specifically looked at those
identified as chemicals and allied products, and chemicals/chemical waste recycling and
recovery. For the most part the SEMS industrial categories closely align with the NAICS 325
category. However, in some cases this did not hold true, particularly for chemical waste recovery
activities. Instead, such activities are considered waste management services, and identified as
NAICS 562. EPA's detail review of the historical industrial activities revealed several sites that
had engaged in NAICS 562 activities. EPA's review also identified other types of industrial
activities that were initially thought to fall within NAICS 325, which included metal processing
(331), oil and gas mining (212), and chemical wholesale distribution (4246). These sites were
excluded from the next step of the analysis. At sites where there were multiple activities
including NAICS 325, EPA retained these sites for review to err on the side of being over
inclusive.
B. Detailed Review of Sites That May Have had Pollution Issues Arise in 1980 or Later,
and/or Incurred Significant Taxpayer Expenditures
Ultimately, EPA was interested in identifying instances where issues arose both under a
regulatory structure like today's and that resulted in taxpayer funded response actions. EPA
compared the universe of sites at which the most recent pollution date was estimated to be in
1980 or later and the universe of sites designated as mixed lead or government performed
construction in SEMS to identify which sites met both of those criteria. Thirty-four chemical
manufacturing sites met both criteria and did warrant further detail review. No SAA sites met
9 SEMS record showed two of the eight SAA sites had mixed lead designations, however, further review of EPA's
record for these sites revealed that while EPA was the lead at these sites, the PRPs entered into an SAA agreement
with EPA to finance and conduct the site investigation and cleanup with EPA's oversight.
9
-------
both criteria, therefore excluded from further detail review. Herein after, this report will focus on
NPL sites. A complete list of these sites along with the relevant information is included in
Appendix III.
Figure 1 below helps demonstrate how reliance upon the subject filtering criteria leads to a
specific set of cases of most concern. For example, there are 34 NPL sites where both: 1) the
sources of contamination occurred in 1980 or later; and 2) the costs of cleanup were borne by the
government and not by the PRPs. These 34 sites become the focus of the next phase of analyses,
as highlighted in the Venn diagram below.
Figure 1- Overlap of Universes of NPL Sites in NA ICS 325, with Pollution Dates of1980 or
Later, and Mixed Lead or Government Construction Designations
EPA proceeded to conduct a detailed case-by-case review of each of these sites at which the
pollution may have occurred in a regulatory structure like today's, while also resulting in
significant taxpayer expenditures. To do so, EPA compiled as complete a history and profile for
each of these sites as possible based on the relevant and available information. EPA relied
primarily on the SEMS database, Superfund site documents (e.g. Records of Decision) and the
RCRAInfo database. Where available, federal enforcement records were also evaluated. These
site profiles were then analyzed considering the regulations that are applicable today to chemical
manufacturing facilities and the key implementation dates for those regulations. The information
compiled by EPA on the applicable regulations is available in sector-specific spreadsheets and
associated case study reports within the docket to this rulemaking10. The site profiles, as well as
10 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0086: Financial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA Section 108(b)
for Facilities in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry
10
-------
a discussion of the regulations applicable today, and the Agency's preliminary conclusion
regarding the appropriateness of using this NPL case study to demonstrate ongoing risk are
presented in Appendix IV below.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM THE DETAIL REVIEW OF NAICS 325 NPL SITES
WITH POTENTIAL POST-MODERN REGULATION RELEASES
Table 5 below presents the result of EPA's detail review of the 34 sites that warranted further
investigation, and EPA's conclusions regarding whether the release events that occurred at those
sites are representative of contemporary risk, carried through for further analysis after applying
the filtering criteria as described above. The detail review assessed whether the releases
identified at these sites occurred prior to the implementation of the current regulatory scheme.
For this analysis, EPA compared the timing and nature of release at each site with applicable
modern regulations. Based on this review, EPA concluded that notwithstanding the screens
applied at earlier stages of the analysis, the environmental releases at 30 of the 34 chemical
manufacturing NPL sites reflect significant legacy chemical manufacturing activities that pre-
dated contemporary regulations. In addition, EPA's detail review identified four chemical
manufacturing NPL sites that appear to have significant environmental releases that the EPA
believes occurred under contemporary regulatory structure.
The detail review did suggest that four NPL sites appeared to have significant environmental
releases under contemporary regulation. The four sites are Diaz Chemical Corporation, Eldorado
Chemical Company, Mississippi Phosphate Company (MPC), and White Chemical Corp.
At Diaz Chemical, Eldorado Chemical Company, and White Chemical Company, all three
companies were operational between the period of 1990 until 2003, when poor housekeeping
practices, loss of control of manufacturing systems, and faulty containment systems resulted in
the release of a range of chemical substances to the air, water, soil and ground water. In addition,
when Diaz and White Chemical Company filed for bankruptcy and abandoned their facilities, the
companies left behind thousands of hazardous chemical and waste in drums and tanks. These
releases or threats of releases occurred at these sites despite the promulgation and
implementation of applicable RCRA Substile C regulations in 1980 and Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (HSWA) in 1984. Evaluation of EPA's expenditure data showed the fund
incurred over $28 million to address site contamination at Diaz Chemical and $47 million at
White Chemical Company. Fund expenditures at Eldorado were relatively less significant
totaling at $568K.
Table 5 - Summary Results of the Review of NAICS 325 NPL Sites
No Further Consideration Required -
Sites Not Representative of
Contemporary Risk
Sites that Potentially Represent Contemporary
Risks That May Warrant CERCLA FR
Regulations
Number of Sites
Screened Out Based
Detailed Review
Concluded Issue
Detailed review
identified a possible
modern regulation
Sites with at least one
release event that
occurred under
11
-------
Total
NPL and
SAA Sites
on Pre-1980, or PRP
lead
Pre-Modern
Regulation
release but no significant
taxpayer expenditures
(PRP led response)
contemporary
regulations with some
taxpayer funded
response (fund or mixed
led response)
20711
12712 (46)13
30
-
4
Regarding MPC, the plant ceased operations in December 2014 following bankruptcy. When the
company abandoned the site more than 700 million gallons of low-pH contaminated wastewater
was left behind. During its operation, the company also experienced catastrophic releases of
acidic, nutrient-rich wastewater in 2005 and 2013. Enforcement records show from 1989, MPC
received numerous Administrative Orders (AO) and Notices of Violations (NOV) related to
noncompliance with their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In
August 2013, MPC released an estimated 38 million gallons of acidic water to Bayou Casotte
killing an estimated 47,000 fish, resulting in the closure of the Bayou for an unspecified time and
resulting in a criminal violation of the Clean Water Act. The history of violations of CWA
regulations indicated that these releases or threats of release post-date contemporary regulations.
EPA's review of fund expenditures at this site revealed, because the site was listed on the NPL in
2017, the potential costs to the fund has yet to be fully realized. However, based on the limited
expenditure data obtained from Superfund's (IFMS) database, EPA has spent $8.3 million as of
Fall 2018. In addition, in a 2018 Action Memorandum, EPA indicated the removal action would
cost $71.6 million to clean up the site from 2018 through 2020, plus $36 million for ongoing
wastewater treatment during the three-year cleanup period. The memo also mentioned that the
EPA continued to treat 2-4 million gallons of contaminated water each day, which was estimated
to cost $1 million per day.
Therefore, EPA concludes that based on the contamination history of these sites and non-
compliance with contemporaneous regulations and potentially significant fund expenditures,
these sites may represent the potential risks at currently operating chemical manufacturing
facilities. More information on these sites as well as the EPA's rationale for considering these as
modern cases are provided below in the Appendix V-A.
11 Includes 8 sites addressed through Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA).
12 All eight sites that were addressed under the superfund alternative approach had been screened out of the analysis
for either having legacy contamination or the PRPs led the remedial activity with no significant superfund
expenditures.
13 The number in the parentheses indicates the sites that were also removed at this stage of the analysis because EPA
determined the industrial activities did not involve chemical manufacturing.
12
-------
APPENDIX I. LIST OF NPL SITES AND ASSOCIATED POLLUTION DATES
EPA ID Site Name City
Most recent
pollution date (if
State , .
unknown, ceased
operation date)
ALD001221902
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mcintosh Plant)
Mcintosh
AL
1971/1988
ALD008161176
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Lemoyne Plant)
Axis
AL
1974
ALD008188708
Olin Corp. (Mcintosh Plant)
Mcintosh
AL
1974
ALD095688875
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek Plant)
Bucks
AL
1979
ALD983166299
Triana/Tennessee River
Limestone/Morgan
AL
1970
ARD000023440
Vertac, Inc.
Jacksonville
AR
1986
ARD059636456
Frit Industries
Walnut Ridge
AR
1979
AZD008399263
Apache Powder Co.
Saint David
AZ
1971/1995
CAD008242711
Montrose Chemical Corp.
Torrance
CA
1982
CAD009103318
Jasco Chemical Corp.
Mountain View
CA
1988
CAD009106220
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co.
Fresno
CA
1960s
CAD042245001
Omega Chemical Corporation
Whittier
CA
1991
CAD052384021
Brown & Bryant, Inc. (Arvin Plant)
Arvin
CA
1989
CAD980737092
Pemaco Maywood
Maywood
CA
1991
CAD981436363
United Heckathorn Co.
Richmond
CA
1965
COD980667075
Woodbury Chemical Co.
Commerce City
CO
1971
COD980717953
Sand Creek Industrial
Commerce City
CO
1975/1977
CT0002055887
Broad Brook Mill
East Windsor
CT
1967
CTD108960972
Gallup'S Quarry
Plainfield
CT
1978
DED980830954
Halby Chemical Co.
New Castle
DE
1977
DED981035520
Sealand Limited
Middletown
DE
1983
FLD004064242
Chevron Chemical Co. (Ortho Division)
Orlando
FL
1970
FLD004065546
Tower Chemical Co.
Clermont
FL
1980
FLD004092532
Stauffer Chemical Co (Tampa)
Tampa
FL
1986
FLD004146346
Woodbury Chemical Co. (Princeton Plant)
Princeton
FL
1979
FLD004574190
B&B Chemical Co., Inc.
Hialeah
FL
1976
FLD039049101
Kerr-Mcgee Chemical Corp - Jacksonville
Jacksonville
FL
1978
FLD042110841
Landia Chemical Company
Lakeland
FL
1987
FLD053502696
Helena Chemical Co. (Tampa Plant)
Tampa
FL
1974
FLD071307680
Gold Coast Oil Corp.
Miami
FL
1982
FLD980221857
Agrico Chemical Co.
Pensacola
FL
1959
GAD003269578
Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc.
Fort Valley
GA
1980
GAD042101261
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co. (Albany Plant)
Albany
GA
1982
GAD099303182
Lcp Chemicals Georgia
Brunswick
GA
1994
GAD982112658
Terry Creek Dredge Spoil Areas/Hercules Outfall
Brunswick
GA
1972
GAD991275686
Marzone Inc./Chevron Chemical Co.
Tifton
GA
1981
IAD042581256
Aidex Corp.
Mineola
IA
1980
IDD984666610
Eastern Michaud Flats Contamination
Pocatello
ID
1981
ILD000814673
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Marshall Plant)
Marshall
IL
1980
ILD002994259
Amoco Chemicals (Joliet Landfill)
Joliet
IL
1975
ILD053219259
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc. (Morristown Plant)
Morristown
IL
1973
ILD062340641
Depue/New Jersey Zinc/Mobil Chemical Corp.
Depue
IL
1989
ILD980397079
A & F Material Reclaiming, Inc.
Greenup
IL
1980
IND000807107
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (Indianapolis Plant)
Indianapolis
IN
1972
IND016360265
American Chemical Service, Inc.
Griffith
IN
1975
13
-------
Most recent
EPA ID
Site Name
City
State
pollution date (if
unknown, ceased
operation date)
IND040313017
Seymour Recycling Corp.
Seymour
IN
1980
IND074315896
Fisher-Calo
La Porte
IN
1979
IND084259951
Envirochem Corp.
Zionsville
IN
1982
IND980679559
Midco li
Gary
IN
1977
INT190010876
International Minerals (E. Plant)
Terre Haute
IN
1954
KSD031349624
Chemical Commodities, Inc.
Olathe
KS
1989
LAD980745632
Bayou Bonfouca
Slidell
LA
1970
MAD000192393
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Lowell
MA
1977
MAD001002252
W.R. Grace & Co., Inc. (Acton Plant)
Acton
MA
1980
MAD001041987
Baird & Mcguire
Holbrook
MA
1982
MAD001403104
Olin Chemical
Wilmington
MA
1972
MAD076580950
Industri-Plex
Woburn
MA
1969
MAD990685422
Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump
Ashland
MA
1978
MDD003061447
Central Chemical (Hagerstown)
Hagerstown
MD
1976
MDD980555478
Chemical Metals Industries, Inc.
Baltimore
MD
1981
MED980524078
Mckin Co.
Gray
ME
1978
MID000722439
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Michigan)
St. Louis
Ml
1978
MID002931228
Anderson Development Co.
Adrian
Ml
1973
MID006030373
Bofors Nobel, Inc.
Muskegon
Ml
1976
MID060174240
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical Co.
Dalton Township
Ml
1985
MID072569510
Muskegon Chemical Co.
Whitehall
Ml
1977
MID079300125
Spartan Chemical Co.
Wyoming
Ml
1963
MID980476907
Parsons Chemical Works, Inc.
Grand Ledge
Ml
1979
MID980794556
U.S. Aviex
Howard Township
Ml
1978
MID990858003
Organic Chemicals, Inc.
Grandville
Ml
1980
MND000686071
Koch Refining Co./N-Ren Corp.
Pine Bend
MN
1972
MND006252233
Whittaker Corp.
Minneapolis
MN
1980
MND039045430
St. Louis River Site
St. Louis County
MN
1979
MND980609804
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (St. Louis Park Plant)
St. Louis Park
MN
1972
MOD046750253
Armour Road
North Kansas City
MO
1986
MOD980631113
Kem-Pest Laboratories
Cape Girardeau
MO
1977
MOD980633010
Ellisville Site
Ellisville
MO
1970s
MOD980853519
Lee Chemical
Liberty
MO
1974
MSD008154486
Chemfax, Inc.
Gulf port
MS
1981
MSD086556388
Sonford Products
Flowood
MS
1985
MSD980601736
Walcotte Chemical Co. Warehouses
Greenville
MS
1960
MSD980840045
Newsom Brothers/Old Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.
Columbia
MS
1977
NCD001810365
Martin-Marietta, Sodyeco, Inc.
Charlotte
NC
1978
NCD095458527
Fcx, Inc. (Statesville Plant)
Statesville
NC
1969
NCD980557805
Kerr-Mcgee Chemical Corp - Navassa
Navassa
NC
1974
NCD981026479
Benfield Industries, Inc.
Hazelwood
NC
1982
NCD981927502
Geigy Chemical Corp. (Aberdeen Plant)
Aberdeen
NC
1989
NCD986187094
Reasor Chemical Company
Castle Hayne
NC
1969
NCD991278953
National Starch & Chemical Corp.
Salisbury
NC
1978
NHD001079649
Fletcher's Paint Works & Storage
Milford
NH
1982
NHN000103313
Chlor-Alkali Facility (Former)
Berlin
NH
1960
NJD000565531
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
Beverly
NJ
1989
14
-------
EPA ID Site Name City
Most recent
pollution date (if
State , .
unknown, ceased
operation date)
NJD000606442
Quanta Resources
Edgewater
NJ | 1981
NJD001502517
Ciba-Geigy Corp.
Toms River
NJ
1977
NJD002005106
Universal Oil Products (Chemical Division)
East Rutherford
NJ
1971
NJD002141190
Cps/Madison Industries
Old Bridge Township
NJ
1977
NJD002173276
American Cyanamid Co
Bound Brook
NJ
1981
NJD002175057
Standard Chlorine
Kearny
NJ
1993
NJD002385664
Vineland Chemical Co., Inc.
Vineland
NJ
1977
NJD041743220
Swope Oil & Chemical Co.
Pennsauken Township
NJ
1979
NJD041828906
Fried Industries
East Brunswick
Township
NJ
1985
NJDO64263817
Syncon Resins
South Kearny
NJ
1982
NJD078251675
Brook Industrial Park
Bound Brook
NJ
1982
NJD079303020
Lcp Chemicals Inc.
Linden
NJ
1979
NJD980484653
Chemical Insecticide Corp.
Edison Township
NJ
1970
NJD980505382
Lang Property
Pemberton Township
NJ
1976
NJD980528889
Chemsol, Inc.
Piscataway
NJ
1964
NJD980528996
Diamond Alkali Co.
Newark
NJ
1977
NJD980529762
Maywood Chemical Co.
Maywood/Rochelle
Park
NJ
1954
NJD980529838
Krysowaty Farm
Hillsborough Township
NJ
1970
NJD980529879
Ventron/Velsicol
Wood Ridge Borough
NJ
1974
NJD980532824
Wilson Farm
Plumstead Township
NJ
1970s
NJD980654099
Imperial Oil Co., Inc./Champion Chemicals
Morganville
NJ
1945
NJD980654198
Myers Property
Franklin Township
NJ
1959
NJD980663678
Horseshoe Road
Sayreville
NJ
1982
NJD980755623
White Chemical Corp.
Newark
NJ
1990
NJD981178411
Industrial Latex Corp.
Wallington Borough
NJ
1980
NJD981490261
Higgins Farm
Franklin Township
NJ
1985
NJD981558430
Atlantic Resources
Sayreville
NJ
1985
NY0001392463
Hudson Technologies, Inc.
Hillburn
NY
1995
NYD000813428
Jones Chemicals, Inc.
Caledonia
NY
1986
NYD001485226
Anchor Chemicals
Hicksville
NY
1978
NYD002044584
Claremont Polychemical
Old Bethpage
NY
1980
NYD067532580
Diaz Chemical
Holley
NY
2003
NYD980421176
Solvent Savers
Lincklaen
NY
1974
NYD980530265
Peter Cooper
Gowanda
NY
1972
NYD980753420
Mackenzie Chemical Works
Central Islip
NY
1987
NYD980768683
Bioclinical Laboratories, Inc.
Bohemia
NY
1981
NYD986913580
Onondaga Lake
Syracuse
NY
1986
OHD004210563
Dover Chemical Corp.
Dover
OH
1981
OHD043730217
Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke
Ironton
OH
1982
OHD071650592
South Point Plant
South Point
OH
1979
OHD980610018
Nease Chemical
Salem
OH
1973
OHD980610042
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (Dover Plant)
Dover
OH
1956
OHD980611909
Diamond Shamrock Corp. (Painesville Works)
Painesville
OH
1972
OHD980614549
Chemical & Minerals Reclamation
Cleveland
OH
1980
OKD980748446
Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex
Sand Springs
OK
1983
ORD071803985
Harbor Oil Inc.
Portland
OR
1974/1979
15
-------
EPA ID Site Name City
Most recent
pollution date (if
State , .
unknown, ceased
operation date)
PAD000436261
Centre County Kepone
State College Borough
PA | 1960s
PAD003005014
Whitmoyer Laboratories
Jackson Township
PA
1964
PAD003058047
Drake Chemical
Lock Haven
PA
1981
PAD014353445
Malvern Tee
Malvern
PA
1976
PAD980692537
Westline
Westline
PA
1952
PAD981033459
Ryeland Road Arsenic Site
Heidelberg Twp
PA
1940
PAD981034887
Borit Asbestos
Ambler
PA
1970s
PAD981939200
Publicker Industries Inc.
Philadelphia
PA
1986
PRD987367299
Pesticide Warehouse lii
Manati
PR
1996
RID009764929
Western Sand & Gravel
Burrillville
Rl
1979
RID055176283
Peterson/Puritan, Inc.
Lincoln/Cumberland
Rl
1972
RID981203755
Centredale Manor Restoration Project
North Providence
Rl
1971
SCD002601656
Para-Chem Southern, Inc.
Simpsonville
SC
1979/1984
SCD037405362
Wamchem, Inc.
Burton
SC
1975
SCD058753971
Helena Chemical Co. Landfill
Fairfax
SC
1978
SCD094995503
Kalama Specialty Chemicals
Beaufort
SC
1979
TND980468557
Arlington Blending & Packaging
Arlington
TN
1979
TND980844781
Wrigley Charcoal Plant
Wrigley
TN
1966
TXD008123168
Alcoa (Point Comfort)/Lavaca Bay
Point Comfort
TX
1981
TXD055143705
Triangle Chemical Co.
Bridge City
TX
1981
TXD089793046
Dixie Oil Processors, Inc.
Friendswood
TX
1977
TXD980625453
Brio Refining, Inc.
Friendswood
TX
1982
TXD980699656
Pesses Chemical Co.
Fort Worth
TX
1981
TXD980748453
Geneva Industries/Fuhrmann Energy
Houston
TX
1978
TXD980873327
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers
Houston
TX
1980
TXD990707010
Crystal Chemical Co.
Houston
TX
1981
UTD000716399
Wasatch Chemical Co. (Lot 6)
Salt Lake City
UT
1992
UTD093119196
Petrochem Recycling Corp./Ekotek Plant
Salt Lake City
UT
1988
VAD003125374
Greenwood Chemical Co.
Newtown
VA
1985
VAD003127578
Saltville Waste Disposal Ponds
Saltville
VA
1972
VID980651095
Island Chemical Corp/Virgin Islands Chemical
Corp.
Christiansted
VI
1982
WAD009624453
Boomsnub/Airco
Vancouver
WA
1989
WAD120513957
Pesticide Lab (Yakima)
Yakima
WA
1990
WAD980639215
Quendall Terminal
Renton
WA
1978
WAD980726368
Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide Flats
Tacoma
WA
1905
WID990829475
Waste Research & Reclamation Co.
Eau Claire
Wl
1984
WVD000850404
Ordnance Works Disposal Areas
Morgantown
WV
WVD024185373
Hanlin-Allied-Olin
Moundsville
WV
1989
WVD047989207
Fike Chemical, Inc.
Nitro
WV
1980/1983
16
-------
APPENDIX II. LIST OF CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING NPL SITES AND
ASSOCIATED ACTION LEAD DESIGNATION IN SEMS
EPA ID
Site Name
City
State
Action Lead
ALD001221902
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mcintosh Plant)
Mcintosh
AL
PRP
ALD008161176
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Lemoyne Plant)
Axis
AL
PRP
ALD008188708
Olin Corp. (Mcintosh Plant)
Mcintosh
AL
PRP
ALD095688875
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek Plant)
Bucks
AL
PRP
ALD983166299
Triana/Tennessee River
Limestone/Morgan
AL
PRP
ARD000023440
Vertac, Inc.
Jacksonville
AR
PRP
ARD059636456
Frit Industries
Walnut Ridge
AR
PRP
AZD008399263
Apache Powder Co.
Saint David
AZ
PRP
CAD008242711
Montrose Chemical Corp.
Torrance
CA
PRP/Fund
CAD009103318
Jasco Chemical Corp.
Mountain View
CA
PRP
CAD009106220
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co.
Fresno
CA
PRP
CAD042245001
Omega Chemical Corporation
Whittier
CA
PRP
CAD052384021
Brown & Bryant, Inc. (Arvin Plant)
Arvin
CA
Fund
CAD980737092
Pemaco Maywood
Maywood
CA
Fund
CAD981436363
United Heckathorn Co.
Richmond
CA
PRP
COD980667075
Woodbury Chemical Co.
Commerce City
CO
PRP
COD980717953
Sand Creek Industrial
Commerce City
CO
PRP/Fund
CT0002055887
Broad Brook Mill
East Windsor
CT
No Actual/Planned
Construction at Site
CTD108960972
Gallup'S Quarry
Plainfield
CT
PRP
DED980830954
Halby Chemical Co.
New Castle
DE
PRP
DED981035520
Sealand Limited
Middletown
DE
PRP
FLD004064242
Chevron Chemical Co. (Ortho Division)
Orlando
FL
PRP
FLD004065546
Tower Chemical Co.
Clermont
FL
Fund
FLD004092532
Stauffer Chemical Co (Tampa)
Tampa
FL
PRP
FLD004146346
Woodbury Chemical Co. (Princeton Plant)
Princeton
FL
Fund
FLD004574190
B&B Chemical Co., Inc.
Hialeah
FL
PRP
FLD039049101
Kerr-Mcgee Chemical Corp - Jacksonville
Jacksonville
FL
PRP
FLD042110841
Landia Chemical Company
Lakeland
FL
PRP
FLD053502696
Helena Chemical Co. (Tampa Plant)
Tampa
FL
PRP
FLD071307680
Gold Coast Oil Corp.
Miami
FL
PRP
FLD980221857
Agrico Chemical Co.
Pensacola
FL
PRP
GAD003269578
Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc.
Fort Valley
GA
PRP/Fund
GAD042101261
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co. (Albany Plant)
Albany
GA
PRP
GAD099303182
Lcp Chemicals Georgia
Brunswick
GA
PRP
GAD982112658
Terry Creek Dredge Spoil Areas/Hercules Outfall
Brunswick
GA
PRP
GAD991275686
Marzone Inc./Chevron Chemical Co.
Tifton
GA
PRP/Fund
IAD042581256
Aidex Corp.
Mineola
IA
Fund
IDD984666610
Eastern Michaud Flats Contamination
Pocatello
ID
PRP
ILD000814673
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Marshall Plant)
Marshall
IL
PRP
ILD002994259
Amoco Chemicals (Joliet Landfill)
Joliet
IL
PRP
ILD053219259
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc. (Morristown Plant)
Morristown
IL
PRP
ILD062340641
Depue/New Jersey Zinc/Mobil Chemical Corp.
Depue
IL
PRP
ILD980397079
A & F Material Reclaiming, Inc.
Greenup
IL
PRP/Fund
IND000807107
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (Indianapolis Plant)
Indianapolis
IN
PRP
IND016360265
American Chemical Service, Inc.
Griffith
IN
PRP
17
-------
EPA ID
Site Name
City
State
Action Lead
IND040313017
Seymour Recycling Corp.
Seymour
IN
PRP
IND074315896
Fisher-Calo
La Porte
IN
PRP
IND084259951
Envirochem Corp.
Zionsville
IN
PRP
IND980679559
Midco li
Gary
IN
PRP
INT190010876
International Minerals (E. Plant)
Terre Haute
IN
PRP
KSD031349624
Chemical Commodities, Inc.
Olathe
KS
PRP
LAD980745632
Bayou Bonfouca
Slidell
LA
Fund
MAD000192393
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Lowell
MA
PRP/Fund
MAD001002252
W.R. Grace & Co., Inc. (Acton Plant)
Acton
MA
PRP
MAD001041987
Baird & Mcguire
Holbrook
MA
Fund
MAD001403104
Olin Chemical
Wilmington
MA
PRP
MAD076580950
Industri-Plex
Woburn
MA
PRP
MAD990685422
Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump
Ashland
MA
Fund
MDD003061447
Central Chemical (Hagerstown)
Hagerstown
MD
PRP
MDD980555478
Chemical Metals Industries, Inc.
Baltimore
MD
Fund
MED980524078
Mckin Co.
Gray
ME
PRP
MID000722439
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Michigan)
St. Louis
Ml
PRP/Fund
MID002931228
Anderson Development Co.
Adrian
Ml
PRP
MID006030373
Bofors Nobel, Inc.
Muskegon
Ml
PRP/Fund
MID060174240
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical Co.
Dalton Township
Ml
Fund
MID072569510
Muskegon Chemical Co.
Whitehall
Ml
Fund
MID079300125
Spartan Chemical Co.
Wyoming
Ml
Fund
MID980476907
Parsons Chemical Works, Inc.
Grand Ledge
Ml
Fund
MID980794556
U.S. Aviex
Howard Township
Ml
Fund
MID990858003
Organic Chemicals, Inc.
Grandville
Ml
PRP
MND000686071
Koch Refining Co./N-Ren Corp.
Pine Bend
MN
Fund
MND006252233
Whittaker Corp.
Minneapolis
MN
PRP
MND039045430
St. Louis River Site
St. Louis County
MN
PRP/Fund
MND980609804
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (St. Louis Park Plant)
St. Louis Park
MN
PRP
MOD046750253
Armour Road
North Kansas City
MO
PRP
MOD980631113
Kem-Pest Laboratories
Cape Girardeau
MO
Fund
MOD980633010
Ellisville Site
Ellisville
MO
PRP/Fund
MOD980853519
Lee Chemical
Liberty
MO
PRP
MSD008154486
Chemfax, Inc.
Gulf port
MS
PRP
MSD086556388
Sonford Products
Flowood
MS
Fund
MSD980601736
Walcotte Chemical Co. Warehouses
Greenville
MS
No Actual/Planned
Construction at Site
MSD980840045
Newsom Brothers/Old Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.
Columbia
MS
PRP
NCD001810365
Martin-Marietta, Sodyeco, Inc.
Charlotte
NC
PRP
NCD095458527
Fcx, Inc. (Statesville Plant)
Statesville
NC
PRP/Fund
NCD980557805
Kerr-Mcgee Chemical Corp - Navassa
Navassa
NC
PRP/Fund
NCD981026479
Benfield Industries, Inc.
Hazelwood
NC
Fund
NCD981927502
Geigy Chemical Corp. (Aberdeen Plant)
Aberdeen
NC
PRP
NCD986187094
Reasor Chemical Company
Castle Hayne
NC
PRP
NCD991278953
National Starch & Chemical Corp.
Salisbury
NC
PRP
NHD001079649
Fletcher's Paint Works & Storage
Milford
NH
PRP/Fund
NHN000103313
Chlor-Alkali Facility (Former)
Berlin
NH
PRP/Fund
NJD000565531
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
Beverly
NJ
Fund
NJD000606442
Quanta Resources
Edgewater
NJ
PRP
18
-------
EPA ID
Site Name
City
State
Action Lead
NJD001502517
Ciba-Geigy Corp.
Toms River
NJ
PRP/Fund
NJD002005106
Universal Oil Products (Chemical Division)
East Rutherford
NJ
PRP
NJD002141190
Cps/Madison Industries
Old Bridge Township
NJ
PRP/Fund
NJD002173276
American Cyanamid Co
Bound Brook
NJ
PRP
NJD002175057
Standard Chlorine
Kearny
NJ
PRP/Fund
NJD002385664
Vineland Chemical Co., Inc.
Vineland
NJ
Fund
NJD041743220
Swope Oil & Chemical Co.
Pennsauken Township
NJ
PRP
NJD041828906
Fried Industries
East Brunswick
Township
NJ
Fund
NJDO64263817
Syncon Resins
South Kearny
NJ
Fund
NJD078251675
Brook Industrial Park
Bound Brook
NJ
PRP/Fund
NJD079303020
Lcp Chemicals Inc.
Linden
NJ
Fund
NJD980484653
Chemical Insecticide Corp.
Edison Township
NJ
Fund
NJD980505382
Lang Property
Pemberton Township
NJ
Fund
NJD980528889
Chemsol, Inc.
Piscataway
NJ
PRP
NJD980528996
Diamond Alkali Co.
Newark
NJ
PRP
NJD980529762
Maywood Chemical Co.
Maywood/Rochelle
Park
NJ
FF
NJD980529838
Krysowaty Farm
Hillsborough Township
NJ
Fund
NJD980529879
Ventron/Velsicol
Wood Ridge Borough
NJ
PRP
NJD980532824
Wilson Farm
Plumstead Township
NJ
PRP/Fund
NJD980654099
Imperial Oil Co., Inc./Champion Chemicals
Morganville
NJ
Fund
NJD980654198
Myers Property
Franklin Township
NJ
PRP
NJD980663678
Horseshoe Road
Sayreville
NJ
PRP/Fund
NJD980755623
White Chemical Corp.
Newark
NJ
Fund
NJD981178411
Industrial Latex Corp.
Wallington Borough
NJ
Fund
NJD981490261
Higgins Farm
Franklin Township
NJ
Fund
NJD981558430
Atlantic Resources
Sayreville
NJ
PRP/Fund
NY0001392463
Hudson Technologies, Inc.
Hillburn
NY
No Actual/Planned
Construction at Site
NYD000813428
Jones Chemicals, Inc.
Caledonia
NY
PRP
NYD001485226
Anchor Chemicals
Hicksville
NY
PRP
NYD002044584
Claremont Polychemical
Old Bethpage
NY
Fund
NYD067532580
Diaz Chemical
Holley
NY
Fund
NYD980421176
Solvent Savers
Lincklaen
NY
PRP
NYD980530265
Peter Cooper
Gowanda
NY
PRP
NYD980753420
Mackenzie Chemical Works
Central Islip
NY
Fund
NYD980768683
Bioclinical Laboratories, Inc.
Bohemia
NY
Fund
NYD986913580
Onondaga Lake
Syracuse
NY
PRP
OHD004210563
Dover Chemical Corp.
Dover
OH
PRP
OHD043730217
Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke
Ironton
OH
PRP
OHD071650592
South Point Plant
South Point
OH
PRP
OHD980610018
Nease Chemical
Salem
OH
PRP
OHD980610042
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (Dover Plant)
Dover
OH
PRP
OHD980611909
Diamond Shamrock Corp. (Painesville Works)
Painesville
OH
PRP
OHD980614549
Chemical & Minerals Reclamation
Cleveland
OH
Fund
OKD980748446
Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex
Sand Springs
OK
PRP
ORD071803985
Harbor Oil Inc.
Portland
OR
PRP/Fund
PAD000436261
Centre County Kepone
State College Borough
PA
PRP
PAD003005014
Whitmoyer Laboratories
Jackson Township
PA
PRP/Fund
19
-------
EPA ID
Site Name
City
State
Action Lead
PAD003058047
Drake Chemical
Lock Haven
PA
PRP/Fund
PAD014353445
Malvern Tee
Malvern
PA
PRP
PAD980692537
Westline
Westline
PA
Fund
PAD981033459
Ryeland Road Arsenic Site
Heidelberg Twp
PA
Fund
PAD981034887
Borit Asbestos
Ambler
PA
Fund
PAD981939200
Publicker Industries Inc.
Philadelphia
PA
PRP/Fund
PRD987367299
Pesticide Warehouse lii
Manati
PR
Fund
RID009764929
Western Sand & Gravel
Burrillville
Rl
PRP/Fund
RID055176283
Peterson/Puritan, Inc.
Lincoln/Cumberland
Rl
PRP
RID981203755
Centredale Manor Restoration Project
North Providence
Rl
Fund
SCD002601656
Para-Chem Southern, Inc.
Simpsonville
SC
PRP
SCD037405362
Wamchem, Inc.
Burton
SC
PRP
SCD058753971
Helena Chemical Co. Landfill
Fairfax
SC
PRP
SCD094995503
Kalama Specialty Chemicals
Beaufort
SC
PRP
TND980468557
Arlington Blending & Packaging
Arlington
TN
PRP
TND980844781
Wrigley Charcoal Plant
Wrigley
TN
Fund
TXD008123168
Alcoa (Point Comfort)/Lavaca Bay
Point Comfort
TX
PRP
TXD055143705
Triangle Chemical Co.
Bridge City
TX
Fund
TXD089793046
Dixie Oil Processors, Inc.
Friendswood
TX
PRP
TXD980625453
Brio Refining, Inc.
Friendswood
TX
PRP
TXD980699656
Pesses Chemical Co.
Fort Worth
TX
Fund
TXD980748453
Geneva Industries/Fuhrmann Energy
Houston
TX
Fund
TXD980873327
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers
Houston
TX
PRP/Fund
TXD990707010
Crystal Chemical Co.
Houston
TX
PRP
UTD000716399
Wasatch Chemical Co. (Lot 6)
Salt Lake City
UT
PRP
UTD093119196
Petrochem Recycling Corp./Ekotek Plant
Salt Lake City
UT
PRP
VAD003125374
Greenwood Chemical Co.
Newtown
VA
Fund
VAD003127578
Saltville Waste Disposal Ponds
Saltville
VA
PRP
VID980651095
Island Chemical Corp/Virgin Islands Chemical
Corp.
Christiansted
VI
PRP
WAD009624453
Boomsnub/Airco
Vancouver
WA
PRP/Fund
WAD120513957
Pesticide Lab (Yakima)
Yakima
WA
No Actual/Planned
Construction at Site
WAD980639215
Quendall Terminal
Renton
WA
PRP
WAD980726368
Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide Flats
Tacoma
WA
PRP/Fund
WID990829475
Waste Research & Reclamation Co.
Eau Claire
Wl
No Actual/Planned
Construction at Site
WVD000850404
Ordnance Works Disposal Areas
Morgantown
WV
PRP
WVD024185373
Hanlin-Allied-Olin
Moundsville
WV
PRP
WVD047989207
Fike Chemical, Inc.
Nitro
WV
PRP/Fund
20
-------
APPENDIX III. NPL SITES FOR WHICH THE MOST RECENT POLLUTION DATE
WAS ESTIMATED TO BE IN 1980 OR LATER AND WERE DESIGNATED AS
MIXED LEAD OR GOVERNMENT PERFORMED CONSTRUCTION IN SEMS
EPA ID
Site Name
State
Cleanup
Lead
NAICS
CAD008242711
Montrose Chemical Corp.
CA
Govt/PRP
3253
CAD052384021
Brown & Bryant, Inc. (Arvin Plant)
CA
Govt
3253
CAD980737092
Pemaco Maywood
CA
Govt
325
FLD004065546
Tower Chemical Co.
FL
Govt
3253
GAD003269578
Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc.
GA
Govt/PRP
3253
GAD991275686
Marzone Inc./Chevron Chemical Co.
GA
Govt/PRP
3253
IAD042581256
Aidex Corp.
IA
Govt
3253
MAD001041987
Baird & Mcguire
MA
Govt
3253,3256
MDD980555478
Chemical Metals Industries, Inc.
MD
Govt
3251
MID060174240
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical Co.
MI
Govt
3251
MSD086556388
Sonford Products
MS
Govt
3251
MSN000403508
Mississippi Phosphates Corporation
MS
Govt
3253
NCD981026479
Benfield Industries, Inc.
NC
Govt
325
NHD001079649
Fletcher's Paint Works & Storage
NH
Govt/PRP
3255
NJD000565531
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
NJ
Govt
3255
NJD002144517
Pierson's Creek
NJ
Govt/PRP
3253
NJD002175057
Standard Chlorine
NJ
Govt/PRP
3251:3253
NJD041828906
Fried Industries
NJ
Govt
3255:3256:3259
NJD064263817
Syncon Resins
NJ
Govt
3251:3252
NJD078251675
Brook Industrial Park
NJ
Govt/PRP
3251,3253
NJD980663678
Horseshoe Road
NJ
Govt/PRP
3251:3252:3253:3314
NJD980755623
White Chemical Corp.
NJ
Govt
3251,3259
NJD981178411
Industrial Latex Corp.
NJ
Govt
3252,3255
NYD002044584
Claremont Polychemical
NY
Govt
3252,3255
NYD067532580
Diaz Chemical
NY
Govt
3251,3253,3254, 3259
NYD980753420
Mackenzie Chemical Works
NY
Govt
3251
NYD980768683
Bioclinical Laboratories, Inc.
NY
Govt
3251
PAD003058047
Drake Chemical
PA
Govt/PRP
3251; 3253
PAD981939200
Publicker Industries Inc.
PA
Govt/PRP
3251
TXD055143705
Triangle Chemical Co.
TX
Govt
3256,3259
TXD057567216
Eldorado Chemical Co., Inc.
TX
Govt
3253
VAD003125374
Greenwood Chemical Co.
VA
Govt
3253, 3254, 3259
WAD009624453
Boomsnub/Airco
WA
Govt/PRP
332/3251
WVD047989207
Fike Chemical, Inc.
WV
Govt/PRP
3251
21
-------
APPENDIX IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
EPA ID
Site Name
State
Cleanup
Lead
NAICS
Legacy
Modern
Mixed
CAD008242711
Montrose Chemical Corp.
CA
Govt/PRP
3253
X
CAD052384021
Brown & Bryant, Inc. (Arvin Plant)
CA
Govt
3253
X
CAD980737092
Pemaco Maywood
CA
Govt
325
X
FLD004065546
Tower Chemical Co.
FL
Govt
3253
X
GAD003269578
Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc.
GA
Govt/PRP
3253
X
GAD991275686
Marzone Inc./Chevron Chemical Co.
GA
Govt/PRP
3253
X
IAD042581256
Aidex Corp.
IA
Govt
3253
X
MAD001041987
Baird & Mcguire
MA
Govt
3253, 3256
X
MDD980555478
Chemical Metals Industries, Inc.
MD
Govt
3251
X
MID060174240
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical Co.
Ml
Govt
3251
X
MSD086556388
Sonford Products
MS
Govt
3251
X
MSN000403508
Mississippi Phosphates Corporation
MS
Govt
3253
X
NCD981026479
Benfield Industries, Inc.
NC
Govt
325
X
NHD001079649
Fletcher's Paint Works & Storage
NH
Govt/PRP
3255
X
NJD000565531
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
NJ
Govt
3255
X
NJD002144517
Pierson's Creek
NJ
Govt/PRP
3253
X
NJD002175057
Standard Chlorine
NJ
Govt/PRP
3251;3253
X
NJD041828906
Fried Industries
NJ
Govt
3255;3256;3259
X
NJDO64263817
Syncon Resins
NJ
Govt
3251;3252
X
NJD078251675
Brook Industrial Park
NJ
Govt/PRP
3251, 3253
X
NJD980663678
Horseshoe Road
NJ
Govt/PRP
3251;3252;3253;3314
X
NJD980755623
White Chemical Corp.
NJ
Govt
3251, 3259
X
NJD981178411
Industrial Latex Corp.
NJ
Govt
3252, 3255
X
NYD002044584
Claremont Polychemical
NY
Govt
3252, 3255
X
NYD067532580
Diaz Chemical
NY
Govt
3251, 3253, 3254, 3259
X
NYD980753420
Mackenzie Chemical Works
NY
Govt
3251
X
NYD980768683
Bioclinical Laboratories, Inc.
NY
Govt
3251
X
-------
EPA ID
Site Name
State
Cleanup
Lead
NAICS
Legacy
Modern
Mixed
PAD003058047
Drake Chemical
PA
Govt/PRP
3251; 3253
X
PAD981939200
Publicker Industries Inc.
PA
Govt/PRP
3251
X
TXD055143705
Triangle Chemical Co.
TX
Govt
3256, 3259
X
TXD057567216
Eldorado Chemical Co., Inc.
TX
Govt
3253
X
VAD003125374
Greenwood Chemical Co.
VA
Govt
3253, 3254, 3259
X
WAD009624453
Boomsnub/Airco
WA
Govt/PRP
332/3251
X
WVD047989207
Fike Chemical, Inc.
WV
Govt/PRP
3251
X
-------
APPENDIX V: DETAILED CASE NARRATIVES OF CHEMICAL MANUFATURING
SITES WITH POTENTIAL RELEASES POST CONTEMPORARY REGULATIONS
EPA sought to identify examples of releases in the chemical 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 chemical
manufacturing facilities. As part of this effort, EPA developed the risk profile using chemical
manufacturing NPL sites that experienced releases requiring CERCLA remedial actions. To
identify this universe of facilities, EPA used the Superfund Enterprise Management System
(SEMS) database and queried for NPL sites. This process resulted in 199 chemical
manufacturing sites that experienced environmental releases and listed on the NPL. From these
199 facilities, EPA further screened out legacy sites and PRP funded assessments and actions,
which left 34 facilities. Finally, EPA conducted a detailed review on the 34 sites at which the
government either fully or partially funded remedial assessment or actions to determine if the
releases that occurred were the result of legacy issues or if they occurred under modern
regulatory conditions. EPA collected additional data in order to develop release case narratives
for each of these sites. In order to assess whether the releases at those sites are potentially
indicative of the risk profile at currently operating, EPA then compared those care 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 chemical manufacturing
facilities. At each of the 34 sites listed above, EPA investigated the relevant federal
environmental and safety regulations that were in place at the time they experienced a release.
24
-------
Appendix V-A: Cases with Releasees) Post-Modern Regulation that Required Taxpayer
Funded Response
Diaz Chemical Corporation
Facility Name: Diaz Chemical Corporation
EPA Region/State: R2/ New York
EPA SEMS ID: NYD067532580 EPA Registry ID: 110000327664
Incidents: 1977, 2002
Operation: 1974-2003 (Bankruptcy), 1890-1974 previous food processing operations on site
Construction Lead: Government Performed Construction
Expenditures: $28,053,505.00 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: The Diaz Chemical Corporation (Diaz) is a former chemical
manufacturing facility with a history of releases into a neighboring residential community. The
5.5-acre, Diaz facility is located at 40 Jackson Street in the Village of Holley, Orleans County,
New York, approximately 25 miles west of Rochester. The Diaz Chemical facility was initially
developed as an industrial plant in the 1890s and was used primarily for tomato processing and
cider vinegar production before being purchased by Diaz Chemical in 1974. Diaz Chemical was
a manufacturer of specialty organic intermediates for the agricultural, pharmaceutical,
photographic, color and dye, and personal care products industries. The Diaz Chemical product
line varied over the years of operation, but it primarily consisted of halogenated aromatic
compounds and substituted benzotrifluorides.
The Diaz Chemical facility had a long history of chemical releases to the environment, extending
from 1975 to 2002. Poor housekeeping practices, loss of control of manufacturing systems, and
faulty containment systems resulted in the release of a range of chemical substances to the air,
water, and soil. Reported releases included mineral and organic acids, caustics, bromine,
chlorine, halogenated organic compounds including parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF) and 2-
chloro-6-fluorophenol (CFP), organic compounds, and petroleum-related compounds. Some
releases were not limited to the Diaz Chemical facility and migrated to off-property areas,
including residences and the East Branch of Sandy Creek. Based on historic meteorological data,
air emissions from the plant would have likely dispersed toward the residential neighborhood
northeast of the plant. While some historical information was available, including process
schematics and descriptions, raw materials and product lists, hazardous waste reports, spill
reports, air/water discharge permits, this information was insufficient to accurately quantify the
chemicals that were deposited in the residential neighborhood. When Diaz filed for bankruptcy
and abandoned the facility in June 2003, the company left behind a multitude of chemicals in
drums and tanks.
Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response:
25
-------
Diaz has history of releases to the environment from its facility. A nitric and sulfuric acid release
in January 1977 caused eye and skin irritation in affected residents. Other compounds that were
spilled to the ground or released to the air between 1977 and 1999 included the herbicides
lactofen and trifluralin, nitrogen, potassium hydroxide, methanol, tetraethyl ammonium bromide,
bromoacetophenone, dimethyl sulfoxide gas, ethyl chloropropane, bromine, hexane, process
water and sludge, triethylamine, acetic anhydride, acetic acid, para-chlorobenzotrifluoride
(PCBTF), ferric chloride anhydrous, dichlorobenzotrifluoride, dibromobenzene, and 3,4-
dimethoxytoluene.
From 1994 to 1999, Diaz Chemical conducted a remedial investigation (RI) at the site under the
oversight of NYSDEC. The RI revealed that soils and groundwater at the Diaz Chemical facility
were contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOCs). Contaminants detected in the soil and groundwater included 1,2-
dichloroethane (DCA), vinyl chloride, 1,2-dibromoethane, benzene, xylene, ethylbenzene, and a
number of brominated chemical intermediates.
An accidental air release from the Diaz Chemical facility occurred on January 5, 2002, when a
reactor vessel in a process building overheated, causing its safety valve to rupture and release
approximately 75 gallons of a chemical mixture through a roof stack vent. The release consisted
primarily of a mixture of steam, toluene, and CFP, as well as related phenolic compounds. The
mixture landed on properties in the residential neighborhood immediately adjacent to the Diaz
Chemical facility and was visible as red colored droplets on homes. Soon after the release,
residents complained of acute health effects, such as sore throats, headaches, eye irritation,
nosebleeds, and skin rashes. As a result of the release, several residents voluntarily relocated to
area hotels with assistance from Diaz Chemical.
On March 8, 2002, the State of New York obtained a court order that required Diaz Chemical to
continue to fund the relocations until an appropriate environmental and health assessment was
performed for the affected neighborhood. At that time, NYSDEC requested that EPA conduct an
assessment of the neighborhood that was impacted by the accidental release in order to determine
if further actions were necessary. On March 28, 2002, NYSDEC selected a remedy for the Diaz
Chemical site, which required the continued operation of a groundwater extraction and treatment
system via a trench which Diaz Chemical installed at the Diaz Chemical facility as an interim
remedial measure in 1995. This system provided partial containment of the groundwater
contaminant plume.
In May 2002, when Diaz Chemical sought to discontinue the relocations for ability-to-pay
reasons, Diaz Chemical and the New York State Law Department requested that EPA continue
the funding of the temporary relocations. On May 16, 2002, EPA, under its removal authority,
assumed responsibility for the temporary relocation expenses of the residents who remained
relocated at that time. Subsequently, the New York State Law Department and EPA performed
sampling of indoor air, soil, interior surfaces, and household items in the affected neighborhood.
A qualitative review of the data collected as part of this effort resulted in the conclusion that
26
-------
there were no immediate or short-term threats to human health. Therefore, no further actions
related to the residential properties under EPA's removal authority were deemed necessary.
On March 28, 2003 EPA issued an administrative order issued for violations of Section 112(r)(l)
general duty clause. The Diaz facility utilizes CAA regulated substances at its facility and failed
to identify hazards which may result from accidental releases of such substances, failed to design
and maintain a safe facility taking such steps as are necessary to prevent releases, and failed to
minimize the consequences of accidental releases. The order required Diaz to take steps at its
facility, including the installation of equipment, to comply with the requirements of the general
duty clause.
In June 2003, Diaz Chemical filed for bankruptcy and abandoned the Diaz Chemical facility,
leaving behind large volumes of chemicals in drums and tanks. EPA, under its removal authority,
mobilized to the site and began providing 24-hour security at the Diaz Chemical facility to
prevent public access. EPA also began operating and maintaining the groundwater extraction and
treatment system at the Diaz Chemical facility. In addition, EPA shipped approximately 8,600
drums and over 112,000 gallons of bulk waste from tanks and containment areas off-site for re-
use and/or disposal; emptied, decontaminated, and disposed of 105 reactor vessels and 34 tanks;
dismantled and removed 51,280 linear feet of facility piping; recovered approximately 800
gallons of waste within the lines; removed and recycled 767 tons of structural steel, motors, and
unprepared tank and scrap steel; removed and disposed of 5,750 tons of concrete (of which 500
tons were recycled); removed and disposed of 9 transformers containing polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs); removed and disposed of 175 cubic yards of lead-contaminated wood and 20
cubic yards of asbestos debris; decontaminated a warehouse; and dismantled all of the
production buildings and tank containment areas, another warehouse, and a boiler room,
electrical room, laboratory, and an oil tank storage area.
On July 22, 2004, the site was placed on the National Priorities List. On March 29, 2005, EPA
selected a remedy involving the property acquisition and permanent relocation of eight owner-
occupant and two tenant families who had remained in temporary quarters since January 2002.
Under that remedy, the acquired residences are to be maintained until the selection of a final
remedy for the site. In 2005, with the assistance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
EPA purchased all eight homes and provided the owners with relocation assistance. In addition,
the two individual tenants were assisted with relocating into new rental dwellings. Since the
acquisition of the eight properties, USACE and EPA have maintained them. EPA conducted
several field investigations at the site from 2004 through 2010. These investigations included
monitoring well installation and sampling; geological and hydrogeological investigations; a
residential vapor intrusion investigation subsurface and surface soil sampling at the Diaz
Chemical facility and off-property areas; sampling of concrete chips from the former transformer
pad; sampling of surface water, sediment, and pore water (water occupying the spaces between
sediment particles) from the East Branch of Sandy Creek and its unnamed tributary; sampling of
a seep from an actively flowing location on the wall of the ravine; and surface water sampling
27
-------
from two sumps and a catch basin on the Diaz Chemical facility. In addition, an ecological
reconnaissance was performed at the Diaz Chemical facility, unnamed creek, and its associated
riparian areas south of the Diaz Chemical facility, Sandy Creek and associated riparian areas, and
a wooded parcel located east of the Diaz Chemical facility.
Discussion of applicable federal regulations and preliminary conclusion regarding whether
this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk at modern chemical manufacturing
facilities:
EPA's detailed review below indicated that the Diaz Chemical sites appeared to have significant
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances under a modern regulatory framework
and required the expenditure of significant taxpayer funding to address the releases of concern.
Evaluation of EPA's fund expenditure data showed the fund incurred over $28 million to address
site contamination at the Diaz Chemical site.
When Diaz Chemical filed for bankruptcy and abandoned the facility on June 2003, the company
left on-site a multitude of hazardous chemicals and waste in drums and tanks, which were
exposed to external weather conditions. Applicable regulations had been in place when
abandonment occurred. For instance, Section 311 of EPACRA (40 CFR 370) which were in
1986, facilities that handle hazardous chemicals defined by OSHA must provide information on
the quantity, locations, and the potential hazards of these chemicals to the local and state
authorities. Section 311 also requires facilities to submit the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)
of hazardous chemicals present at or above the reporting thresholds specified in 40 CFR part
370. Based on case files of the site, it's not clear if the owner or operator met these
requirements.
Diaz Chemical facility also had a long history of chemical releases to the environment, extending
from 1975 to 2002. Section 103 (a) of CERCLA and EPA's implementing regulations (40 CFR
302), which were effective in 1989, require facilities to immediately report (within 24 hours) to
the National Response Center any releases of hazardous substances in an amount equal to or
greater than a reportable quantity. Enforcement history at the site showed that that release of
hazardous substances at the Diaz Chemical site, which may be subject to CERCLA reporting
requirements.
Containers at the Diaz Chemical sites were left exposed to outside elements which caused EPA
to conduct a removal action at the facility on June 2003. Where hazardous waste left on-site,
RCRA Subtitle C regulations apply. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I established RCRA regulations
for operators storing hazardous waste in containers. Regulations stipulate that all containers must
be stored in a way that avoids leakage or rupture, that facility owners and operators conduct
weekly inspections of containers, and that all hazardous wastes must be removed from the
containment system and decontaminated. EPA implemented RCRA regulations addressing the
use and management of containers 1981.
28
-------
Effective in 1986, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart G, establishes guidelines for a facility closure.
These include two types of requirements:
1. Closure requirements include imposition of closure standards, implementation of
closure plan, and time allowed for closure activities. Sets guidelines for disposal or
decontamination of equipment, structures, and soils. Finally, after completion of
closure, operators must submit a certification of closure to an EPA's regional office.
2. Post-closure requirements apply for 30 years after closure and include
implementation of 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.
40 CFR 264, Subpart H establishes financial responsibility standards for owners and operators of
hazardous waste management facilities. Financial responsibility applies to both the closure and
post-closure periods. 40 CFR 264, Subpart H was promulgated in 1982. It is unclear if Diaz
Chemical had financial responsibility instruments in place to cover the cost of cleanup.
The Diaz Chemical was required to adhere to 40 CFR Part 264.100-101 and 40 CFR Part 268,
Subpart E. 40 CFR Part 264.100-101 outlines responsibilities of a site operator on establishing
corrective action programs. It was passed in 1985. 40 CFR part 268, Subpart E, requires that
wastes which cannot be disposed of through land disposal under 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C -
including chlorinated aliphatic wastes, toxic metal wastes, inorganic chemical wastes, and
ignitable and corrosive wastes - must be stored in proper containers where they can be properly
recovered, treated, and stored. Further, Subpart E forbids the storage of prohibited wastes for
more than one year, unless storage is necessary to accumulate sufficient waste to facilitate proper
recovery, treatment, or disposal. This regulation was enacted during the period of operations in
1986.
Under 40 CFR Part 270, which implements the Hazardous Waste Permit Program, owners and
operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities must obtain permits to
conduct those activities. For hazardous waste left on-site, the facility would have been required
to obtain a Hazardous Waste Permit; it is unclear if Diaz Chemical obtained a permit as required.
The Diaz Chemical storage of hazardous chemical at its facility made it subject to OSHA
regulations, in addition to RCRA regulations. OSHA Hazardous Waste Operations and
Emergency Response Standards (HAZWOPER) at 29 CFR 1910.120 and 1926.65, which were
effective in 1990, require employers to develop a written safety and health program for their
employees involved in hazardous waste operations. The program must identify, evaluate, and
control safety and health hazards and provide emergency response guidelines for hazardous
waste operations.
References:
29
-------
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2018. Superfund Site Profile
Webpage, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 2. Village of Holley, NY.
Accessed in July 2018. Available at:
https://cumulis. epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo. cfm?id=0203341
• US EPA. 2017. Explanation of Significant Differences, Diaz Chemical Corporation
Superfund Site. Region 2. Village of Holley, NY.
• US EPA. 2012. Record of Decision: Diaz Chemical Corporation Superfund Site. Region
2. Village of Holley, NY.
• US EPA. 2005. Record of Decision: Diaz Chemical Corporation Superfund Site. Region
2. Village of Holley, NY.
• EPA Enforcement cases:
o 02-2003-0026
o 02-2003-1004
o 02-2001-7106
o 02-2004-2028
o 02-1088-0515
o 02-1988-0542
30
-------
Eldorado Chemical Company
Facility Name: Eldorado Chemical Company
EPA Region/State: R6/Texas
EPA SEMS ID: TXD057567216 EPA Registry ID: 110000464872
Operation: 1978-2007
Construction Lead: Government Lead Construction
Expenditures: $568,523.66 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: The Eldorado Chemical Company operated as a cleaning
products manufacturer from 1985 to May 2007. The site is the source of a ground water plume of
chlorinated solvents originating from historical releases of chemicals used in the facility's
manufacturing operations. Documented releases of hazardous substances at the facility also
contributed to contaminated soil found in the south and southeastern portion of the facility
property and extending east of the property boundary. Contamination includes tetrachloroethene,
trichloroethene, dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride. The aquifer of concern is the Edwards
Aquifer system, the sole source of water for the San Antonio area, where it provides domestic,
public supply, industrial, and agricultural water. The facility consists of enclosed buildings that
were used as laboratories, manufacturing and storage warehouses, offices, and bathrooms, as
well as both covered and open-air loading docks and product storage areas. Aboveground storage
tanks used to store unknown materials were in the product storage area but have been removed.
According to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Industrial and
Hazardous Waste Notice of Registration, the facility managed hazardous materials and generated
multiple waste streams, consisting of both acute hazardous wastes and toxicity characteristic
wastes.
Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response:
As a result of compliance inspections in the 1980s, three areas of concern (contaminated soils) at
the site were identified by the Texas Water Commission, a predecessor agency to the TCEQ. As
a result of hazardous waste handling violations noted during two 1993 compliance inspections, a
new Agreed Order was issued in 1996 requiring the violations to be addressed. Two 1994
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) cases resulted in $6K total
penalties.
The site was inspected and listed as a RCRA Significant Non-Complier in May 1999 through
termination of operations, without additional state or federal compliance orders. Eldorado failed
to document that hazardous waste determinations had been conducted on several waste streams,
hazardous waste was being stored on-site without Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission (TNRCC) authorization, and they had failed to notify TNRCC that the facility was
operating as a transfer facility for hazardous waste.
Subsequent inspections in 1999 and 2001 noted further administrative violations, in addition to
three areas of unauthorized discharges of chemicals near the above-ground storage tanks tertiary
31
-------
containment drain valve, an area used for storage of empty chemical bags, and the discharge
point from the loading dock located in the southeastern portion of the property.
From July 23 to 25, 2001, Wareing and Associates, a consultant for Eldorado Chemical
Company, Inc., conducted an investigation at the facility as part of the due diligence process.
Analyses of these samples indicated subsurface soil and ground water had been impacted by
VOCs and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). In February 2006, W&M Environmental
Group (W&M) conducted further assessment activities at the facility on behalf of Eldorado,
including the installation of at least three temporary wells. In November 2006, W&M collected
additional soil samples near the tertiary containment valve and from the former location of a
storage trailer utilized to store empty chemical bags. SVOCs and total petroleum hydrocarbons
(TPH) were detected at one of the boring locations, and eight metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver) were detected in each of the soil borings.
A Pre-CERCLIS site inspection was conducted by TCEQ on March 6, 2009. Chemical dye and
paint staining was further documented in several of the facility bathrooms and laboratories.
Significant staining, corrosion, and erosion of the concrete floor were observed in the Kiln
Room, the Pratt and Whitney Room, and the Powder Room. Distressed vegetation was observed
downhill from the facility in the surface drainage pathway.
Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation was completed on November 29, 2011. The site was
proposed to the National Priorities List on April 7, 2016 and finalized on September 9, 2016.
Discussion of applicable federal regulations and preliminary conclusion regarding whether
this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk at contemporary chemical manufacturing
facilities: EPA believes this site represents an instance where a recent release or threatened
releases occurred under contemporary regulation. This is supported by the fact that the facility
was a registered Large Quantity Generator throughout its operation from 1978 through 2007 and
appeared to have had numerous hazardous waste management violations including potentially
storing hazardous waste without a permit and failing to document hazardous waste determination
properly. Applicable regulations that were in place when these violations occurred include: 40
CFR 262 - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste; 40 CFR 264 - Standards
for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage, and Disposal; and 40 CFR
265 - Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment
Storage, and Disposal. All of these regulations were put in place in 1980 before the facility
commenced operation in 1985.
Evaluation of EPA's fund expenditure data for the site showed the fund incurred over $568,00 to
address site contamination at the Eldorado Chemical site. While this amount is relatively small,
the site was just listed on the NPL in 2016, and site fund expenditures will likely go up. Due to
its record of contamination and continued violations EPA categorizes this site as a potential case
representing risk at currently operating facilities.
32
-------
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2018. Eldorado Chemical Company
Superfund Site Profile Webpage, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 6. Live
Oak, Bexar County, Texas. Accessed in July 2018. Available at:
https://cumulis. epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo. cfm?id=0607012
• US EPA. 2016. Hazard Ranking System Report. Region 6. Live Oak, Bexar County,
Texas.
• US EPA. 2016. Eldorado Chemical Company, Inc. NPL Listing Narrative. Region 6.
Live Oak, Bexar County, Texas.
• ECHO Database Search, September 2018
• EPA Enforcement cases:
o 06-1994-0155
o 06-1995-0093
33
-------
Mississippi Phosphates Company
Facility Name: Mississippi Phosphate Company
EPA Region/State: R4 - Mississippi
EPA SEMS ID: MSN000403508 EPA Registry ID: 110000546053
Incident Dates: Catastrophic releases of acidic, nutrient-rich wastewater occurred in 2005 and
2013.
Operation: 1958-2014 (Bankruptcy)
Construction Lead: Government Lead Construction
Expenditures: $8,642,738.33 (Total Expenditure), $8,642,738.33 (Non-Special Account)
Site Background/Description: Mississippi Phosphates Corp. (MPC) produced diammonium
phosphate (DAP) fertilizer at the Site from 1958 to 2014. The MPC Site is located in Jackson
County, Mississippi at 601 Industrial Road, Pascagoula, MS 39851. The property occupies
approximately 1,080 acres and is bounded on the west by Bayou Casotte, on the south and
southeast by the Chevron Pascagoula Refinery, on the east by the Grand Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve (NERR), and on the north by a variety of marine and industrial service and
chemical production companies. The MPC industrial complex consisted of processing plants and
facilities, a wastewater treatment plant, a diffuser outfall in Bayou Casotte, rail infrastructure,
and deep-water docks.
During the plant's operation, phosphate ore was imported and dissolved in sulfuric acid produced
on site to create phosphoric acid. The phosphoric acid was then reacted with ammonia to form
DAP. Phosphogypsum was produced as a byproduct of the sulfuric acid dissolution step. This
solid was filtered from the phosphoric acid and slurried to disposal areas where it was deposited
in large piles known as gypsum stacks. The West Gypsum Stack ceased receiving material in
2002 and was closed by MPC. The East Gypsum Stack served as the disposal area from 2002
until operations ceased in 2014.
The 350-acre East Gypsum Stack complex includes the phosphogypsum stack, four ponds that
hold contaminated water (Ponds 3, 4, 5, and 6, and the Water Return Ditch WRD) which
encloses the stack and collects runoff and leachate from the pile. Together these sources retain up
to 585 Mgal of water with a hydrogen ion concentration (pH) less than 3 and elevated
concentrations of ammonia, phosphorus, and fluoride. The 30-ac North Ponds at the West
Gypsum Stack were constructed initially to provide clarification and aeration of water from the
on-site wastewater treatment plant and subsequently to treat water in situ with lime slurry. These
ponds, which retain an additional 52 million gallons of contaminated water, are mostly filled
with lime sludge. In total, more than 700 million gallons of contaminated water are being held on
the MPC Site.
34
-------
The plant that ceased operations in December 2014 following bankruptcy, leaving more than 700
million gallons of low-pH contaminated wastewater behind. Catastrophic releases of acidic,
nutrient-rich wastewater occurred in 2005 and 2013.
Every inch of rain falling on the East Gypsum Stack complex generates approximately 9.1 Mgal
of water requiring treatment. Through November 2017, the MPC Site received nearly 107 inches
of rainfall in 2017, greatly exceeding the average annual precipitation of 66.3 inches measured at
the Site. The volume of water generated by this rainfall exceeded the Site's water treatment
capacity, necessitating discharges of partly treated water under EPA's emergency bypass
protocol on five occasions to prevent overtopping of dikes and potential uncontrolled releases of
contaminated water to the adjacent Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve and Bayou
Casotte. EPA established an overall site goal of long-term leachate management at the East
Gypsum Stack and West Gypsum Stack and developed Removal Action Objectives to support
this goal.
Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response:
From 1989, MPC received numerous Administrative Orders (AO) and Notices of Violations
(NOV) related to noncompliance with their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. Violations were noted for exceedances of the permit limits for metals,
phosphorus, ammonia-nitrogen, hydrogen ion concentration (pH), and total suspended solids
(TSS). Of the 20 outfalls identified in the permit, MPC was required to monitor only diffuser
Outfall 003 for copper, lead, nickel, zinc and ammonia-nitrogen.
Following investigations by EPA and the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) that identified arsenic, cadmium, and lead contamination of surface water and
groundwater at the Site in 2005, MPC entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC)
under Section 3013(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The 2005 AOC
required MPC to conduct additional studies to characterize metals contamination in surface water
and sediment in Bayou Casotte adjacent to the West Gypsum Stack and down-gradient from
Outfall 003, and groundwater surrounding the West Gypsum Stack.
The facility was inspected by EPA and MDEQ as part of a nationwide assessment of phosphate
fertilizer facilities in July 2009. At this time, the Agencies found evidence of past sulfuric acid
releases to soil and groundwater. Groundwater sampling on the industrial complex measured
concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead in excess of their respective
groundwater Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL). These metals also were noted as being
present in the East Gypsum Stack, West Gypsum Stack, and Outfall 003. As a result, EPA and
MPC entered into an AOC under Section 7003(a) of RCRA in September 2009. The 2009 AOC
required MPC to address issues related to the handling, transport, storage, and disposal of solid
wastes on the Site and pertaining to the sulfuric acid plants, DAP plant, and other site areas. EPA
and MPC entered into a second Section 7003(a) RCRA AOC in February 2009 which required
MPC to develop and implement a plan to mitigate risks that present an imminent risk to human
35
-------
health or the environment from past handling, transport, storage, and disposal of solid or
hazardous wastes at the Site.
Several uncontrolled releases of wastewater are known to have occurred from the MPC Site. An
estimated 17 million gallons (Mgal) of water was released to Bangs Lake and Grand Bay
Estuary, Bayou Casotte, and Tillman Creek in April 2005 when a containment dike at the East
Gypsum Stack failed as it was being raised. The spill of acid water (pH 2.2 to 2.4) resulted in
extensive loss of vegetation and wildlife and had a significant negative impact to fisheries in the
estuary. In August 2005, storm surge from Hurricane Katrina breached cooling ditches holding
contaminated water and caused extensive damage throughout the Site. In August 2013, MPC
released an estimated 38 million gallons of acidic water to Bayou Casotte killing an estimated
47,000 fish, resulting in closure of the Bayou for an unspecified time and resulting in a criminal
violation of the Clean Water Act. In settlement of the 2015 criminal case, MPC transfered 320
acres of property near to its Pascagoula plant to become a part of the Grand Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve, which is managed by the Mississippi Department of Marine
Resources as part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Estuarine
Research Reserve System.
MPC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and ceased operations in October 2014. Following the
bankruptcy of MPC in October 2014, EPA and MDEQ entered into a court-approved bankruptcy
Settlement Agreement with the Debtor, Debtor subsidiaries and holding company, and
prepetition lenders. The Settlement Agreement created two trusts from the assets of the firm.
1. The Liquidation Trust assumed control and ownership of marketable assets including the
DAP plant and phosphoric acid plant, ammonia tank, sulfuric acid plants, dock, and
associated real and tangible personal property and equipment.
2. The Environmental Trust assumed ownership of about 628 acres which included the east
and west phosphogypsum stacks, ponds and ditches associated with these facilities, and
the wastewater treatment plant and its outfall.
EPA treats the wastewater to neutralize the pH and remove high levels of nutrients to prevent an
uncontrolled release to Bayou Casotte and the Grand Bay Estuary Reserve. Neutralizing the pH
prevents any acute toxicity impacts to aquatic wildlife. Removing nutrients, including nitrogen,
phosphorous and ammonia, prevents harmful algal blooms from forming.
EPA is currently overseeing wastewater treatment at a rate of approximately 2,000,000 gallons
per day - at a cost of approximately $1,000,000 per month - due to the high volume of
wastewater generated that requires treatment. EPA will continue to oversee wastewater treatment
operations at the MPC site until the facility is sold or cleaned up and closed.
Region 4 prepared a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) package and the Site was proposed for
inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) on August 3, 2017. EPA was formally added the
MPC Site to the Superfund National Priorities List and proposed a cleanup plan for portions of
the MPC Site in January 2018. In 2018 Action Memorandum, EPA selected a $71.6 million
36
-------
cleanup that will take place from 2018 through 2020, plus $36 million for ongoing wastewater
treatment during the three-year cleanup period. EPA continues to treat 2-4 million gallons of
contaminated water each day.
Discussion of applicable federal regulations and preliminary conclusion regarding whether
this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk at modern chemical manufacturing
facilities:
Water Pollution and CWA Regulations
Federal and State Clean Water Legislation and rules have imposed mechanisms for controlling
industrial discharges to surface water bodies from phosphate fertilizer manufacturing facilities.
The principle mechanism is the NPDES permit program, established in 1972, which prescribes
the conditions under which effluents may be discharged. Two years later, in 1974 through
effluent limitation guidelines, technology-based discharge standards for the fertilizer
manufacturing industry (40 CFR 418) were incorporated into the NEPDS permits. In 1990 EPA
also developed permitting regulations under NPDES (40 CFR 122) to control stormwater
discharges associated with chemical and fertilizer manufacturing. Accordingly, MPC had 20
permitted NPDES outfalls to manage contaminated non-process wastewater, treated wastewater,
stormwater runoff from non-process areas, and stormwater runoff from the Gypsum Stacks.
Nevertheless, enforcement records revealed MPC received several Administrative Orders (AO)
and notices of violations from 1989 to 2014 regarding its Clean Water Act National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (1972) permit. For instance, in 1989 MPC received AO for
reported exceedances of permit limits for total phosphorus, nitrogen, pH and TSS, resulted from
discharging inadequately treated wastewater to waters of the state. Similarly, in 1995, AO was
issued for the release of untreated wastewater from the cooling water ditch to surface water.
These releases caused toxic conditions to aquatic life. Discharge monitoring reports (DMRs)
from 2005 to 2014 also revealed NPDES permit violations of nitrogen, copper, nickel, zinc as
well as releases of hazardous substances including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead.
Besides these permit violations, infrequent uncontrolled releases and emergency bypass of
untreated acidic wastewater from on-site ponds/ditch system represented the sources of
significant contamination. Enforcement records revealed several uncontrolled releases at this Site
since 2002, in some instances resulting in criminal violation of the Clean Water Act. These
releases primarily resulted from mechanical failures of treatment systems, failure of berm and
dike systems, overtopping of berms by wind or overflow, and heavy rains exceeding surge
capacities. While MPC's permit required the facility to maintain a site-wide surge capacity of
10.2 inches of rainfall and a freeboard 2.25 foot for ponds/dike systems, these requirements
were based on a 25-year storm event and appeared to be inadequate for an area routinely affected
by major precipitation events. In addition, based on EPA's review no federal requirements
identified that establish structural integrity design criteria and/or structural integrity related
inspections and assessments of gypsum stack systems. Some states like Florida have
established rules for earthen dams and dikes, which provided construction and inspection
37
-------
standards for stack system perimeter dikes (FL, 2004). This rule also created procedures for
raising stacks and decanting water and established detailed water management and other
operational requirements.
Solid and Hazardous Waste Regulation Discussion
As noted above, the leaking and spills of hazardous substances resulted in the issuance of AOs in
2005, 2009 and 2012. Most cases, including the most recent release, involved the release of
corrosive D002 characteristic hazardous waste. Because Section 1004(3) of RCRA, defines
spilling and leaking as "disposal" the reported releases are subject to RCRA Subtitle C
regulations. As such, when the spills and leaks occurred, MPC required to make a hazardous
waste determination pursuant to 40 CFR 262.1 1; perform land disposal determinations and to
meet land disposal restrictions for hazardous wastes (40 C.F.R. Part 268), and transport waste to
permitted TSD facilities in accordance to 40 CFR 264. Because MPC failed to comply with these
requirements, AOs mentioned above were issued pursuant to Section 7003(a) RCRA. For
instance, the 2009 AO required MPC to develop and implement a plan to mitigate soil
contamination and remediate and prevent contaminated ground water migrating offsite. The AO
also required MPC to address handling, storage, treatment, transportation and/or disposal of solid
and/or hazardous wastes at the facility which may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to human health or the environment.
Issues at this site may also include potential violations of the Bevill exemption. The 2005 AO
alleged that potentially hazardous wastes generated from DAP production (include tank and pipe
cleaning wastewaters, spills and leaks of phosphoric acid, and wastewaters from scrubbers) were
discharged into the unlined, earthen cooling loop where they commingle with process
wastewater from phosphoric acid production and stormwater runoff. Wastes produced from the
production of phosphoric acid (considered a mineral processing activity) are mostly exempt from
hazardous waste regulations under the Bevill Exemption, 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7). Thus, the
comingling of this waste with potentially hazardous waste may violate Section 3005 of RCRA,
42 U.S.C. § 6925, and the applicable hazardous waste regulations in 40 CFR Parts 260-270. In
September 2015 EPA also issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) alleging the reuse of low pH
process wastewater as DAP scrubber water and other uses within the facility are not protected by
the Bevill amendment and therefore violate RCRA (Mississippi Phosphate SEC Filing).
Other waste management practices that resulted in citations of MPC include the disposal of
process wastewater into an earthen ditch. In May 2001, MDEQ issued an Agreed Order to MPC
for illegally disposing of D002 characteristic hazardous waste generated from the sulfuric acid
production process into an earthen, unlined ditch. A similar citation was also issued by EPA in
September 2002 for violation of RCRA related to illegal disposal of hazardous waste in an
earthen ditch. These practices violated the RCRA's permit requirement of hazardous waste
disposal pursuant 40 CFR 264 and land disposal restrictions found under 40 CFR 268.
As part of this review, EPA also reviewed fund expenditure to address issues at the site. Given
the site was listed on the NPL in 2017, the potential costs to the fund are yet to be realized.
38
-------
However, based on expenditure data obtained from Superfund's Integrated Financial
Management System (IFMS) database, EPA has spent $8.3 million as of fall 2018. In addition,
in a 2018 Action Memorandum, EPA indicated the removal action would cost $71.6 million to
clean up the site from 2018 through 2020, plus $36 million for ongoing wastewater treatment
during the three-year cleanup period. The memo also mentioned that the EPA continued to treat
2-4 million gallons of contaminated water each day, which was estimated to cost $1 million per
day.
This review demonstrates that applicable modern environmental regulations regulating surface
water discharges and the management of hazardous waste were in place when the reported
releases occurred. Moreover, EPA's expenditure data showed that significant fund expenditure
has occurred at this site and is expected to grow in the future. Therefore, EPA concludes that
based on the site's history and non-compliance with contemporaneous regulations and
potentially significant fund expenditure, this site may represent the potential risks at currently
operating phosphate fertilizer manufacturing facilities.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2018. Mississippi Phosphate
Superfund Site Profile Webpage, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 4.
Pascagoula, MS. Accessed in July 2018. Available at:
https://cumulis. epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo. cfm?id=0403508
• US EPA. 2018. Action Memorandum for a Non-Time Critical Removal Action,
Consistency Exemption Request and Ceiling Increase at the Mississippi Phosphates
Corporation National Priorities List Site. Region 4. Pascagoula, MS.
• US EPA. 2017. MS Phosphate Hazard Ranking System Report. Region 4. Pascagoula,
MS.
• ECHO Database Search, September 2018
• EPA Enforcement civil cases:
o 04-2003-2558
o 04-2002-9944
o 04-2007-4252
o 04-2009-4262
o 04-2010-2005
o 04-2015-9000
o 04-2012-4250
• EPA Criminal Enforcement case: CR-2748
39
-------
White Chemical Corp
Facility Name: White Chemical Corp
EPA Region/State: R2/New Jersey
EPA SEMS ID: NJD980755623 EPA Registry ID: 110001530987
Operation: 1983-1990
Construction Lead: Government Performed Construction
Expenditures: $47,091,201.28 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: The White Chemical Corporation (WCC) property was used for
industrial purposes dating back to 1931. In September 1970, Central Service Corporation (CSC)
purchased the property from Union Carbide Corporation. It is believed that most of the
infrastructure, including sewer and utility conduits and buildings may have dated from Union
Carbide's ownership. In 1975, CSC sold the property to Lancaster Chemical Company, a
division of AZS Corporation. White Chemical Corporation (WCC) leased the WCC property
from AZS Corporation in 1983, entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy in September 1988, and operated
until 1990. During this period WCC manufactured a variety of acid chlorides, brominated
organics, mineral acids, most notably hydriodic acid, and fire-retardant compounds.
Beginning in 1989, the site was the subject of numerous inspections, environmental assessments,
investigations, and removal actions. These assessments identified that the mishandling of
chemicals led to their release and contamination of the soil and groundwater at the site. Between
June and September 1989, site inspection by the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) found (among other things) approximately 9,000 drums improperly stored
on-site. According to the NJDEP inventory and the site owner, 915 contained scrubbing solution
(water with xylene or trichloroethylene), 608 contained waste filter cake, 5,583 contained wastes
that may be hazardous, 109 contained substances not classified, 1,673 were claimed to be empty,
and 175 were considered to be products by White Chemical. NJDEP observed deteriorating
drums leaking into the soil or eroding the pallets on which they were placed. NJDEP also
observed spills of phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, ethylene dichloride, and xylene. Water-reactive
materials were stored outside where rain or humidity provided conditions for the materials to be
released, and incompatible materials were stored next to each other. There were also 126 above
ground tanks of a variety of sizes. The on-site laboratory also contained thousands of
unsegregated laboratory chemicals in deteriorating conditions. These containers were
haphazardly stored on structurally unsound shelving or stacked in piles on the floor.
Regulatory Action/Response: Between June and September 1989, NJDEP conducted several
inspections of the site pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Based
on these inspections, NJDEP issued several Notices of Violations (NOVs) for a variety of
infractions including improper drum management, leaking drums, open containers, and
inadequate aisle space. In October 1989, WCC initiated Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.
Following to another inspection, NJDEP issued an Administrative Order and penalty in March
40
-------
1990. According to State records WCC did not comply with order and never paid the penalty. In
late March 1990, the state re-inspected the facility and again found many RCRA violations. As a
result, NJDEP issued NOVs under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act and
ordered WCC to immediately remediate all spills and other violations. WCC failed again to
comply with the NOVs. In May 1990, the state issued a Directive to WCC pursuant to the New
Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act, in order to secure the site and stabilize drums
located on the premises. State's record showed that the facility never responded to the Directive.
Between May and August of 1990, NJDEP removed approximately 1,000 drums from the site
after the facility fail to respond to the State's Directive. Upon the exhaustion of funds
(approximately $825,000), the site was referred to EPA. In September 1990, EPA issued a
Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) barring WCC from continuing on-site operations and
ordering evacuation of all personnel. In November 1990, the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) issued a health consultation that concluded that the Site posed an
imminent and substantial health and safety threat to nearby residents and workers. A Public
Health Advisory was issued by ATSDR in November 1990. Based on the known contamination
at the WCC property, EPA proposed the former WCC facility and associated contamination for
inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) in May 1991, and the WCC site was listed in
September 1991.
Discussion of applicable federal regulations and preliminary conclusion regarding whether
this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk at modern chemical manufacturing
facilities: As the site description indicated, the facility started chemical manufacturing activity
in 1983 and notified EPA as a large quantity generator (LQG) on May 1983. The timeline of
events at this site suggests that the release or threatened release of hazardous substances was
primarily due to post-1980 activities. In 1988 the owner initiated Chapter 11 Bankruptcy and
ceased operation in 1990 after EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) barring
WCC from continuing on-site operations. While in operation, the facility was subject to
numerous inspections and investigations which resulted in Notice of Violations and
Administrative Orders and penalties under RCRA and New Jersey Spill Compensation and
Control Act. These violations were due to mainly improper on-site storage of thousands of drums
that may contain hazardous waste.
As an LQG, WCC would be subject to standards for hazardous waste generators under 40 CFR
262 (e.g., time and quantity limits for on-site storage of hazardous waste. These standards were
initially promulgated in 1980, and most hazardous wastes were identified before WCC began its
operations in 1983. The many of RCRA violations issued against WCC suggest noncompliance
to these regulations
Besides the improper storage of drums, NJDEP also observed leaking drums and spills of
hazardous chemicals in 1989. NJDEP issued NOVs and a Directive under New Jersey Spill
Compensation and Control Act ordering WCC to stabilize drums and immediately remediate all
spills in 1990. At the federal level, such releases may also subject to the waste determination
41
-------
requirements (40 CFR 262.11); permitting for treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste
(40 CFR Part 264); and land disposal determination to meet LDR (40 CFR Part 268).
Furthermore, release notification requirements under 40 CFR 302 promulgated in 1985. Under
this regulation, notification to the National Response Center is required within a 24-hrs period
for releases of hazardous substances from facilities if the amount released exceeds the reportable
quality. No information was found to indicate that the facility had reported these releases to
NRC. Based on these reasons, EPA considers this site as a case of noncompliance because the
reported release and threatened releases hazardous substances occurred in spite of contemporary
regulations.
In addition to environmental risk, there were potential health hazards to on-site workers. As
noted above, EPA and NJDEP identified thousands of unsegregated laboratory chemicals in
deteriorating conditions and haphazardly stored in laboratory shelves. These conditions may
have presented safety concerns to on-site workers pursuant to the Occupational Safety Health
Act (OSHA) regulations. However, OSHA's Laboratory Standards (29 CFR 1910.1450) was put
in place in 1990, the same year that WCC ceased its operations. These standards would have
imposed a mandatory requirement for the Chemical Hygiene Plan (CHP). Under CHP,
laboratories are required to state policies, procedures, and responsibilities that protect workers
from hazards associated with the exposure of hazardous chemicals used in the workplace. Also,
under the 1990 OSHA' Hazard Communication Standards (29 CFR § 1910.1), facilities are
required to label containers containing hazardous chemicals.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2012. Record of Decision: White
Chemical Corporation Superfund Site Operable Unit 3. Region 2. Newark, NJ.
• US EPA. 2005. Record of Decision: White Chemical Corporation Superfund Site
Operable Unit 2. Region 2. Newark, NJ.
• US EPA. 1991. Record of Decision: White Chemical Corporation Superfund Site
Operable Unit 1. Region 2. Newark, NJ.
• EPA Enforcement cases:
o 02-1988-0627
o 02-1990-0189
o 02-1996-0271
o 02-1992-0102
o 02-1997-0316
o 02-1990-0382
o 02-2018-2019
42
-------
Appendix V-B: Detailed Review Concluded Issue Pre-Modern Regulation
Aidex Corp.
EPA Region/State: R7/Iowa
EPA SEMS ID: IAD042581256 EPA Registry ID: 110009331348
Operation: 1974-1980
Construction Lead: Government Performed Construction
Expenditures: $4,550,946 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: Aidex Corp. formulated pesticides near Council Bluffs, Iowa. In
November 1976, 100,000 gallons of water used to fight a fire at the facility contaminated the
ground on the 15-acre site. The company filed for bankruptcy in 1980. More than 4,000 barrels
of pesticides and pesticide wastes were stored and buried on the property. A large underground
tank and concrete pit on the site also contain wastes. Soil, ground water, and surface water are
contaminated. Analysis of soil samples showed on-site organochlorine, organophosphate, and
triazine pesticide contamination ranging from several hundred parts per billion (ppb) to several
thousands (several thousand part per million (ppm). Site surveys also identified two burial
trenches on site. Samples of ground water under the site indicated that the alluvial aquifer is
contaminated threatening nearby drinking water wells.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: EPA considers this site represents a case where
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances occurred mostly before modern
regulations were instituted. As indicated in the risk description, the improper storage and
disposal of pesticides and pesticide wastes, and the associated releases of hazardous substance
largely represent pre-1980 activities. The waste management and hazardous material handling
practices identified at this site are now prohibited or regulated. The primary regulations
governing the storage and handling of hazardous chemicals have been in place since the 1980s
including: Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)'s standards for storage and handling of
flammable liquids (29 CFR 1910.106) and compressed gas (29 CFR 1910); Section 311 and 312
of EPCRA reporting requirements of hazardous chemical inventory to local and state emergency
responders; and Section 304 of EPCRA, requirements for emergency release notification for
"reportable quantity." In addition, drums and tank systems used to store hazardous waste for
more than 90 days or that are not at the location of the hazardous waste generation, have been
regulated under RCRA (40 CFR Parts 264 and 265) since 1986.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1984. Record of Decision: Aidex Site.
Region 07. Aidex Site, IA.
43
-------
Baird & McGuire, Inc.
Facility Name: Baird & McGuire, Inc
EPA Region/State: Rl/Massachusetts
EPA SEMS ID: MADOO1041987 EPA Registry ID: 110003418418
Operation: 1921-1983
Construction Lead: Government Performed Construction
Expenditures: $295,265,112 (Total Expenditures)
Baird & McGuire, Inc., operated from 1912 until 1983. For over 70 years, the company operated
a chemical manufacturing and bathing facility on the property. Other activities included mixing,
packing, storing and distributing various products including herbicides, pesticides, disinfectants,
soaps, floor waxes and solvent. The property originally included a laboratory storage and mixing
buildings, an office building and a tank farm. Raw materials were stored in tank farms and piped
to the laboratory or mixing building. Other materials were stored in drums on-site.
Waste disposal practices including discharges into wetland were first documented between 1959
and 1962. Other early documentation of illegal disposal practices includes a citizen's complaint
to Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) regarding an
odorous discharge to a wetland in 1975. In May 1981, the DEQE performed a site inspection and
documented several questionable disposal practices including a laboratory sink which discharged
into a parking lot which drained to a nearby brook, a storage tank which showed evidence of
previous overflows (stained Soils), and an uncovered "beehive" cesspool. In February 1982, a
citizen's complaint of an oily substance on the Cochato River initiated another DEQE Site
inspection. This inspection reported that tank farm was not lined or diked, which allowed
contaminated surface water runoff to reach the adjacent brook; sewage waste, process waste and
surface water runoff were collected in an open beehive cesspool which contributed to ground
water; wastewater which contained hazardous constituents was collected and dumped into a
metropolitan district commission (MDC) sewer by a hauler not permitted to transport hazardous
substances; and a pipe was identified as discharging a black oil substance to wetlands.
In March 1983, heavy rain resulted a breach of the cresosote collection lagoon. On March 21,
1983 EPA Emergency Response personnel were notified of this breach. They observed that the
lagoon failure had caused approximately 10,000 gallons of contaminated water to spill into the
adjacent wetland. Sampling indicated the presence of numerous substances in and around the
wetland including chlordane, DDT, DDE, endrin, xylene, toluene and benzene. The wetland is
bordered by the Cochato river, which feeds a drinking water reservoir for approximately 80,000
people. This constituted a release of pollutant which may have presented an imminent or
substantial threat to the public health or the environment. EPA responded by initiating an
(immediate) removal action under section 104(A)(1) of CERCLA. On May 1983, the board of
selectmen of Holbrook revoked Baird & McGuire's permit to store chemical at the site and
ordered it to dismantle its exiting storage facilities. Because of this order, Baird & McGuire was
44
-------
forced to cease operations. The site was placed on the NPL in September 1983. Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs), PAHs, pesticides, and heavy metals including lead and arsenic were the
contaminants of concern in site soils, sediment, and groundwater. Additionally, an LNAPL
plume determined to be the primary source of contamination in groundwater.
Regulatory Action/Response.
Since 1982 several removal actions were performed by EPA and the PRP. During February
through April 1982 Baird & McGuire voluntarily implemented a series of remedial actions,
which included installing catch basin near the tank farm to intercept surface water runoff; filling
of the beehive cesspool with concrete and replacing it with a sump and storage tank; removing a
discharge pipe and application of absorbent pads to the wetland to soak up the oil; and
installation of a cresote collection system and construction of a clay dike around the cresosote
lagoon to prevent a release of contaminants in flooding conditions. In 1983, after heavy rain
caused a waste lagoon to overflow and spread contaminants into the nearby river, EPA removed
1,000 cubic yards of heavily contaminated soils, constructed a groundwater
interception/recirculation system to limit contaminated groundwater from migrating into the
river, and regraded the contaminated waste disposal area. A second removal action for the Site
was initiated in 1985 following the discovery of dioxin in Site soils. In 1985, after a discovery of
dioxin in Site soils, EPA conducted additional sampling of air, soils and water, and an additional
5,600 feet of fence was installed at that time. From 1985 to 1987, EPA conducted additional
removal action to limit the migration contaminants, and demolished and removed the Baird &
McGuire laboratory and mixing buildings and tank farm.
The Baird & McGuire facility had a lengthy history of violating environmental laws. From 1954
to 1977, the company fined at least thirty-five times for violations of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. These violations issues to the company due to mislabeling,
improperly registering and adulterating their products. In 1983, EPA's involvement under
CERCLA began with the first removal action conducted at the Site. Baird & McGuire, Inc.
ceased operating shortly thereafter, and the company indicated the lack of sufficient assets to pay
for the remedial work necessary at the Site. In October 1983, EPA filed a cost recovery action
under Sections 104(a) and (b) and 107(a) of CERCLA. After failing to respond, EPA
subsequently determined that the PRPs were unable and unwilling to implement the full remedy
at the Site. However, the cost recovery action filed in 1983 was settled on an "ability to pay"
basis in 1987. The Consent Decree that was signed by all parties in September 1987 stipulated a
cash payment to EPA of $900,000; full EPA access to the Site for the purposes of implementing
response actions; liens on the Baird & McGuire property, rights to insurance policies which may
provide coverage for costs incurred in response to the release or threat of release of hazardous
substances from the Baird & McGuire property.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: The operational and contamination history of
45
-------
the site suggests that the release of hazardous substances primarily resulted due to pre-1980
activity. As the site description makes clear, the chemical manufacturing operation occurred
from 1912 to 1983. Over a period of 70 years, the waste disposal methods at the site including
direct discharge into the soil, ponds and wetlands and the improper storage of chemicals resulted
in the contamination of surface soil, groundwater and surface water. Between 1982 and 1987,
removal actions were performed, initially by the PRP followed by EPA. The site was proposed
for NPL listing in December 1982 and placed on the NPL in Septemberl983. Since listing, the
EPA has led the RI/FS, remedial design and cleanup activities at the site. In 1983, EPA filed a
cost recovery action pursuant to Sections 104(a) and (b) and 107(a) of CERCLA and was settled
in 1987 in 1987. Enforcement records show that the PRP was unable to fund the remedial work
due to insufficient assets. The timeline suggests that the releases from this site were mainly due
to pre-1980 activities and practices.
While releases due to pre-1980 activities considered legacy contamination because they
generally predate contemporary regulations, site inspections conducted between 1981 to 1982,
documented discharges of waste into wetlands, unlined storage tanks that leaked, wastewater
hauled and discharged to a POTW, and contaminated surface water runoff which drained into
nearby rivers. These releases could still be considered legacy contamination because they
predated contemporary regulations and are now prohibited by law or otherwise regulated. For
example, the storage and releases of hazardous substances from tank systems would be subject to
release notification requirements of 40 CFR 302 and reporting requirements found in 40 CFR
370. These regulations were promulgated in 1985 and 1986, respectively. Under 40 CFR 302
regulations, notification to the National Response Center is required within a 24-hrs period for
releases of hazardous substances from facilities if the amount released exceeded the reportable
quantity. Similar notification requirements for discharge of oil or hazardous substances into
waters of the United States found under 40 CFR 110 were promulgated 1987. In 1990, EPA also
developed permitting regulations under NPDES to control stormwater discharges associated with
certain industrials, including chemical manufacturing. In 1981 (as amended in 1983), EPA also
promulgated the General Pretreatment Regulations found in 40 CFR 403, which established a
regulatory program to address indirect discharges from industries to POTWs. The program
required facilities to obtain permits to discharge wastewater to the POTW. Such a permit also
specifies the effluent quality that a facility need to pretreat before discharging into a POTW.
Overall, these applicable regulations would have mitigated the risks identified at this site in
1982.
Discharges of a black oily substance into a wetland, however, constituted a current release
because such practices have been regulated through the NPDES program since 1972. While
enforcement records show not citation for these discharges, in 1982 Baird & McGuire
voluntarily implemented removing a discharge pipe and application of absorbent pads to the
wetland to soak up the oil. For these reasons, this site represents largely release and threatened
releases of a hazardous substance that occurred prior to contemporary regulations.
46
-------
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Record of Decision: Baird & McGuire
Inc., Operable Unit 4. Region 2. Holbrook, MA.
• U.S. EPA. 1989. Record of Decision: Baird & McGuire Inc., Operable Unit 3, Region 2.
Holbrook, MA.
• U.S. EPA. 1986. Record of Decision: Baird & McGuire Inc., Operable Unit 1&3. Region
2. Holbrook, MA.
47
-------
Benfield Industries, Inc.
EPA Region/State: R/4 North Carolina
EPA SEMS ID: NCD981026479 EPA Registry ID: 110009296859
Operation: 1975-1982
Construction Lead: Government Performed Construction
Expenditures: $12,021,252 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: Benfield Industries Inc. began operating at the Site in 1976
mixing and packaging bulk chemicals for resale. Approximately ten above-ground storage tanks
(varying in capacity from 1,000 to 10,000 gallons), were located on the property. Products
handled and stored at the Benfield facility consisted of paint thinners, solvents, sealants,
cleaners, de-icing solutions, and wood preservatives, including creosote. Spills were reported to
have occurred in the vicinity of these tanks. In April 1982, a series of explosions at Benfield
Industries started a fire that eventually destroyed most of the facility and resulted in permanent
closing of the plant. Reportedly, neither the storage tanks nor on-site gas cylinders ruptured
during or after the fire. The site was the focus of the several State investigations that confirmed
contamination of the soils and ground water with pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), heavy metals, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The total volume of soil that
required remediation was 18,000 cubic yards. The volume of ground water impacted by the site
was approximately 22 million gallons with a plume extending approximately 100 to 200 feet off
site.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: EPA categorized the releases at this site legacy
contamination because the release of hazardous substances occurred mostly applicable
contemporary regulations that govern the handling and storage of hazardous chemicals. The
primary regulations governing the storage and handling of hazardous chemicals have been in
place since the 1980s including: Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)'s standards for
storage and handling of flammable liquids (29 CFR 1910.106) and compressed gas (29 CFR
1910); Section 311 and 312 of EPCRA reporting requirements of hazardous chemical inventory
to local and state emergency responders; and Section 304 of EPCRA, requirements for
emergency release notification for "reportable quantity." In addition, drums and tank systems
used to store hazardous waste for more than 90 days or that are not at the location of the
hazardous waste generation, have been regulated under RCRA (40 CFR Parts 264 and 265) since
1986. Finally, Above Ground Storage Tanks (ASTs) used for storing oil products are regulated
under the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations, 40 CFR 112.
These regulations have been in place since 1990.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2015. Record of Decision
Amendment: Benfield Industries Superfund Site. Region 4. Waynesville, NC.
• US EPA. 2009. 1995. Record of Decision Amendment: Benfield Industries Superfund
Site. Region 4. Waynesville, NC.
48
-------
Bioclinical Laboratories
EPA Region/State: R2/New York
EPA SEMS ID: NYD980768683 EPA Registry ID: 110009303119
Incident: 1981 (fire)
Operation: 1978-1981
Construction Lead: Government Lead Construction
Expenditures: $3,064,187 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: BioClinical Laboratories, Inc., formulated and mixed organic
and inorganic chemicals for repackaging and distribution in Bohemia, Suffolk County, New
York, from 1978 to 1981. The company occupied one 3,000-square-foot unit of a 10-unit one-
story brick building. Drums used for mixing chemicals were washed for reuse; the rinse water
was routinely dumped down sink drains or directly onto the ground. Leaking drums containing
hazardous wastes were stored outdoors for long periods of time, according to Suffolk County.
After receiving complaints, the Suffolk County Department of Health investigated and sampled
surface water, storm drains, sanitary drains, and leaching pools on the site. The Health
Department detected high levels of organic solvents and heavy metals, chloroform at particularly
high levels. In November 1981, five months after the highest level of chloroform was confirmed,
the Health Department ordered the company to pump out a septic tank and pool. In August 1981,
the county issued a Consent Order to BioClinical Laboratories, citing several violations,
including improperly storing hazardous materials, discharging materials in excess of ground
water standards, and not possessing a permit under the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System.
The company has not installed monitoring wells, as requested by the Health Department.
BioClinical Laboratories abandoned the site following a fire in July 1981. In August 1981, the
county issued a Consent Order to BioClinical Laboratories, citing several violations, including
improperly storing hazardous materials, discharging materials in excess of ground water
standards, and not possessing a permit under the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
Following removal of fire-damaged containers and industrial wastes from the facility's sanitary
systems, EPA determined that no further cleanup was required. EPA took the site off the
Superfund program's National Priorities List in September 1994.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: EPA believes this site represents a case where
releases or threatened releases occurred largely before modern regulations were instituted. As
noted above, in August 1981, the Suffolk county issued a Consent Order to BioClinical
Laboratories, citing several violations, including improperly storing hazardous materials.
BioClinical Laboratories abandoned the site following a fire in July 1981. The primary
regulations governing the storage and handling of hazardous chemicals have been in place since
the mid-1980s including: Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)'s standards for storage
49
-------
and handling of flammable liquids (29 CFR 1910.106) and compressed gas (29 CFR
1910); Section 311 and 312 of EPCRA reporting requirements of hazardous chemical inventory
to local and state emergency responders; and Section 304 of EPCRA, requirements for
emergency release notification for "reportable quantity." In addition, drums and tank systems
used to store hazardous waste for more than 90 days or that are not at the location of the
hazardous waste generation, have been regulated under RCRA (40 CFR Parts 264 and 265) since
1986.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1992. Record of Decision:
Bioclinical Laboratories Superfund Site. Region 2. Islip, NY.
50
-------
BOOMSNUB/AIRCO
Facility Name: Boomsnub/Airco
EPA Region/State: RIO/Washington
EPA SEMS ID: WAD009624453 EPA Registry ID: 110002063622
Incident: 1989 (Boonsnub mobilized chromium from waterline break)
Operation: 1964-Present
Construction Lead: Mixed Lead Construction (Government/PRP)
Expenditures: $22,095,090.32 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description:
The Boomsnub/Airco Superfund Site (Site) consists primarily of two properties (the former
Boomsnub chrome plating facility and the active. Linde gas separation facility), and a plume of
contaminated groundwater in the alluvial aquifer that at one time extended approximately 4,400
feet west/northwest from the properties. The Site is bordered by a mixture of residential,
commercial, and light industrial properties. Groundwater in the deeper Troutdale aquifer is used
for drinking water. The nearest down gradient production water supply well is located about one
mile west of the Boomsnub/Linde properties.
The Boomsnub Corporation (Boonsnub) and its predecessor company, Pioneer Plating,
conducted chrome-plating operations on the Boomsnub property from 1967 until 1994, when
Boomsnub moved its business to a new site. Leaks and spills from plating activities
contaminated ground water and soil on the Boomsnub property and three adjacent properties.
Chromium contamination of the soils at the Boomsnub site resulted from improper waste
handling and disposal practices from metal plating operations.
Linde, also formerly known as Airco and BOC Gases, owns and operates an 11 acre facility that
manufactures compressed and liquefied gas products including nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. The
Linde plant has been in operation since 1964. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) leaked or
spilled onto the ground or into dry wells on Linde property and have contaminated the
unconfined alluvial aquifer. Contamination has not reached the underlying Upper Troutdale
Formation aquifer, which is the principal water supply source in Clark County, WA.
Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: Note that Boonsnub is outside the scope of this
analysis, as it is not a chemical manufacturer, but as part of this Superfund site it is discussed.
Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation was completed 04/23/1987. In December 1989,
chromium was mobilized by a waterline break that released 300,000 gallons of water at
Boonsnub. In January 1990, chromium levels in one well increased from 0.2 parts per million
(ppm) to 750 ppm. In April 1990, Boomsnub began pumping and treating groundwater from that
well, installed additional monitoring wells, and tested neighboring domestic wells. The company
could not afford the needed remedial activities and applied for financial relief in August 1990.
Because of the severity of the problem, the Washington Department of Ecology began paying the
majority of cleanup costs after this date.
51
-------
In 1991, investigation of the Boomsnub site showed the presence of VOCs in the ground water.
The ground water monitoring wells in which elevated levels of VOCs were detected are located
hydraulically downgradient from Airco. The VOCs detected in the ground water do not appear to
be associated with Boomsnub's operations. The plume is in an unconfined alluvial aquifer that
overlies the confined Troutdale aquifer which is used as a regional drinking water source. The
county wells at risk from the chromium and VOC plume provide drinking water to more than
150,000 people. Chromium levels in the alluvial aquifer have been as high as 2,000 ppm in on-
site wells and as high as 85 ppm one half mile downgradient from the site. VOC levels arein the
ppm range in on-site and downgradient wells. To date, the chromium plume has migrated over
3,000 feet. A clay and silt aquitard separates the two site aquifers; however, there are known
breaches in the aquitard in the region.
In April and October 1992, two independent environmental investigations were completed by
Linde. In March 1993, Washington Department of Ecology and Linde agreed to a Model Toxics
Control Act (MTCA) Agreed Order. The agreed order required that a site investigation be
conducted requiring additional soil and ground water sampling. This latest site investigation,
completed in July 1993, establishes Linde as a contributor to the contaminated ground water.
The site was proposed to the National Priorities List on 01/18/1994 and finalized 04/25/1995.
Most of the pollution has been removed since the cleanup started in the mid-1990's and human
exposure is under control. EPA will continue to pump and treat the groundwater for many years
until it meets drinking water standards. Linde assumed lead responsibility for operation and
maintenance of the entire groundwater extraction and treatment system, for both VOC and
dissolved metals, in April 2002.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: This site appears to contain legacy risks.
Chemical manufacturing sector only applies to the Linde (formerly BOC Group Inc/Arco) gas
manufacturing facility contamination that started in 1964 and is currently operating. VOCs
leaked or spilled into the ground or dry wells that have contaminated groundwater. The metal
plating activities conducted by Boomsnub (NAICS 332, outside the scope of this analysis) The
activities that contributed to the contamination took place between 1964-1994. The VOC
contamination was discovered during an inspection in 1991, but it is unknown exactly when the
VOC contamination occurred. Since the facility started operations in 1964, it is likely that the
contamination occurred prior to a modern RCRA framework. Additionally, as mentioned in the
write up above, the Linde company has assumed responsibility for the treatment systems as of
April 2002 and is still currently operating. No compliance issues have been noted since the
1990s, prior to listing on the NPL.
References:
52
-------
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2018. Boomsnub/Airco SuperfundSite
Profile Webpage. Region 10. Hazel Dell, WA. Accessed in July 2018. Available at:
https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=1000670
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2013. Third Five-Yea Review for
Boomsnub/Airco Superfund Site. Region 10. Hazel Dell, WA.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1997. Record of Decision for Interim
Remedial Action at Boomsnub/Airco Superfund Site. Region 10. Hazel Dell, WA.
53
-------
BROOK INDUSTRIAL PARK
Facility Name: Brook Industrial Park aka Jame Fine Chemicals
EPA Region/State: R2/New Jersey
EPA SEMS ID: NJD078251675 EPA Registry ID: 110013688116
Operation: 1971-1997
Construction Lead: Mixed Lead Construction
Expenditures: $18,355,451.13 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: The Brook Industrial Park (BIP) complex has been in existence
since the 1800s and over the years different types of industrial activities occurred. Chemical and
pesticides production, usage and storage activities began in 1971 when Blue Spruce International
commenced operation at the site. Blue Spruce formulated pesticides (mostly banned for use in
the United States but allowed for export), dioxin and arsenic compounds. While Blue Spruce
ceased operation in 1982, during the same time other companies were also in operation including
National Metal Finishings Corporation (metal plating) and Jame Fine Chemical Incorporated
(manufactured specialty organic chemicals). These companies ceased their operation before
1986.
Investigation of potential sources of environmental contamination at the BIP focused on these
three companies. In 1980 Investigations by the Middlebrook Regional Health Commission
(MBRHC) and NJDEP revealed that Blue Spruce reportedly stored pesticide waste and arsenic
compounds in the basement of the facility, which had no flooring, and stored drums and vats
containing pesticides and other organic compounds on the upper floor of the facility.
MRHC/NJDEP documented spills and drum leakage at the Blue Spruce facility which at one
time stored as many as 300 55-gallon drums on the site (MBRHC/NJDEP 1980). Standing
puddles of wastewater were found on the floor of the basement. During heavy rains, the
basement flooded, water from the basement was reported to be pumped out and discharged to the
ground surface. Due to these poor waste and material handling procedure, the interior of the Blue
Sprue building, soil and ground water surrounding the facility were contaminated with dioxin
and various pesticides including aldrin, chlordane, DDT, d chlordane, and malathion. In addition,
surface runoff samples showed elevated concentration of pesticides.
The National Metal Finishings Corporation operated at BIP since the early 1970s. The metal
plating process performed by National Metal Finishings generated rinsate waste which were
discharged into two subsurface pits found with a building. These pits believed to be in direct
connection with ground water. Inspection by NJDEP in May 1981 discovered sludges and liquid
in the pits and samples collected from one pit revealed the presence of chromium, nickel, lead,
toluene and xylene. In 1982, the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety required
National Metal Finishings Corporation to cease further discharge from Pit #1 to ground water
and to perform a hydrogeological study to determine the degree of soil and ground water
contamination.
54
-------
Jame Fine Chemicals, Inc. has manufactured specialty chemicals at Brook Industrial Park for
over 20 years. NJDEP conducted an inspection of Jame Fine's manufacturing operations in 1980
and found a wastewater discharge which flowed into the Raritan River This discharge was found
to contain significant levels of several volatile and non-volatile organic compounds including
xylene, trichloroethane, trichloroethene, and toluene. Samples collected from downgradient well
also revealed ground water contamination with various organic compounds. Subsequently, in
that same year, NJDEP issued an Administrative Order and Notice of Civil Administrative
Penalty assessment to Jame Fine Chemicals, Inc. directing it to cease the discharge of
unpermitted chemicals and contaminated wastewater to the Raritan River. Inspections by NJDEP
also revealed soil contamination from leaking drums.
Regulatory action/initial response
Between 1970 to 1986, several violations issued by various state agencies to the three companies
operated on Brook Industrial Park complex. During the the 70s Sprue was cited by NJDEP for
several violations including for shipment of mislabeled pesticides, illegal storage of lindane, and
installing mixing vats without obtaining air pollution control permits. In 1980, the NJDEP issued
an Administrative Oder to Bruce Spruce ordering immediate cleanup of the facility. Blue Spruce
failed to fulfill this agreement. Subsequently in 1982 the NJDEP filed suit for cleanup of
contamination caused by Blue Spruce, and the company agreed and removed one truckload of
soil. NJDEP also issued an Administrative Order and Notice of Civil Administrative Penalty to
Jame Fine Chemicals, Inc in 1980 after the company discharged unpermitted chemicals and
contaminated wastewater to a nearby river surface water body. Between 1984 to 1986, additional
Notice of Violation against Jame Fine Chemicals were issued by NDJEPE for RCRA violations,
and improper housekeeping and documentation procedures related to the storage of materials
manufactured at the site. In 1982, the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety required
National Metal Finishings Corporation to cease discharge to ground water through pits and to
perform a hydrogeological study to determine the degree of soil and ground water contamination.
This study was never performed. Subsequently, the NJDEP issued a directive to National Metal
to cease discharge from a Pit, dispose of wastes on site, submit permit application for NJ
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, and implement hydrogeological study.
EPA's involvement at this site began in 1983 when dioxin was discovered in the Blue Spruce
Building. EPA addressed the immediate threat posed by the dioxin contamination through a
removal action in 1983. Subsequently, the site went through the NPL ranking process which
ended with it being included on the NPL in 1989. In 1989, EPA initiated the RI/FS to determine
the long-term threat posed by the site. EPA also conducted subsequent removal actions in 1990
and 1993 to secure the Blue Spruce Building against intruders and eliminate accidental contact
with possible contaminants.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: The operational and contamination history of
55
-------
the site suggests that the release of hazardous substances largely resulted due to pre-1980
activity. Based on the site description, chemical and pesticide production activity began in 1971
and ended between 1981 to 1986 as the three companies ceased their operations. In 1980, site
investigations by state NJDEP began, and these investigations resulted in several citations for
violations that included unpermitted discharges of wastewater and chemicals to surface water
and groundwater, and improper handling of waste and chemical products. EPA's involvement
started in 1983 with a removal action to address the immediate threat posed by dioxin
contamination. Subsequently, the site was placed on the NPL in 1989. These timelines appear to
suggest that the releases from this site were largely due to pre-1980 activities that predate
contemporary RCRA and CERCLA regulations.
While pre-1980 releases predate contemporary RCRA and CERCLA regulations, enforcement
records also point to violation post-1980. For example, Jame Fine was cited for an unpermitted
discharge into surface water in 1980. Such activities had been regulated through the NPDES
program since 1972 when the reported discharges were discovered. In addition, violations of
RCRA (although the specifics are unknown) and NOVs for improper handling of chemicals and
poor housekeeping were also issued by the state in between 1984 to 1986. These violations
indicate releases or threatened releases occurred post contemporary state or federal regulations.
While the history of violation may suggest recent releases and noncompliance with state &
federal regulation, the primary reason the site was placed on the NPL was based on widespread
soil, and groundwater contamination resulted from the historical activities. The site remedy
designed mainly to address these contaminations which include: excavating and off-site disposal
of contaminated soil; demolishing and incinerating the contaminated portions of the Blue Spruce
Building; extracting and treating contaminated groundwater. Based on these reasons, EPA
considers this site represented a case where the release or threatened releases of hazardous
substances occurred before contemporary regulations.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1994. Record of Decision: Brook
Industrial Park - Operable Unit 1. Region 2. Bound Brook, NJ.
• US EPA. 1994. Final Remedial Investigation Report: Brook Industrial Park Region 2.
Bound Brook, NJ.
• US EPA. Site Narrative: Brook Industrial Park. Region 2. Bound Brook, NJ.
56
-------
Brown & Bryant, Inc. Arvin Plant
Facility Name: Brown & Bryant, Inc. Arvin Plant
EPA Region/State: R9/California
EPA SEMS ID: CAD052384021 EPA Registry ID: 110000609609
Operation: 1960-1989
Construction Lead: Government Performed Construction
Expenditures: $37,992,759.23 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: The Brown and Bryant Arvin Pesticide Reformulation Facility
operated as an agricultural distributor facility from 1960 to 1989. This facility stored and
distributed agricultural chemicals including Dinoseb and Nemagon. In 1981, the facility was
licensed under RCRA as a hazardous waste transporter.
Facility operations at the site resulted in the discharge of contaminants to the surface and
subsurface soils, and groundwater. The largest releases on-site were from a waste pond, a sump
area, and a Dinoseb storage area. The waste pond was used to collect runoff water from the yard
and from two sumps. The pond was also used to collect rinse water from rinse tanks used for
fumigants. Excess pond water and rainwater runoff collected in a topographically low area to the
south of the pond. The pond was double-lined with a synthetic liner in November 1979, and the
original unlined sump was replaced with two double-lined sumps in 1980. Dinoseb was stored in
a smaller tank storage area along the eastern fence line, just north of the pond. In 1983, there was
a significant Dinoseb spill in this area.
Past inspections by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board documented many
instances of poor facility operations and maintenance practices. These inspections noted an on-
site tank holding the chemical Dinoseb and two unlined ponds for pesticide wastes as being
potential contaminant release areas. Past inspections also identified that a 25,000-gallon pond
had overflowed twice, and an on-site 560,000-gallon tank had leaked. In 1983 soil and
groundwater sampling and analysis identified Dinoseb as a contaminant of concern with
maximum concentrations exceeding 7,000,000 micrograms per kilogram in soil. These peak
concentrations of Dinoseb impact occurred in a former spill area along the east fence line and
beneath a former pond and sump. In 1984, the California Department of Health Services, Toxic
Substances Control Program (now DTSC) identified various pesticides in on-site wells, including
DBCP, EDB, Dinoseb, 1,2-DCP, and chlorobenzene. In 1989, the site was listed on the NPL.
Regulatory Action/Response:
Environmental investigation at B&B site began as early as 1981. In 1983, the State of California
(through CDHS) required Brown & Bryant to conduct a site investigation and dispose of
contaminated soil. By 1987, Brown & Bryant installed 10 monitoring wells and removed heavily
57
-------
contaminated soil beneath the two sumps and waste ponds. The lined waste pond in the southeast
corner of the property was excavated in August 1987 by Brown and Bryant. The pond liner and
approximately 640 cubic yards of soil that showed visible signs of contamination were removed.
Following listing of the site on the NPL in 1989, EPA immediately conducted an emergency
response assessment and identified two areas needing immediate attention: 1) a Dinoseb spill
area, and 2) contaminated groundwater, which appeared to pose an imminent and substantial
endangerment to the municipal drinking water. EPA treated the Dinoseb-contaminated soil in the
winter of 1991 under its emergency response authorities. In October 1990, EPA issued general
notice letters to two site property owners, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway and Southern
Pacific Transportation Company (the Railroads). In January 1991, EPA issued the Railroads an
administrative order to conduct certain investigations of the groundwater at the site. The work
was completed in August of 1992.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities:
The release of hazardous substances at Brown and Bryant may have resulted mainly due to
activities that predate contemporary regulations. As indicated above, the Brown and Bryant
facility was active from 1960 to 1989, and the facility managed hazardous waste in unlined waste
pond and sumps until 1979, at which point these waste management units were retrofitted to
lined systems. According to EPA's record, these units were the largest sources of soil and
groundwater contamination. In 1981, environmental investigations began at the site, and from
1983 through 1988, B&B conducted several soil and groundwater investigations and remedial
actions under CDHS supervision. These timelines suggest the release of a hazardous substance
may have resulted in due pre- 1980 activities.
During the initial cleanup responses, EPA put in place regulations that would have reduced or
prevented the type of releases identified at the B&B site. For example, in 1980 RCRA standards
for hazardous waste generators were promulgated, which subjected facilities to requirements that
include time and quantity limits to on-site accumulation of hazardous wastes, standards for the
waste container, and standards for placing waste on the land. Furthermore, under 40 CFR 264,
the on-site disposal of the hazardous wastes would require the facility to obtain a RCRA permit
and meet unit standards for the design and operation of the land disposal units. B&B would also
be subject to land disposal restriction pretreatment standards prior to disposal. As discussed in
the site description, in 1983, there was a significant Dinoseb spill from a storage tank. Such
releases would be subject to notification requirements of 40 CFR 302 promulgated in 1985.
Under this regulation, notification to the National Response Center is required within a 24-hour
period for releases of hazardous substances from facilities if the amount released exceeds the
reportable quantity. Finally, pursuant to FIFRA Section 3(c)(2)(b), the U.S. EPA halted the
distribution and sale of nemagon and dinoseb in 1979 and 1986, respectively. For these reasons,
58
-------
EPA does not consider the B&B site to be representative of current practices subject to
contemporary regulations.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2011 .ThirdFive-Year Review Report
for Brown and Bryant Superfund Site. Region 9. Arvin, CA.
• US EPA. 2007. Record of Decision: Brown and Bryant Operable Unit No. 2 Superfund
Site. Region 9. Arvin, CA.
• US EPA. 1993. First Operable Unit Record of Decision, Brown and Bryant Superfund
Site. Region 9. Arvin, CA.
59
-------
Chemical Metals Industries, Inc.
EPA Region/State: R3/Maryland
EPA SEMS ID: MDD980555478 EPA Registry ID: 110003516213
Operation: 1950-1981
Construction Lead: Government Performed Construction
Expenditures: $673,909 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: The Chemical Metals Industries (CMI) manufactured copper
compounds and recovered precious metals. The CMI site consisted of storage area for
miscellaneous solids, large quantities of scrap metal, acids, caustics, and neutral waste liquids; a
laboratory, and manufacturing center. The owner and operator of the Site ceased operation and
abandoned the facility unoccupied. MDE discovered numerous chemicals in deteriorated and
damaged tanks, containers and drums leaking their contents onto the ground at the Site. In
addition, CMI had highly acidic and basic materials incompatibly stored. There were drums
labeled cyanide adjacent to drums containing acidic materials which if mixed together can
potentially release lethal hydrogen cyanide vapor which could have endangered the health of the
residents living adjacent to CMI. MDE was financially unable to handle a cleanup effort of that
size. In 1981, EPA initiated a Removal Action in response to a request from MDE for technical
and financial assistance. This action involved the initial removal and disposal of all materials that
represented an imminent hazard. In August 2013, EPA sought access to the property to collect
soil and groundwater samples, determining the need for MDE to abate possible vapor intrusion
of TCE and PCE into adjacent residential properties.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: EPA considers this site represents a case where
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances occurred mostly before modern
regulations were instituted. In addition, the type of industrial activity occurred at this does not
meet what is considered a chemical manufacturing activity.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1998. Memo: Transmittal of a
Request for an Exemption to 12-month Statutory Limit and a Ceiling Increase for
Removal Action Restart at Chemical Metal Industries. Region 03. Philadelphia, PA.
60
-------
Claremont Polychemical
EPA Region/State:
EPA SEMS ID: NYD002044584 EPA Registry ID: 110042041509
Operation: 1966-1980
Construction Lead: Government Performed Construction
Expenditures: $55,079,397 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: Claremont Polychemical manufactured pigments for the coloring
of plastics and inks, coated metallic flakes, and vinyl stabilizers from August 1966 through
October 1980. The principal wastes generated were organic solvents (primarily volatile organic
compounds [VOCs] such as tetrachloroethene, resins, and wash wastes [mineral spirits]).
Operations at the Site resulted in the contamination of soil and groundwater, as well as
contamination of the interior of the Process Building. In 1979, an inspection by the Nassau
County Health Department (NCDH) revealed numerous tanks and approximately 3,000 drums
containing hazardous substances. These drums were in various stages of deterioration with some
reported leaking, lying on their sides or unsealed. Contaminated soils also were observed. From
May to September 1980, the company sorted and removed drums from the site. An inspection by
NCDH on September 26, 1980, revealed the soil was contaminated with inks and solvents.
NCDH directed Claremont to excavate contaminated soils. On October 27, 1980, counsel to
Claremont told NCDH that the company was in receivership and that funds for the cleanup were
no longer available. The Site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) in
October 1984 and was added to the NPL in June 1986.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: The EPA categorized this site as a legacy issue.
This facility was in operation for 14 years before it ceased production activity in 1980. As such,
the releases of hazardous substances resulted primarily due to pre-1980 activities, which predate
applicable modern regulations within RCRA Subtitle C, CERCLA, EPPRCA, UST. For
example, the accumulation or disposal of hazardous waste drums would be subject to
requirements under the standards for hazardous waste generator, (40 CFR 262) and standards for
owners and operators of TSD facilities (40 CFR 264), which were published in 1980. In addition,
the storage and release of hazardous substances would be subject to the hazardous substances
reporting and release notification requirements under 40 CFR 302 and 355 (published in 1985
and 1986, respectively). Finally, regulations that regulate the owners and operators of
underground storage tanks were issued by in 1988. These regulations set technical requirements
for underground storage tanks, financial responsibility, and state program approval objects.
Releases identified that predate 1980 and the extent of the contamination would have been
significantly reduced, had these regulations were in place during the time of the facility's
operations.
61
-------
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1990. Record of Decision: Claremont
Polychemical Site Operable Unit 2. Region 2. Old Bethpage, NY.
• US EPA. 1989. Record of Decision: Claremont Polychemical Site Operable Unit 2.
Region 2. Old Bethpage, NY.
62
-------
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp
Facility Name: Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp
EPA Region/State: R2/New Jersery
EPA SEMS ID: NJD000565531 EPA Registry ID: 110030725106 & 110007698232
Operation: 1974-1989
Construction Lead: Government Performed Construction
Expenditures: $30,898,164.84 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: Cosden Chemical Coatings Corporation was a paint formulation
and manufacturing facility which produced coatings for industrial applications. Organic solvents
were used to washout mixing tanks, and the rinsate was transferred to drums. Until 1974, organic
solvents used in the manufacturing process were recycled; thereafter, drums containing spent
solvents were stored on-site. Some of these drums leaked onto the ground and caused soil and
ground water contamination. Additionally, solvents were stored in underground storage tanks
(USTs), which may have leaked. In 1980, a grass fire on-site prompted state investigations that
revealed the presence of surface spills and several hundred unsecured drums. In 1985, the state
ordered Cosden to clean up the site; however, Cosden abandoned clean-up efforts after 88 of 695
drums were removed. In 1986, the state undertook emergency removal of the drummed material
and clean-up of surface spills around the drum storage areas. The Site was placed on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in July 1987. Paint manufacturing continued at a small scale until May
1989, during which time additional drums accumulated on site. The plant owner ceased
operations in May 1989.
The handling of waste resulted in contaminated soil, ground water contamination in the
underlying aquifer, and the Cosden building. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil, debris, and ground water are VOCs, including benzene, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other
organics, including PAHs and PCBs; metals, including arsenic, chromium, and lead; and
inorganics, including asbestos.
Regulatory action/Initial Response: Several removal and enforcement actions occurred at this
site. Various court actions and negotiations undertaken by NJDEP against Cosden Chemical
Coatings Corporation resulted in a judicial consent order in February 1985 that ordered Cosden
Chemical Coatings Corporation to clean up the Site. Cosden Chemical Coatings Corporation
initiated the cleanup in February 1985, but abandoned cleanup efforts after 88 of 695 drums were
removed. In January 1986, the NJDEP then undertook an emergency removal of the drummed
material, and cleanup of surface spills around the drum storage areas. EPA conducted removal
action in 1989 after listing the site on the NPL. The removal action included constructing a fence
around areas of soil contamination; and removing remaining drums, paint cans, pigment bags,
mixing tanks, and underground storage tank contents.
63
-------
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: Based on the site's operation and contamination
history, the releases of hazardous substances primarily occurred due to pre-1980 activities.
According to EPA's record, paint formulation activities occurred at the sites between 1974 and
1989. Site investigation that began in 1980 revealed hundreds of drums containing spent solvents
stored on-site, some leaking their content. In 1985, the facility conducted limited cleanup after
receiving a judicial consent order. Subsequently, the state conducted emergency removal action
in January 1986. The site was listed on the NPL in July 1987. These series of events suggest that
the releases or threatened release of hazardous substances resulted due to pre-1980 activities and
likely predate contemporary RCRA regulations.
As mentioned above, after the listing of the site on the NPL, small scale paint formulation
continued until 1989. During this period, additional drums were accumulated on-site. EPA
conducted removal action to remove these drums in 1989. While these drums were not the
reasons for placing the site on the NPL, such practices would have been subject to RCRA
regulations. By 1980, RCRA's regulations for the generator of hazardous waste found under 40
CFR 262 were in place. This facility would have been subject to requirements under this
regulation including, time and quantity limits for an on-site accumulation of waste, technical
standards for containers, tanks, drip pads or containment building and requirements for land
disposal under 40 CFR 268. Although there may have been a case of noncompliance, EPA
considers this site may not be an appropriate case on which to base CERCLA 108(B) because
legacy operations resulted in the placement of the site on the NPL.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1998. Action Memorandum:
Authorization to Initiate Emergency and Rapid Response Services (ERRS) Performance
of Remedial Action Activities at the Cosden Chemical Coatings Site. Region 2. City of
Beverly, NJ
• US EPA. 1989. Record of Decision: Cosden Chemical Coatings Corporation Site.
Region 2. City of Beverly, NJ.
64
-------
Drake Chemical Inc.
EPA Region/State: R3/Pennsylvania
EPA SEMS ID: PAD003058047 EPA Registry IDs: 110000817821 & 110062731487
Operation: 1960s-1981 (Bankruptcy)
Construction Lead: Mixed Lead Construction (Government/PRP)
Expenditures: $227,921,199 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: The Drake Chemical, Inc. (Drake) site is in Lock Haven, Clinton
County, Pennsylvania. The eight-acre inactive site contains six major buildings including former
offices, production facilities and a wastewater treatment building. Operations started in the 1960s
and closed in the fall of 1981. Drake's waste disposal practices and on-site storage problems
were known to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER) for years. The
state entered a consent order with Drake on April 4, 1979. In 1981, Drake filed a Chapter 11
reorganization bankruptcy. On January 5, 1982, DER issued a cleanup order based on violation
of the previous consent order. Drake took no corrective action, but immediately converted the
existing Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The site was added to the
National Priorities List (NPL) in 1983.
Drake purchased the site in 1962. The early history of production is unclear, but the site had been
involved for many years in the manufacture of small batches of specialty intermediate chemicals
for producers of dyes, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, textiles, plant additives, and pesticides. These
products were synthesized using the process of sulfonation, amination, chlorination, and
cyanation. Most processes at Drake were never highly automated and required hand charging of
chemicals into reactor vessels. The organic compound 2,3,6-trichlorophenylacetic acid, also
known as the herbicide Fenac, was manufactured at the plant and is a major site contaminant.
During the time of active production at the Drake facility, process wastewater and sludge were
placed in the lagoon for storage on-site. Overflow from the lagoon passed through a culvert, into
the leachate stream and thence to Bald Eagle Creek. The overflow and leakage from this lagoon
have transported hazardous waste to the tributary. However, the main source of streambed flow
is from contaminated groundwater which surfaces at low areas along a part of the leachate
stream.
On-site are 1,700 drums (many leaking and some labeled "cyanides"), numerous tanks, three
large unlined lagoons filled with demolition debris, two lined lagoons, and a small feeder lagoon.
The feeder lagoon is believed to be the source of a leachate stream flowing through a municipal
park (which had to be closed) into Bald Eagle Creek, a major tributary of the Susquehanna River.
Drums are emerging from unlined lagoons. Air, soil, and ground water are also contaminated.
Sediment in the creek contains high concentrations of an herbicide and other chlorinated organic
compounds
65
-------
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: EPA believes this site represents a case where
releases or threatened releases occurred largely before modern regulations were instituted.
Regulations applicable to environmental issues identified at this site include: 40 CFR 262 -
Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste; 40 CFR 264 - Standards for Owners
and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage, and Disposal; and 40 CFR 265 - Interim
Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage, and
Disposal. All of these regulations were initially promulgated in 1980 and amended in 1984
through Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA). As noted above, Drake Chemicals
operated from the 1960 to 1981.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1986. Record of Decision: Drake
Chemical Site (Phase II). Region 3. Lock Haven, PA.
• US EPA. 1984. Record of Decision: Drake Chemical Site (Phase I). Region 3. Lock
Haven, PA.
66
-------
Fike Chemical Inc.
EPA Region/State: R3/West Virginia
EPA SEMS ID: WVD047989207 EPA Registry ID: 110007875353
Operation: 1968-1988
Construction Lead: Mixed Lead Construction (Government/PRP)
Expenditures: $50,907,530 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: The Fike Chemical site is in Nitro, West Virginia. The site
consists of two parcels; an 11-acre parcel where chemical processing took place and a 1-acre
parcel containing the former Cooperative Sewage Treatment (CST) plant. The CST plant treated
stormwater and wastewater generated by the Fike Chemical plant. The site owner disposed of
hazardous materials by burying them or placing them in on-site lagoons.
During Fike's operation, over 60 different chemicals were produced by batch reaction on an as
needed basis. As of January 1980, Fike produced approximately 41 different specialty chemicals.
24 of these processes generated wastes and at least 13 of the chemicals produced or utilized by
Fike were on EPA's Priority Pollutant list. Other site activities leading to contamination include
on-site disposal of hazardous wastes through drum burial and unlined surface lagoons, tank
storage of various chemical stock, products, and wastes
The CST property, which is adjacent to the Fike property to the Northwest, consists of a series of
basins, treatment tanks, and sludge drying beds, which are designed to treat plant surface runoff
and process wastewater delivered from Fike via sewer systems. The treated water is discharged
into the Kanawha River. The CST has a long history of enforcement activity resulting from
violations of their NPDES permit and various non-compliance under RCRA leading to
termination of interim status in November 1985.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil, groundwater and surface water are
organics including PCBS and Methyl Mercaptan, inorganics including cyanide, asbestos, acids,
and metals. Approximately 300 bulk storage tanks are located on-site, containing acids, bases,
flammables, and cyanides. A minimum of 2,000 surface drums are on-site in uncontrolled
storage facilities. Approximately 8,000 laboratory containers of known and unknown contents
are at the site. Waste buried on-site include 1,000 drums and an undetermined number of
additional laboratory containers. Approximately 100,000 pounds of metallic sodium is contained
in 300 of the drums on-site. A pressurized tank of methyl mercaptan contains approximately
9,000 gallons.
An EPA suit against Fike resulted in a Consent Decree filed in November 1982. Site activities
contaminated soil and groundwater with hazardous chemicals and the Site was added to the
National Priorities List in 1983. The site is being addressed through federal and potentially
responsible party (PRP) actions.
67
-------
The company was sold to Artel Chemical Co. of New York in 1986. Artel closed the plant two
years later. Operations at the site ended in 1988. EPA placed the site on the Superfund National
Priorities List (NPL) in 1983 because of contaminated groundwater, soil, sludge and sediment
resulting from waste disposal practices.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: EPA considers this site represents a case where
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances occurred mostly before modern
regulations were instituted. As indicated in the risk description, the improper storage and
disposal of hazardous substances and wastes represented pre-1980 activities. Those waste
management and hazardous material handling practices identified at this site are now prohibited
or regulated. The primary regulations governing the storage and handling of hazardous chemicals
have been in place since the 1980s including: Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)'s
standards for storage and handling of flammable liquids (29 CFR 1910.106) and compressed gas
(29 CFR 1910); Section 311 and 312 of EPCRA reporting requirements of hazardous chemical
inventory to local and state emergency responders; and Section 304 of EPCRA, requirements for
emergency release notification for "reportable quantity." In addition, drums and tank systems
used to store hazardous waste for more than 90 days or that are not at the location of the
hazardous waste generation, have been regulated under RCRA (40 CFR Parts 264 and 265) since
1986.
Reference:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2001. Record of Decision
Operable Unit 4: Fike Chemicals, Inc. Region 3. Nitro, WV.
• US EPA. 1988. Record of Decision: Fike Chemicals, Inc. Region 3. Nitro, WV.
68
-------
Fletcher's Paint Works and Storage
EPA Region/State: Rl/New Hampshire
EPA SEMS ID: NHDOO1079649 EPA Registry ID: 110027861712, 110012195310,
110009259417 & 110067955225
Operation: 1949-1991
Construction Lead: Mixed Lead Construction
Expenditures: $19,591,612 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: Fletcher's Paint Works operated at the site from approximately
1948 until 1991. PCBs, the primary contaminant at the Site, were brought to the Site from
approximately 1948 until 1967 from the General Electric (GE) facilities in Hudson Falls and Fort
Edward, New York in a material called scrap pyranol. This scrap pyranol was a waste liquid,
which could contain PCBs, trichloroethylene and trichlorobenzene as well as small amounts of
other waste compounds. A small amount of waste PCB material also came from the Sprague
Electric Company and the Aerovox Company. Several hundred of these drums of scrap pyranol
were stored at the Mill Street Area from the late 1960s through the early 1980. Spills, leaks,
manufacturing operations, and dust suppression activities led to the contamination of the soils
and groundwater at the site. PCBs, TCE and other contaminants that were released to the
environment were found at concentrations in site soils, sediments, and groundwater at levels that
pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. In 1982, the State inspected the
Fletcher's facility in response to a complaint and found 800 drums of alkyd resins and 21 drums
of solvent at the Elm Street Area. Leaking and open drums, as well as stained soil, were observed
on the property. In 1984, the nearby Keyes Municipal Supply Well was found to be
contaminated with low levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by the New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services (NHDES - formerly known as the New Hampshire Water
Supply and Pollution Control Commission). This discovery triggered the removal of the Keyes
Well from service and prompted the EPA into a series of investigation and remediation activities
to determine and address the contaminant sources. The Fletcher's Paint properties and nearby
gasoline stations were determined to be the most likely sources of the contamination at the Keyes
Well during the Preliminary Site Investigations conducted at the Fletcher's Paint Superfund Site
and other nearby properties throughout the 1980's. These found contamination of the soils,
subsurface and sediments by VOCs, semi-volatile organics, metals, PAHs and PCBs. The site
was listed on the NPL in June 1988. In 1988, EPA removed 861 drums from the Paint Works
facility. Analysis of these drums showed methylene chloride, ethylbenzene, xylene and toluene.
Surface and subsurface soil sampling identified the distribution of PCBs on the site, and 12 bags
of asbestos were removed from the storage facility.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: EPA believes this site represents a case where
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances occurred largely before modern
69
-------
regulations were instituted. As mentioned above, the primary contaminant of concern at this site
was PCBs which were brought and used at this site from 1940s to early 1980s. The presence of
PCB-contaminated soils at the facility suggests that PCB regulations codified under the federal
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) were relevant to the site. PCBs Manufacturing,
Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions at 40 CFR Part 761 govern PCB
handling and disposal. Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 761, substantially amended in 1998, regulates
disposal and storage of PCB materials. Provisions of this Subchapter include 40 CFR Part 761.60
which sets requirements for disposal including in 40 CFR Part 761.79, promulgated on June 29,
1998, decontamination standards and procedures for PCB containers and 40 CFR Part 761.61,
which governs the cleanup and management of PCB waste generated as the result of PCB spills.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) also regulates the disposal of liquid
wastes containing PCBs. Subpart E of RCRA, at 40 CFR Part 268.50(f), requires that facilities
that store liquid hazardous wastes containing PCBs in concentrations of 50 ppm or more meet
storage and disposal regulations under TSCA. Further, RCRA requires that facilities 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). Thus, the RCRA storage regulations were in place at the time of site
closure in 1992. The presence of PCB waste in storage tanks at the site for decades after site
closure in 1992 and resulting in the spill in 2014 indicates that the site owner did not comply
with those RCRA storage regulations.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2009. Record of Decision
Amendment: Fletcher's Paint Works and Storage Facility Superfund Site. Region 1.
Milford, NH.
• US EPA. 1998. Record of Decision: Fletcher's Paint Works and Storage Facility
Superfund Site. Region 1. Milford, NH.
70
-------
Fried Industries
EPA Region/State: R2/New Jersey
EPA SEMS ID: NJD041828906 EPA Registry IDs: 110004151649 & 110030713146
Operation: 1965-1985
Construction Lead: Government Lead Construction
Expenditures: $34,633,774 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: The Fried Industries site was originally a clay quarry which
operated until about 1920. In 1965, the Unichem Corporation began the manufacturing of
detergents and floor finishes. Operations continued at the site through 1978 (Fried Industries) up
until 1985 when all manufacturing and production activities ceased. Possible environmental
concerns at the site were first brought to the attention of the East Brunswick Department of
Health in August 1983, when complaints were received from residents on Fresh Ponds Road
regarding taste and odor problems with their well water. Subsequent investigations of the Fried
Industries site revealed that hazardous wastes were improperly stored on-site, and the soil was
contaminated with organic chemicals. Further investigation showed numerous sources of
contamination, including: deteriorated buried drums; drum spill areas; leaking and improperly
stored drums; abandoned laboratory equipment and chemicals; and contaminated process and
septic tanks. In addition, it was noted that process waste water and contaminated water from
drum storage and handling areas were discharged directly onto the ground. In December 1984,
EPA executed a criminal search warrant at the site and found criminal violations of RCRA &
CERCLA. This manufacturer of cleaning agents and detergents stored and disposed of industrial
chemicals containing methylene chloride, trichloromethane, phenanthrene, and phthalates
without permit and without notification to EPA.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: EPA has categorized this site as a legacy site.
As discussed in the risk section above, chemical manufacturing activities lasted for 20 years
before the facility ceased operation in 1985. The site was listed on the NPL in June 1986. EPA
believes the disposal of drums containing hazardous wastes that led to the release of hazardous
substances primarily occurred due to activities that predate modern RCRA Subtitle C, CERCLA,
and EPCRA regulations. For example, as a generator of hazardous waste, the facility would be
subject to hazardous waste management standards found in 40 CRF 262, which include on-site
accumulation quantity, accumulation time limits, technical standards for containers, and meeting
standards for placing waste on the land. Furthermore, the land disposal of the hazardous wastes
would be subject to 40 CFR 264 requirements, which would require the facility to obtain a
RCRA permit, meet unit standards for the design and operation of the land disposal units and
meet land disposal restriction pretreatment standards prior to disposal (40 CFR 268). The storage
and releases of hazardous substances would also be subject to the reporting (40 CFR 370) and
71
-------
release notification requirements of 40 CFR 302 and 40 CFR 355. While much of the pre-1980
activities predate modern regulation, it is possible that continued releases of site-related
hazardous substances may have occurred due to post-1980 activities until the facility ceased its
operation in 1985. However, based on available information, it is difficult to determine if that
disposal practices or improper storage of hazardous substances that resulted in environmental
contamination were part of the site's post-1980 activities or pre-1980 operations.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1994. Record of Decision: Fried
Industries Site. Region 2. Middlesex County, NJ.
72
-------
Greenwood Chemical Company
EPA Region/State: R3/Virginia
EPA SEMS ID: VAD003125374 EPA Registry ID: 110008181083
Incident: 1985 (Explosion)
Operation: 1940s-1985
Construction Lead: Government Performed Construction
Expenditures: $54,527,186 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: The 33-acre Greenwood Chemical Company site is located in
Albemarle County, Virginia. From the 1930s to 1985, a manufacturing facility produced
chemicals for industrial, agricultural, pharmaceutical and photographic processes on site.
Manufacturing activities ceased in 1985 following a toluene vapor explosion and fire that
destroyed the process building and resulted in the deaths of four workers.
Site activities, including the storage and disposal of leaking drums and the operation of seven
uncontrolled wastewater treatment/disposal lagoons, contaminated soil, groundwater, surface
water and sludge with hazardous chemicals. Following cleanup, operation and maintenance
activities are ongoing. The primary compounds produced at the Site included naphthalene acetic
acid, 1-naphthaldehyde, and naphthoic acid. In addition, arsenic salts were used as catalysts in
producing chloromethylnaphthalene, an intermediary in the production of naphthalene acetic
acid. Production processes used toluene, naphthalene derivatives, sodium cyanide and inorganic
arsenic salts. The GCC reported using between one and ten tons of cyanide per year to the
Virginia Department of Toxic Substances, from 1972 to 1974.
Manufacturing activities at the Site involved the handling of large numbers of drums containing
various chemicals, comprising waste, feedstock, intermediate, and final products. A series of
interconnected wastewater ""treatment/disposal"" lagoons were associated with chemical
processing activities. Wastewater was discharged from the process buildings through a series of
floor drains, interconnected piping and open ditches to one or more of the lagoons. Site activities,
including the storage and disposal of leaking drums and the operation of seven uncontrolled
wastewater treatment/disposal lagoons, contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water and sludge
with hazardous chemicals.
Starting in the early 1980s, the Virginia State Department of Health began to investigate the site
due to reports of unauthorized and poorly managed waste disposal practices. By summer 1986,
conditions at the Site had worsened to the point where emergency response by EPA was deemed
necessary. More than 600 leaking and deteriorated drums, both at the surface and buried, were
identified along with seven uncontrolled wastewater treatment/disposal lagoons having elevated
concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) such as toluene and benzene, and semi-
VOCs, such as naphthalene.
73
-------
Starting in 1987, EPA initiated emergency response actions which included: the excavation and
proper disposal of an estimated 500 buried drums; proper disposal of an estimated 100 surface
drums and 32 pressurized gas cylinders; drainage and treatment of liquids from the three most
highly contaminated lagoons; and temporarily capping the drained lagoons.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: The main sources of contamination at this site
include disposal into unlined ponds and the improper storage and disposal of hazardous
substances and wastes. Based on the history of the site, EPA considers this site represents a case
where releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances occurred mostly before modern
regulations were instituted. For example, RCRA and HSWA regulations prohibit the disposal of
hazardous waste into unlined ponds that the facility used since 1930. Furthermore, the
management and handling of hazardous materials and waste in drums and tanks have been
regulated since 1980s by various statutes including: Occupational Safety and Health Act
(OSHA)'s standards for storage and handling of flammable liquids (29 CFR 1910.106) and
compressed gas (29 CFR 1910); Section 311 and 312 of EPCRA reporting requirements
of hazardous chemical inventory to local and state emergency responders; and Section 304 of
EPCRA, requirements for emergency release notification for "reportable quantity." In addition,
drums and tank systems used to store hazardous waste for more than 90 days or that are not at
the location of the hazardous waste generation, have been regulated under RCRA (40 CFR Parts
264 and 265) since 1986.
Reference:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1990. Record of Decision:
Greenwood Chemical Site. Region 3. Newton, VA
• US EPA. 1989. Record of Decision: Greenwood Chemical Site. Region 3. Newton,
VA
74
-------
Horseshoe Road
EPA Region/State: R2/New Jersey
EPA SESM ID: NJD980663678 EPA Registry ID: 110030722626
Operation: 1950-1982
Construction Lead: Mixed Lead Construction
Expenditures: $75,483,711 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: The history of the site is complex, involving numerous real
estate transactions. At least 18 entities were involved in the four areas from 1950s to 1985. The
site is mainly consisted of four areas: Horseshoe Road Drum Dump (HRDD), Sayreville
Pesticide Dump (SPD), Atlantic Development Corp (ADC) and Atlantic Resources Corp(ARC).
The ADC facility, operations from 1950s to early 1980s included, the production of roofing
materials, sealants, polymers, urethane and epoxy resins, resin pigments, wetting agents,
pesticide intermediates and recycled chlorinated solvents. The ARC facility recovered gold and
silver from fly ash, x-ray and photographic film, circuit boards, building material and other
materials from 1972 to 1985. The operation also accepted spent solvents, which were used to
fuel the incinerators. Based on available information, the various operators at ADC used the SPD
area as a dump site from about 1957 into early 1980s. The operators at the ARC site used the
HRDD area for dumping from 1972 to early 1980s. Problems on Horseshoe Road first came to
EPA's attention in 1981 when a brush fire at the HRDD area exposed approximately 70 partially
filled drums, many corroded, containing acetonitrile, silver cyanide and ethyl acetate. Using
CERCLA emergency funds, EPA relocated the drums onto the Atlantic Development Corp. area
of the site. The dump is in a wetland. In mid-1980, NJDEP also removed over 1,000 drums from
the ARC area after the companies failed to do so. Analyses of soil samples in 1985 detected
volatile organic compounds (including toluene), semivolatile organic compounds, and heavy
metals. EPA soil analyses in 1989 detected similar hazardous substances, plus pesticides and
PCBs. In 1991, EPA site inspection found approximately 160 corroded or crushed drums, many
containing a white powder at SPD area. Previous soil analyses by NJDEP and EPA detected
benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, copper, and mercury. Surface water and
sediments in a small stream originating near the SPD contain heavy metals (copper, lead, and
mercury), phenol, bis (2-chloroethyl) ether, methoxychlor, lindane, chloroform, and 1,2-
dichloroethane, according to EPA's 1989 analyses. In winter of 1986-87, mercury spilled onto
the ground at ARC facilities. In March 1987, EPA used CERCLA emergency funds to remove
70 pounds of mercury and contaminated soil to a hazardous waste facility regulated under
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. EPA also removed 30 5-gallon
containers of sodium cyanide, which was used in the metal recycling process.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: EPA has categorized this site as a legacy site.
As discussed above, both chemical manufacturing and precious element recovery activities
occurred at this site. However, the chemical production and the associated disposal of drums
75
-------
containing hazardous waste and substances occurred due to pre-1980 activities, which predate
modern RCRA Subtitle C, CERCLA, and EPCRA regulations. For example, as a generator of
hazardous waste, the facility would be subject to hazardous waste management standards found
in 40 CRF 262, which include on-site accumulation quantity, accumulation time limits, technical
standards for containers, and meeting standards for placing waste on the land. Furthermore, the
land disposal of the hazardous wastes would be subject to 40 CFR 264 requirements, which
would require the facility to obtain a RCRA permit, meet unit standards for the design and
operation of the land disposal units. Land disposal restriction pretreatment standards prior to
disposal also applies according to 40 CFR 268. The Storage and releases of hazardous substances
would also be subject to the reporting (40 CFR 370) and release notification requirements of 40
CFR 302 and 40 CFR 355. While much of the historical releases predate modern regulation,
continued releases of site-related hazardous substances to ground water were also documented
until 1982. While post-1980 releases may likely have occurred, based on available information, it
is difficult to determine if the disposal units or practices were part of the site's postl980
operation or pre-1980 operations.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2009. Record of Decision Operable
Unit 3 - Marsh and River Sediment: Horseshoe Road and Atlantic Resources Sties.
Region 2. Sayreville, NJ.
• US EPA. 2004. Record of Decision Operable Unit 2 - Soil and Groundwater: Horseshoe
Road and Atlantic Resources Corporation Sties. Region 2. Sayreville, NJ.
• US EPA. 2000. Record of Decision Operable Unit 1 - Buildings and Structures:
Horseshoe Road and Atlantic Resources Corporation Sties. Region 2. Sayreville, NJ.
76
-------
Industrial Latex Corporation
EPA Region/State: R2/New Jersey
EPA SEMS ID: NJD981178411 EPA Registry IDs: 110006831866 & 110030609535
Operation: 1961-1980
Construction Lead: Government Performed Construction
Expenditures: $51,912,958 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: The Industrial Latex Corporation manufactured natural and
synthetic rubber compounds, and chemical adhesives from 1951 to 1983. Poor operational
procedures and on-site waste disposal practices resulted in widespread surface and subsurface
soil contamination. Prompted by numerous complaints from local officials about the misuse of
solvents and the dumping of trash and chemicals on the property, NJDEP conducted a site
inspection in 1980 and found approximately 250 leaking drums of various chemical compounds.
In addition, NJDEP discovered that VOCs and materials contaminated with PCBs had been
disposed of in an on-site sanitary septic system. NJDEP conducted a second site inspection in
1983 and discovered approximately 1,600 drums which were open, leaking, or lying on their
sides. Analyses of the drum contents revealed the presence of acetone, hexane, MEK, dimethyl
formamide, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane. In 1985, NJDEP began enforcement efforts to have the
site owner remove and properly dispose of all on-site drums and contaminated soil. Because of
the owner's inability to conduct a timely removal of the material, EPA initiated a removal action
in 1986 to address immediate contaminant hazards present at the site. Sampling and analysis of
on-site drums revealed the presence of benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, and PCBs. By
January 1987, EPA had removed 1,200 drums and 22 underground storage tanks from the site. In
addition, a fence was installed to restrict access to the site and reduce direct exposure to surface
contamination. The site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List of Superfund
sites in May 1988 and finalized in March 1989. There are no viable potentially responsible
parties for this Site
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: The EPA categorized this site as a legacy issue.
This facility was in operation for 30 years before it ceased production activity in 1983. Based on
the review of site activities, EPA believes the releases of hazardous substances primarily resulted
due to pre-1980 activities, predating applicable modern regulations within RCRA Subtitle C,
CERCLA, EPPRCA, UST, and CWA. For example, the accumulation or disposal of hazardous
waste drums would be subject to requirements under standards for hazardous waste generators,
(40 CFR 262) and standards for owners and operators of TSD facilities (40 CFR 262), which
were published in 1980 and amended under HSWA. In addition, the storage and release of
hazardous substances would be subject to the hazardous substances reporting and release
notification requirements under 40 CFR 302 and 355 (published in 1985 and 1986, respectively).
77
-------
The deposal of hazardous waste into sanitary septic tanks would be considered as the
underground injection Class IV Well. These well are now banned, and this disposal practice is
illegal. Similarly, regulations that govern the use of underground storage tanks were promulgated
in 1988 and 1990. Releases identified that predate 1980 and the extent of the contamination
would have been significantly reduced had these regulations were in place during the time of the
facility's operations.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2001. Record of Decision: Industrial
Latex Site. Region 2. Bergen County, NJ.
78
-------
MacKenzie Chemical Works, Inc.
EPA Region/State: R2/ New York
EPA SEMS ID: NYD980753420 EPA Registry ID: 110004337263
Incidents: 1977 (spill), 1978 (air), 1979 (fire)
Operation: 1948-1987
Construction Lead: Government Performed Construction
Expenditures: $7,687,540 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: MacKenzie Chemical Works, Inc. (MCW) used the property
from 1948 to 1987 for the manufacture of various chemical products, including fuel additives
and metal acetylacetonates. Historically, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services
(SCDHS) and the Suffolk County Fire Department have documented poor housekeeping and
operational procedures. Spills, explosions and fires have occurred at the facility, including a
methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) spill in 1977, a nitrous oxide release in 1978, and an MEK spill/fire
in 1979. Complaints filed over the years have resulted in inspections by the fire department, and
violations were noted by the SCDHS. Violations included spills on open soil, leaking drums,
overflowing acid tanks, and drains not noted on original facility plans. MCW operations at the
site stopped in 1987. Following additional site investigations, EPA placed the site on the
Superfund program's National Priorities List in September 2001.
On June 24, 1999, EPA received a written request from the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), requesting that an emergency response action be
conducted at the site. In April 2000, EPA conducted an Integrated Assessment that consisted of
the collection of groundwater samples from off-site monitoring wells, two municipal supply
wells, and one private well (5 Railroad Avenue). Analytical data from this sampling indicate that
1,2,3-trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP) is present in the groundwater. A Preliminary Assessment was
conducted in 1983 by EPA, who recommended that ongoing cleanup of the site, with the
oversight of the SCDHS, be completed and that the threat to groundwater be defined. In 1991, a
Phase II investigation was conducted by the NYSDEC, which included a literature search and
on-site soil and groundwater sampling. In 1993, SCDHS conducted groundwater sampling
downgradient of the site. A Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was conducted by
NYSDEC in 1999. The RI/FS included groundwater sampling, surface soil sampling, and
subsurface soil sampling. The results of sampling conducted in connection with the site indicate
the presence of volatile organic compounds, including 1,2,3-TCP, tetrachloroethene, and
trichloroethene, in soil and groundwater. Metals and semi-volatile organic compounds, including
polycyclic aromatic compounds, have also been detected in soil on site. 1,2,3-TCP
concentrations in groundwater ranged up to 7,600 parts per billion at 600 feet downgradient of
the MacKenzie property line. 1,2,3-TCP was detected in the on-site wells sampled by NYSDEC
during the Phase II investigation, the off-site wells sampled by SCDHS, and the wells and other
79
-------
groundwater samples collected by NYSDEC during the RI/FS. According to SCDHS,
MacKenzie stored 1,2,3-TCP in three 10,000-gallon tanks on the property.
Other historical waste sources include other aboveground storage tanks, leaking drums, waste
lagoons, cesspools, and storm water drywells. The lagoons, cesspools, and drywells have been
sampled and found to contain contaminants attributable to facility operations, including 1,2,3-
TCP at concentrations up to 20,400 micrograms per kilogram.
An observed release of 1,2,3-TCP to groundwater is documented by the chemical analysis of
groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells during the EPA April 2000 Integrated
Assessment sampling event. The potential exists for hazardous substances from the site to impact
drinking water wells within four miles of the site. Drinking water within a four-mile radius of the
site is withdrawn by 53 municipal supply wells and one private supply well (5 Railroad Avenue)
drawing from the Upper Glacial and Magothy aquifers, which are hydraulically connected. The
nearest drinking water well is a municipal supply well located approximately 3,500 feet
southeast of the property. Drinking water wells within four miles of the site serve approximately
141,351 people.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: While operations at the site continued until
1987, EPA believes this site represents a case where releases or threatened releases occurred
primary before modern regulations were instituted. As noted above, poor housekeeping and
operational procedures were documented through 40 years of operation. Other contamination
sources also included storage tanks, leaking drums, two waste lagoons, a cesspool, and
stormwater drywells. Regulations applicable to environmental issues identified at this site
include: 40 CFR 262 - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste; 40 CFR 264 -
Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage, and Disposal; and
40 CFR 265 - Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment Storage, and Disposal. All of these regulations were initially promulgated in 1980 and
amended in 1984 through HSWA.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2003. Record of Decision:
MacKenzie Chemical Works Superfund Site. Region 2. Central Islip, NY.
80
-------
Marzone Inc./Chevron Chemical Co.
Facility Name: Marzone Inc./Chevron Chemical Co.
EPA Region/State: R4/Georgia
EPA SEMS ID: GAD991275686 EPA Registry ID: 110064307405 & 110005706584
Operation: 1950-1992
Construction Lead: Mixed Lead Construction
Expenditures: $7,030,919.58 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: The Marzone, Inc./Chevron Chemical Co. Site is located in
Tifton, GA. The site consisted of two separate areas (Operable Unit 1 and 2) used to formulate
various liquid and dry pesticides and fertilizer for approximately 30 years. From 1950 to 1992,
numerous companies owned and operated businesses at the site. On one portion of the site (OU-
1), different companies operated to blend and formulate pesticides from 1950 to 1983. Chevron
Chemicals initially operated at the site from 1950 to 1970 and during its operation a drum
storage facility, three 10,000-gallon solvent tanks, one 12,000-gallon toxaphene tank, and a
waste water pond were added. Other operators included Tifcton Chemical Co. (1970-1977),
Tifchem Products (1977-1978), and Marzone (1979-1982). In 1983, regular commercial
operations at the site ceased when Kova Fertilizer, Inc., purchased the property through
foreclosure. Over the years, pesticide products produced includes DDT, toxaphene, parathion,
methyl parathion, malathion, and chlordane, lindane, atrazine and Sulfur-based products. The
second portion of the site which makes up Operable Unit-2 may have also been used by different
companies including Golden Seed Inc., as a formulation and packing plant for pesticide and/or
fertilizers chemicals from 1967 until 1992.
Concerns at OU-1 area began as early as 1973. Following Tifchem Products' acquisition in 1977,
inspections conducted by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GaDNR) identified
repeated rinsate discharges to unlined drainage ditches and rinsate pond (lagoon) located on-site,
off-site discharges, and poor housekeeping practices inside and around the buildings. In 1979,
following Mazone's acquisition, GaDNR ordered Marzone to remove an estimated 70,000
pounds of pesticides which remained at the site from the Tifchem's operation. GaDNR also
required Marzone to close the rinsate pond (lagoon) and replace it with a system resulting in zero
discharge. A GaDNR inspection of the Site, following Kova's acquisition, also identified open
drums of pesticides and pesticide wastes on-site. In May 1984, EPA and the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division (GaEPD) inspected the site. Analyses conducted in
September 1984 indicated that pesticides, including toxaphene, lindane, methyl parathion,
atrazine, and endrin, were present in on-site soil and ground water.
During the Remedial Investigation for OU-1, significant pesticides and metals contamination
were also discovered in the soils and sediment in and around the Golden Seed Property.
Container of chemicals, including pesticides and herbicide were also found at the site. Because
81
-------
the Golden Seed Property serve as a separate source of contamination located 1000 feet away
from OU-1, the area managed under Operable Unit 2 (OU-2).
Regulatory Action/Response: Several enforcement and removal actions took at OU-1 site. In
1979, Marzone, in response to a GaEPD compliance order, removed 35 tons of sludge waste
from the rinsate pond area. In March 1984 after receiving a Notice of Violation, Kova Fertlizer
Inc. removed 5 tons of pesticide wastes and contaminated soil under GaEPD's direction. In
September 1984, the EPA conducted an investigation and based on the results of the
investigation, EPA removed approximately 1,700 tons of waste and shipped them to a permitted
hazardous waste landfill. In May 1985, Chevron conducted an additional removal of
contaminated materials from the rinsate pond and drainage ditches. Approximately 2,200 tons of
material was removed during this action. The Marzone, Inc./Chevron Chemical Company Site
was proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) in June 1988, and became final in August
1989. In September 1990, Kova Fertilizer, Inc., Kova of Georgia, Chevron Chemical Company,
and Billy G. Mitchell, signed an Administrative Order by Consent (AOC) with EPA agreeing to
develop and implement a Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study (RI/FS). As of 1999, the
remedial design and remedial action for OU-1 is being conducted by the PRP pursuant to UAO
issued by EPA in 1995.
Based on the EPA records review, very little enforcement activity by either the state or EPA
identified for OU-2. EPA led the investigation and cleanup activities for OU-2, in cooperation
with GAEPD. In 1993, EPA conducted a removal action at OU2 to remove chemicals,
contaminated debris, and heavily contaminated surface soils. Over 6000 tons of soils and debris
were removed and shipped to a permitted landfill. In 1998, EPA completed the remedial RI/FS
study for OU2 of the site.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: Based on the operational and contamination
history and removal actions, the release of a hazardous substance at OU-1 may have primarily
resulted due to the prel980 activity. According to EPA's record, pesticide formulating and
blending activities in and around OU-1 date back to the 1950s and continued until 1983.
Between 1979 to 1984, the PRPs and EPA conducted a number of removal actions. The PRP also
completed the RI/FS in 1995 and conducting the remedial action. The timelines suggest the
release of hazardous substances resulted from due pre-1980, and predate contemporary RCRA
and CERCLA regulations.
According to EPA's record rinsate discharges to unlined drainage ditches leading to rinsate pond
(lagoon) and the improper storage of pesticides and pesticide waste, poor housekeeping practices
at the site resulted from the soil and groundwater contaminations. Since 1980, the identified
waste management practices are now prohibited or regulated under RCRA, CERCLA, and
EPCRA regulations. For example, RCRA regulations for as generator of hazardous waste were
promulgated in 1980, and facilities would have been subject to hazardous waste management
standards found in 40 CRF 262, which include limits on duration and quantity for on-site
82
-------
accumulation of waste, technical standards for containers, and meeting standards for placing
waste on the land. In addition, the land disposal of the hazardous wastes would be subject to 40
CFR 264 requirements, which would require facilities to obtain a RCRA permit, meet unit
standards for the design and operation of the land disposal units and meet land disposal
restriction pretreatment standards prior to disposal (40 CFR 268). The storage and releases of
hazardous substances would also be subject to the reporting (40 CFR 370) and release
notification requirements of 40 CFR 302 and 40 CFR 355, which were promulgated in 1985 and
1986. Because these standards were put in place after the reported releases or threatened releases
of hazardous substances, EPA does not consider the OU-1 portion of this site to represent a case
where releases occurred after contemporary regulation.
The enforcement and initial response records for OU-1 also indicate that the removal actions
were performed mainly by the PRP. After the site listed on the NPL, the PRPs continued to
perform the RI/FS pursuant to AOC. Furthermore, the PRP was also responsible for remedial
design under the direction of EPA and continues to fund the cleanup activities. For these reasons
here and above, this portion of the site is not an appropriate case on which to base a CERCLA
108(b) rule.
Unlike OU-1, very little information was found for OU-2 about the history of contamination,
enforcement activities and the PRPs who were active on the site. According to EPA's record, the
formulation and package of pesticides may have occurred from 1967 to 1993. It appears that
improper handling and storage of pesticides resulted in surface soil and groundwater
contamination. It's unclear, however, whether the releases of hazardous substances resulting
from historical operations that predate contemporary regulations, or current activities subject to
modern regulations. If the releases continued until 1993 when the EPA conducted a short-term
cleanup action at OU-2, then such releases would be subject to the release notification
requirements under 40 CFR 302 and 40 CFR 355, which were promulgated 1985. Under this
regulation, notification to the National Response Center is required within a 24-hrs period for
releases of hazardous substances from facilities if the amount released exceeds the reportable
quantity. In addition, the on-site, storage of chemicals would also be subject to the reporting
requirements under (40 CFR 370) which were promulgated in 1986. However, enforcement
records revealed no violation was issued against the owner or operators. For OU-2, however,
EPA funded and performed the initial clean up response, the RI/FS and remedial activities.
Despite the government performed cleanup, there were undoubtedly significant legacy land
disposal issues; however, it is unclear if the releases identified in the early 1990s were from
contaminated media from legacy land disposal practices or a more current issue.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Record of Decision, Marzone Inc/Chevron
Chemical Co. Site Operable Unit 2. Region 4. Tifton, GA.
83
-------
• US EPA. Record of Decision, Mar zone Inc/Chevron Chemical Co. Site Operable Unit 1.
Region 4. Tifton, GA.
84
-------
Montrose Chemical Corporation
EPA Region/State: R9/California
EPA SEMS ID: CAD008242711 EPA Registry ID: 110002630608
Operation: 1947-1982
Construction Lead: Mixed Lead Construction
Expenditures: $152,236,944 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: Montrose Chemical Corporation operated a technical grade
dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) pesticide manufacturing plant in Los Angeles,
California from 1947 to 1982. Chlorobenzene and DDT are two of the primary contaminants
found in the environment at the Montrose Chemical Site. During its 35 years of operation,
Montrose operations included a series of trenches used to convey wastes and a waste disposal
pond (impoundment) which received wastewaters, DDT, and chlorobenzene. This pond also
received caustic liquors and acid tars. The soils under the Central Processing Area of the former
Montrose plant contain large quantities of chlorobenzene in Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
(DNAPL) form, as well as chlorobenzene dissolved in groundwater. The DNAPL occurs both
above and below the water table. Data collected during the remedial investigation suggest that
this DNAPL is a primary continuing source of groundwater contamination.
Periodic discharges of contamination from the Montrose plant into surface drainage and storm
water pathway, sanitary sewers, and the Pacific Ocean leading from the Montrose plant.
Wastewater containing significant concentrations of DDT was discharged from the Montrose
plant into the sewers, flowed through the Los Angeles Sanitation District's Joint Water Pollution
Control Plant and was discharged to the ocean waters of the Palos Verdes Shelf through the
outfalls. Montrose's discharge of DDT reportedly stopped in about 1971. The former Montrose
Chemical Corporation site was added to the NPL in October 1989.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: Based on the review, this case represents a
release of hazardous substances or other pollution activities that occurred before modern
regulations. As discussed above, the Montrose facility was engaged in the production of DDT for
35 years, which was banned by EPA in 1972. While the facility ceased its operation in 1982,
based on the operational history of the facility, much of the releases of hazardous substances
largely occurred due to pre-1980 activities, which predate most applicable modern regulations.
For many of the releases identified that predate 1980 are now prohibited or regulated under
various statutes including ,the Clean Water Act, RCRA, and Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). For example, as a generator of hazardous waste, the facility would be
subject to hazardous waste management standards found in 40 CRF 262, which include time and
quantity limits for an on-site accumulation of hazardous waste, container standards for design
and operation, and standards for placing waste on the land. Under 40 CFR 264, the disposal of
85
-------
the hazardous wastes would also require the facility to obtain a RCRA permit, meet unit
standards for the design and operation of the land disposal units and meet land disposal
restriction pretreatment standards prior to disposal. Similarly, under CWA technology-based
effluent limitations for pesticide manufacturing (40 CFR 455) has been in place since 1978 (last
amended 1996). The disposal of hazardous substances into sanitary sewer systems are also
subject to pretreatment standards found in 40 CFR 403. While it's possible that releases post-
1980 may have occurred, but based on available information, it is difficult to determine if
disposal units or practices were part of the site's post-1980 or past operation.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2009. Interim Record of Decision:
Operable Unit 5 of Montrose Chemical Corporation SuperfundSite. Region 9. Los
Angeles County, CA.
• US EPA. 1999. Record of Decision for Groundwater Operable Unit of Montrose
Chemical and Del Amo Superfund Site. Region 09. Los Angeles County, CA
86
-------
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical Co.
EPA Region/State: R5/Michigan
EPA SEMS ID: MID060174240 EPA Registry ID: 110001829512 & 110014351520
Operation: 1957-1985
Construction Lead: Government Performed Construction
Expenditures: $113,519,779 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: The Ott/Story/Cordova site in Muskegon County, Michigan, is a
former organic chemical production facility that operated under at least three owners from 1957
until 1985 and used as many as five unlined seepage lagoons to dispose of industrial wastewaters
and production vessel residues. These practices resulted in contamination of groundwater, soils,
and nearby Little Bear Creek and its unnamed tributary. Approximately 10,000 drums of waste
material, some of which contained phosgene gas, were also stockpiled on-site. By the 1970s,
lagoon usage on a day-to-day basis began to give way to usage for cooling water only, as
measures to help protect the integrity of water supply wells needed for facility operation. While
lagoon usage as a day to day method of handling plant process flows declined over time, the
sludges in the lagoons were not removed until several years later. From 1964 through 1974,
groundwater pumping to slow a contamination plume was conducted by both Ott and Story
Chemical companies. However, that effort was characterized as largely ineffectual. By about
1973 or 1974, the plant extended the pipe line to the Muskegon County Publicly Operated
Treatment Works (POTW). In the late 1970s, pursuant to a legal settlement, Cordova Chemical
Company destroyed tanks of phosgene gas on site and funded the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR) in its efforts to remove several thousand waste drums, thousands of
cubic yards of lagoon sludges, and contaminated soils from the site. CPC International, parent of
Ott Chemical Co, installed an alternate water supply in 1982 to settle a citizen's suit. In 1981, the
MDNR referred the Ott/Story/Cordova site to U.S. EPA for inclusion in the newly established
Superfund program. In 1982, the site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL).
Production wastewater discharges from the site to the POTW via the pipeline continued until
1985.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: EPA categorized releases at this site as legacy.
As indicated in the risk description, the Ott/Story/Cordova site facility was engaged in the
production of various organic chemicals for 28 years before ceasing its operation in 1985. Based
on the operational history of the facility, much of the releases of hazardous substances associated
with disposal of process wastewater and on-site storage of waste drums occurred due to pre-1980
activities, which predate most applicable modern RCRA regulations. Identified releases that
predate 1980 are now prohibited or regulated under different statutes including the Clean Water
Act, and RCRA. For example, as a RCRA hazardous waste generator, the facility would be
87
-------
subject to hazardous waste management standards found in 40 CFR 262, which include
limitation on-site accumulation of hazardous waste, accumulation time limits, technical standards
for hazardous waste storage containers, and land disposal restriction. Furthermore, the land
disposal of the hazardous wastes would be subject to 40 CFR 264 requirements, which would
require the facility to obtain a RCRA permit, meet unit standards for the design and operation of
the land disposal units and meet land disposal restriction pretreatment standards prior to disposal
(40 CFR 268). Process wastewater sent to public owner treatment facility would also be subject
to pretreatment standards found in 40 CFR 403.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1989. Record of Decision:
Ott/Story/Cordova Site. North Muskegon, MI.
88
-------
Pemaco Maywood
EPA Region/State: R9/California
EPASEMSID: CAD980737092 EPA Registry ID: 110064125931 & 110002671378
Operation: 1940s-1991
Construction Lead: Government Performed Construction
Expenditures: 50,835,448.13 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: Pemaco Maywood is a four-acre facility that housed a chemical
blending facility operated by Pemaco, Inc. between the late 1940s and 1991. Hazardous
chemicals stored at the facility in underground and aboveground storage tanks and drums
included chlorinated and aromatic solvents, flammable liquids, petroleum hydrocarbons, and
other volatile organic compounds. There were 31 underground storage tanks, six aboveground
storage tanks, and more than 400 drums on site when the facility was investigated by the Los
Angeles County Fire Department in 1992. During the Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) conducted
in May 1997, several volatile organic compounds were identified in near-surface and deep soil
samples, as well as perched ground water and an underlying regional aquifer. Floating product
consisting of total petroleum hydrocarbons (gasoline) and 12 volatile organic compounds was
recovered from three wells drawing from the perched ground water. Aqueous samples from 10
other wells in the perched ground water zone contained several chlorinated hydrocarbons such as
tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), 1,1,1- trichloroethane (TCA), 1,1- and 1,2-
dichloroethenes, 1,1- dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride. The Pemaco facility was a large
quantity hazardous waste generator when it was in operation. Regulatory involvement at the site
was limited to EPA, with some involvement from the Los Angeles County Fire Department and
the City of Maywood.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: EPA believes this site represents a case where
releases or threatened releases occurred before contemporary regulations were instituted. Federal
regulations (technical standards, corrective actions, and financial responsibility) pertaining to
underground storage tanks (UST) were promulgated in 1988. While the facility ceased its
operation in 1991, much of its activities predate the UST regulations. Many of the releases
identified that predates modern UST regulations are now prohibited or regulated. For example,
owners and operators of underground storage tanks must meet the technical requirements under
40 CFR 280, including leak detection, leak prevention, and corrective action for all USTs
containing regulated substances. EPA also published FR requirements for UST owners and
operator, to demonstrate financial responsibility and perform correction actions under 40 CFR
280 & 281.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2005 .Record of Decision: Pemaco
SuperfundSite. Region 09. Maywood, CA.
89
-------
Pierson's Creek
Facility Name: Troy Chemical Corporation
EPA Region/State: R2 - New Jersey
EPA SEMS ID: NJD002144517 EPA Registry ID: 110040929369
Operation: Facility 1956-Present (Other industrial uses on site dating back to the early 1800's)
Construction Lead: Mixed Lead Construction (Government/PRP)
Expenditures: $905,102.55 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: The Pierson's Creek site is located in an industrial area of
Newark, New Jersey. The site consists of Pierson's Creek, which discharges to Newark Bay,
located approximately 1.5 miles downstream of its headwaters, and several sources of
contamination to the creek, including the Troy Chemical Corporation facility. The Troy
Chemical Corporation facility, which manufactures antimicrobial and antifungal paint additives
and related products, is located just upstream of Pierson's Creek. Prior to the facility's current
operations, which began in 1956, the facility was occupied by other industrial operators since the
late 1800s.
Mercury compounds were manufactured on-site 1957 to 1987. The ground water migration, soil
exposure, and air migration pathways are adversely affected and are of potential concern, as the
information in the HRS documentation record indicates. Soil and ground water contamination is
widespread throughout the Troy property, and there was an air release from the facility in
January 2011 that had an adverse effect on workers at the adjacent Federal Express facility. The
manufacturing plant ("Plant") located on the Property manufactured mercury compounds from
approximately 1956 until approximately 1980.
Manufacturing processes included purification of mercury, production of mercuric oxide from
mercury and the manufacture of organic mercury compounds using mercuric oxide.
The mercuric oxide manufacturing process at the Plant was reported to be the primary source of
mercury-bearing wastewater at the Plant, accounting for approximately 7,000 gallons per week.
Other sources of mercury-bearing wastewater included spillage, leakage, and washing of
equipment and floors of the mercury production areas of the Plant. The Plant discharged its
mercury-bearing wastewater directly into Pierson's Creek without any treatment until 1965.
Sulfide precipitation pretreatment was used from 1965 until 1976. In 1976, the Plant was
connected to the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission ("PVSC") sewer system and began
diverting wastewater from the mercury pretreatment system to an overall wastewater treatment
plant where wastewaters were treated by settling, removal of suspended solids and oil, and
neutralization before subsequent discharge to the PVSC system. There were reported instances of
mercury-containing wastewater and stormwater discharges from the Plant into Pierson's Creek
after the Plant's connection to the PVSC sewer system.
90
-------
Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response:
The site has been the focus of numerous investigations since the 1970s, but actions, to date, have
not addressed mercury contamination downstream. An NJDEP inspection in July 1977 revealed
numerous pipes discharging into the Creek, none of which were depicted on the site plan for the
facility. During an April 28, 1980 inspection, NJDEP observed stormwater and wastewater
flowing into the Creek and its unnamed tributary via runoff, pipes, cracks in the Creek's concrete
walls adjacent to a building at the Plant and tank farm, and overflow from the Plant's industrial
wastewater collection sump. All of these discharges were found to contain mercury.
In July 1979, EPA collected a sediment sample from the Creek just downstream of the Plant's
mercury wastewater treatment system and reported a mercury concentration of 22,400
milligrams per kilogram ("mg/kg") compared to upstream concentrations of 140 and 191 mg/kg.
EPA also reported mercury concentrations above background for samples collected downstream
of the Plant. The same report indicates a significant increase in water concentrations for benzene,
which was a raw material at the Troy Chemical facility.
A Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation was completed 12/31/1989.
Investigations by Troy Chemical, NJDEP, and EPA have indicated significant increases in
sediment mercury concentrations at and downstream of the facility compared to upstream
sediment concentrations, as recently as 2010.
EPA conducted an investigation of Pierson's Creek in October 2012, which confirmed the
observed release of mercury to the creek sediments. Mercury was detected in sediment samples
collected throughout the accessible portions of the creek, and a site-attributable observed release
is documented for a distance of approximately 0.25 mile downstream of the Troy facility.
The site was finalized on the National Priorities List on 09/22/2014.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: The facility was subject to RCRA and the CWA
at the time of listing, but due to the age of the site, it is not a modern representation of risk. EPA
placed the site on the Superfund National Priorities List NPL in 1983 because of mercury
contamination in the Pierson Creek waterway from the Troy Chemical Company. The Pierson's
creek site is part of a heavily used industrial area that has been in use since the late 1800s; this
site has been operating since 1956. Clean Water Act 40 CFR Part 122 National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System and 40 CFR 122.26 storm water discharges were not established
until 1972, and the 40 CFR Part 403 General Pretreatment Regulations for Exiting or and New
Sources of pollution wasn't established until 1981. In 2001, the EPA reached a settlement with
Troy Chemical that required the facility to come into compliance with chemical reporting
91
-------
regulations and make improvements to reduce air and water pollution and decrease the amount of
chemicals the company uses in its processes. The New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection has also worked to resolve air and water violations resulting from operations at the
plant. This facility is still in operation today.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2018. Superfund Site Profile
Webpage. Region 2. Newark, NJ. Accessed in July 2018. Available at:
https://cumulis. epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index. cfm?fuseaction=second.docdata&id
=0200114
• US EPA. 2017. Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order of Consent For
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Pierson's Creek Superfund Site Operable Unit
2. Region 2. NJ.
• US EPA. 2013. Hazard Ranking System Volume 1 Package, Troy Chemical Corporation.
Newark, NJ.
92
-------
Publicker Industries Inc.
EPA Region/State: R3/Pennsylvania
EPA SEMS ID: PAD981939200 EPA Registry ID: 110016715508 & 110010629267
Operation: 1912-1986
Construction Lead: Mixed Lead Construction (Government/PRP)
Expenditures: $29,104,613 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: The 40-acre Publicker Industries Inc. site is located in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, along the Delaware River near the Walt Whitman Bridge. Publicker
Industries produced liquor and facility also operated at the site during the late 1970s and 1980s.
The site included large tanks, storage drums, product stock, chemical laboratories, production
buildings, warehouses, a power plant and several hundred miles of aboveground and
underground process lines. Historical operations at the site contaminated soil and groundwater
with hazardous chemicals.industrial alcohols from 1912 to 1985. As production declined in the
late 1970s, the company used some of its tanks to store fuel oils for other companies. A
petroleum product and chemical storage
In 1986, Overland Corp. purchased the facility. Shortly after starting demolition operations,
Overland declared bankruptcy and abandoned the facility. A bankruptcy trustee was appointed
for the estate of Overland Corp. When Overland abandoned the site, it contained over 400 tanks,
rail cars, and tank cars holding approximately 2 million gallons of hazardous materials;
approximately 1,200 drums; four chemical laboratories with an estimated 7,000 containers of
known content (including acids, explosive compounds, and flammable compounds) and 5,000
containers of unknown content; 180 cylinders holding toxic, flammable, and reactive gases; 150
pieces of electrical equipment, some containing PCBs; several hundred miles of aboveground
and underground transfer lines, some covered with asbestos; reaction vessels; production
buildings; and two power houses. Most of the vessels and transfer lines apparently held
hazardous materials and were leaking or in disrepair due to neglect or vandalism. Security
measures were inadequate. Shallow on-site ground water is contaminated with toluene,
according to tests conducted in 1986 by a contractor to a subsidiary of Overland Corp.
In June 1987, a portion of the facility was destroyed in a multialarm fire during which numerous
explosions and fire flares were reported. EPA performed a site inspection on July 9, 1987 and
observed the presence of hazardous substances throughout the site. On September 4, 1987, EPA
and Publicker entered into a Consent Order under CERCLA Section 106. On December 7, 1987,
EPA initiated a removal action. The removal action significantly stabilized conditions by
addressing the fire and explosion threats on the surface. Wherever possible, solid and liquid
waste streams were bulked and stored on-site for future disposal. Highly reactive laboratory
wastes and gas cylinders were transported to facilities regulated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). To date, EPA has spent $6.5 million in CERCLA
emergency funds.
93
-------
In January 1988, EPA detected n-butyl chloride in routine air monitoring at the site. The
contaminant was traced to a leaking tank holding the chemicals. An estimated 3,600 people live
within 1 mile of the site. In May 1988, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources found toluene and xylene in deep on-site ground water in the Raritan-Magothy
Aquifer. An estimated 184,000 people obtain drinking water from public wells drawing from this
aquifer within 3 miles of the site, the nearest within 1.4 miles.
On November 5th, 1987, Publicker Industries, Inc. was criminally charged with one count of
illegal storage of hazardous wastes without a permit in violation of RCRA, Sec. 3008(d)(2)(A)
[42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(2)(A)], Publicker pled guilty and was sentenced in 1988 to a $50,000 fine.
In February EPA placed the site on the Superfund program's National Priorities List (NPL) in
1989. Following cleanup, the site was removed from the NPL in 2000. Operation and
maintenance activities are ongoing.
Regulatory Action/Response:
Concurrent with the investigation and cleanup of the Site, there were a series of legal actions
taken by EPA in order to clean-up the site and recover costs the federal government spent. On
July 7, 1987, EPA and Bruga Corporation signed a legal document, known as a Consent Order,
formalizing Bruga's cleanup responsibilities for this Site. Under the Order, Bruga dismantled and
decontaminated personal property in two portions of the Site it had purchased from the bankrupt
estate. On December 8, 1988, EPA and AAA Warehousing Inc. entered into a separate Consent
Order. Under this Order, AAA removed some stainless steel tanks and rail tank cars it owned.
On December 19, 1990, EPA filed a cost recovery action against Publicker Industries and
Cuyahoga Wrecking/Overland Corporation to recover government funds spent on the Site.
Cuyahoga Wrecking/Overland Corporation filed for bankruptcy. The cost recovery case with
Publicker Industries was settled on December 28, 1995. In this agreement, Publicker Industries
agreed to pay the United States $13.35 million plus interest and the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection $1 million plus interest.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: Legacy. Publicker Industries produced liquor
and industrial alcohols from 1912 to 1985. A petroleum product and chemical storage facility
also operated at the site during the late 1970s and 1980s, and was abandoned in 1986. Only the
activities of industrial alcohol manufacturing are applicable in the scope of this analysis (NAICS
325193 nonportable alcohol manufacturing). It is not clear to what extent the contamination was
a result of the chemical manufacturing activities that would be covered by RCRA, EPA
concludes that the 325 activities did not occur during a modern regulation framework and are
therefore categorized as legacy.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1995. Record of Decision:
Publicker Industries Site Operable Unit #3. Region 3. Philadelphia, PA.
94
-------
• US EPA. 1991. Record of Decision: Publicker Industries Site. Region 3. Philadelphia,
PA.
95
-------
Sonford Products
EPA Region/State: R4/Mississippi
EPA SEMS ID: MSD086556388 EPA Registry ID: 110003996962
Operation: 1972-1985
Construction Lead: Government Performed Construction
Expenditures: $13,722,545 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description:
From 1972 to 1985, two separate chemical processing plants operated under the company name
Sonford International and Sonford Products. The operations of both companies involved turning
pentachlorphenol (PCP) into liquid formulations. Sonford International operated at the Site from
1972 to 1980 and produced a water-soluble product, sodium pentachlorophenate, used for the
short-termed protection of wood products from mildew. Sonford Products operated at the Site
from 1980 to March 1985 (MBPC, 1989b). Sonford Products produced an oil-soluble PCP
product used for the long-term protection of wood products. In addition to the PCP product,
Sonford Products also produced products for the control of pests and products to control the
growth of mold and sap stains in freshly cut lumber.
On September 3, 1980, a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)Notification for a
Part A permit was filed by Sonford Products, which resulted in the facility being classified as a
RCRA generator where the hazardous wastes were required to be shipped off-site within 90
days.
Mississippi Beaurau of Pollution Control (MBPC) conducted a hazardous waste inspection on
December 31, 1980, at the facility. This inspection identified waste and waste quantities
generated during the facility's operations including 550 pounds of PCP and 6,000 pounds of
sodium pentachlorophenat. The waste product generated during the production of PCP was a
sludge, which was stored in drums at the facility and transported for disposal at Chemical Waste
Management in Emelle, Alabama. The sodium pentachlorophenate was also stored on site in
drums and then transported to another Sonford Products facility in St. Paul, Minnesota for reuse.
On April 18, 1985, approximately 2,000 gallons of PCP were spilled into the wetlands on the
parcel immediately south of the facility. Mississippi Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
responded to the spill and began remediation of the wetland area. The wetland was contaminated
with PCP, mercury, lindane, and phenylmercuric acetate. On April 21, 1985, EPA assumed
responsibility for the response action at the Site. Remediation of the wetland included the
excavation and removal of approximately 2,500 cubic yards of impacted soils. The contaminated
soils were transported to a chemical waste disposal facility in Emelle, Alabama. The remediation
efforts also included the disposal of more than 10,000 gallons of oil and treating solution at an
incinerator in South Carolina and the treatment and disposal of approximately 100,000 gallons of
existing wastewater. EPA response action for the 2,000 gallon PCP release was completed on
May 10, 1985.
96
-------
In June of 1985, MBPC prepared a Preliminary Assessment (PA), which detailed site
operations, releases, and response actions at the Sonford Products facility. The Site was assessed
as a medium priority for further inspection. On July 10, 1985, a Site Inspection (SI) was prepared
by MBPC, which included documentation of site operations, past site activities, enforcement /
response actions, and ownership data
In September 1989, a PA Reassessment was prepared for the Sonford Products facility by
MBPC. No sampling occurred in preparation of this report but based upon previous sampling
results from previous investigations MBPC recommended no further remedial action for the Site.
From April 1985 until January 1989, the Sonford Products facility was unoccupied. In January
1989, Sunrise Truck Lines began leasing the property. Sunrise Truck Lines transported non-food
dry commodities, which were not stored on-site. The actual length of time Sunrise Truck Lines
leased the property is unknown. More recent changes in site conditions prompted the need for an
updated PA/SI. These changes included the addition of a multifamily residential structure with
people living and working at the Site. Currently, no one resides at the Site; but, there are still
employees working on-site.
In 2004 Weston Solutions, Inc. (Weston) a contractor for the EPA, prepared a PA/SI for the Site.
The PA/SI was prepared in order to determine if the Site had the potential to be placed on the
National Priorities List (NPL). The results of the updated PA/SI supported a listing of the Site on
the NPL. EPA listed the Site on the NPL in March 2007.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: EPA considers this site represents a legacy
contamination. This is because as mentioned above, the soil, groundwater, surface water, and
sediment at and closely surrounding the Site were contaminated as a result of the former
chemical processing operations pre-RCRA and pre-HSWA
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2010. Record of Decision: Sonford
Products SuperfundSite Operable Unit 2. Region 4. Flowood, MS.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2009. Record of Decision: Sonford
Products Superfund Site Operable Unit 1. Region 4. Flowood, MS.
97
-------
Standard Chlorine
EPA Region/State: R2/New Jersey
EPA SEMS ID: NJD002175057 EPA Registry ID: 110001532985 & 110046353272
Operation: 1920-1993
Construction Lead: Mixed Lead Construction
Expenditures: $965,107 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: Chemical manufacturing occurred at the 25-acre facility from
1916 to 1993. Operations included the production and refinement of naphthalene, the storage and
packaging of 1,4-dichlorobenzene moth preventatives and deodorizers, the production of dye
carriers, and the processing of liquid petroleum naphthalene for the manufacture of moth balls
and flakes, as well as several other manufacturing activities.
The primary areas of concern include contaminated soils throughout the site, and two lagoons
located on the eastern portion of the facility property. Another concern is an area contaminated
with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the vicinity of a former transformer. All these areas
appear to ultimately drain into the Hackensack River. Contamination in the soils and
groundwater also appears to discharge directly to surface water bodies. Tanks and drums that
contained various site-related hazardous substances, including dioxin contaminated asbestos,
also were present at the facility. In addition, contaminated fill material from non-site related
chromium ore processing activities was present on the site property, as well as on other
properties in the Hackensack Meadowlands. Sampling conducted between 1992 and 2002
indicate that a release of site-related hazardous substances has occurred to the Hackensack River
and adjacent wetlands. Dioxins, dichlorobenzenes, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, naphthalene, benzene,
and chlorobenzene, as well as several other semi volatile and volatile organic compounds, have
been detected at varying levels.
Fish consumption warnings (particularly crab) and a health advisory have been issued for the
Hackensack River due to PCBs and dioxin contamination, originating in part from the Standard
Chlorine site. The site lies in the Hackensack Meadowlands which has been identified by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a Significant Habitat Complex of the New York Bight
Watershed at the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) New York - New
Jersey Harbor Estuary Program and may be a habitat for some state or Federal designated
endangered and/or threatened species.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: EPA believes this site represents a case where
releases or threatened releases occurred primary before modern regulations were instituted. As
mentioned above, the chemical manufacturing activities at this site date back to the 1920s.
98
-------
Significant contamination and releases of hazardous substances resulted due to pre-1980
activities, which included the discharge of waste and wastewater into unlined lagoons, and soil
contamination with PCB and chromium. These practices are now prohibited or regulated under
RCRA and CWA. For example, regulations applicable to environmental issues identified at this
site include: 40 CFR 262 - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste; 40 CFR
264 - Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage, and
Disposal; and 40 CFR 265 - Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment Storage, and Disposal. All of these regulations were initially promulgated in
1980 and amended in 1984 through Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA). In
addition, direct discharge to surface water from wastewater treatment units or stormwater
discharges are regulated through the NPDES permitting program under 40 CFR 122. While
much of the historical releases predate modern regulation, continued releases of site-related
hazardous substances to ground water were also documented since the early 1980s. While these
post-1980 releases may likely have occurred, it is difficult to determine if the disposal units were
part of the site's post-1980 operation or pre-1980 operations. Details of such releases were not
specifically identified in the EPA documents reviewed.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2016. Record of Decision: Standard
Chlorine Chemical Company, Inc. Region 2. Hudson County, NJ.
99
-------
Syncon Resins
EPA Region/State: R2/New Jersery
EPA SEMS ID: NJD064263817 EPA Registry ID: 110029379205
Operation: 1951-1982
Construction Lead: Government Performed Construction
Expenditures: $48,532,163 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: Operations at the Syncon Resins facility believed to have begun
in 1951. The Syncon Resins facility produced alkyd resin carriers for pigments, paints, and
varnish products. To support the manufacturing operation, the site consisted of 13 buildings, two
unlined lagoons, numerous large bulk storage tanks, underground storage tanks, and at least two
chemical reactor buildings housing stainless steel vessels. In the production process, excess
xylene or toluene was separated from the wastewater and was reused in subsequent reactions.
The remaining wastewater was pumped to an unlined lagoon to evaporate or percolate into the
soil. The site also contained approximately 12,800 55-gallon drums. Some of the 55-gallon
drums had rusted, spilling their contents onto the soil. Investigations of the site found extensive
contamination of the groundwater, soil, buildings, vessels and tanks. Groundwater was
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including toluene, xylenes, and
trichloroethylene (TCE) and heavy metals such as lead and nickel. Contaminants in the
sediments included heavy metals, VOCs, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Soil was
contaminated with the pesticides DDT and aldrin, as well as heavy metals, VOCs, and PCBs.
Potential health threats existed through direct contact with soils, accidental ingestion of soils, and
inhalation of contaminated dust. The site is situated within a coastal wetland area, which could
be at risk from contaminant runoff. In May 1977, the owners of Syncon Resins filed for
bankruptcy under Chapterl 1 of the Bankruptcy Act. In November 1981, NJDEP investigated the
site and ordered its owners to control and contain hazardous material at the site. The company
ceased all operation in 1982. In 1982, a limited Site Investigation was conducted by NJDEP and
EPA, which identified widespread soil and groundwater contamination. Between late 1982 to
early 1984, the State removed all the exposed 55-gallon drums from the site. In early 1990, the
site was fenced to provide additional security during cleanup. On September 1, 1983 Syncon
Resins was placed on the National Priorities List of Superfund Sites.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: EPA categorized this site as legacy
contamination. While the facility was in operation until 1982, based on the operational history of
the facility, much of the releases of hazardous substances primarily occurred due to pre-1980
activities, which predate most applicable modern regulations. The releases identified that predate
1980 are now prohibited or regulated under different statutes including the CERCLA, EPRACA,
CERCLA, and UST. For example, as a generator of hazardous waste, the facility would be
subject to the on-site accumulation quantity and time limits requirements under 40 CFR 262. In
addition, on-site storage of hazardous waste must meet the technical standards for containers,
100
-------
tanks, drip pads, or containment buildings. Disposal in the unlined lagoon would also be illegal
based on standards for owners and operators of TSDF under 40 CFR 264 Subpart K. The facility
would also be required to report the release of hazardous substances federal and state authorities
based on reporting requirements found in 40 CFR 302 AND 40 CFR 355. Similarly, the
underground storage of hazardous chemicals would be subject to the technical standards and
financial responsibility requirements of UST regulations. While post-1980 releases may or may
not have occurred, based on available information, it is difficult to determine if there were
releases resulting from the post-1980 activity.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2010. Record of Decision Amendment
- Operable Unit 2: Syncon Resins Superfund Site. Region 2. Hudson County, NJ.
• US EPA. 2000. Record of Decision Amendment - Operable Unit2: Syncon Resins
Superfund Site. Region 2. Hudson County, NJ.
• US EPA. 1986. Record of Decision: Remedial Alternative Selection - Syncon Resins
Superfund Site. Region 2. Hudson County, NJ.
101
-------
Tower Chemical Company
EPA Region/State: 4
EPA SEMS ID: FLD004065546 EPA Registry ID: 110009274668
Operation: 1957-1981
Construction Lead: Government Performed Construction
Expenditures: $21,410,621 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: The Tower Chemical Company (TCC) site is an abandoned
pesticide manufacturing facility located approximately five miles east of downtown Clermont,
Florida. The main site, including the original production facility, wastewater pond, and
burn/burial pit, is approximately 16 acres. From 1957 to 1981, TCC manufactured and stored
various pesticides used primarily in the citrus industry. TCC discharged acidic process
wastewater into a 0.5-acre, unlined seepage/evaporation pond, which was located over a former
sinkhole area. This created a leaching conduit into the deeper Floridan aquifer. In the last year of
operation, TCC disposed of acidic wastewater on a spray irrigation field off site, southwest of the
waste water pond. TCC also burned and buried its waste on a 1.5-acre portion of the site in the
early years of operation. In 1980, the wastewater pond overflowed into an on-site drainage ditch
and then flowed downstream into the Gourd Neck of Lake Apopka, where vegetation and aquatic
animals were affected. TCC ceased manufacturing operations in December 1980. Investigations
at the site documented the presence of pesticides and metals in water, soil sediment and
groundwater. These substances included DDT, kelthane, dibromochloropropane, chlorobenzilate,
arsenic, cadmium, copper and zinc.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: Activities at this site may represent a legacy
issue. As indicated in the risk description, the TCC facility was engaged in the production of
pesticides for 33 years before ceasing its operation in 1981. Based on the operational history of
the facility, much of the releases of hazardous substances mostly occurred due to pre-1980
activities, which predate most applicable RCRA regulations initially promulgated in 1980 and
revised in 1984 under Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendment (HSWA). For example, as a
generator of hazardous waste, the facility would be subject to requirements found under 40 CFR
262, which include on-site accumulation quantity, accumulation time limits, technical standards
for containers, and meeting standards for placing waste on the land. Furthermore, the land
disposal of the hazardous wastes would be subject to 40 CFR 264 and 265 requirements, which
would require the facility to obtain a RCRA permit, meet unit standards for the design and
operation of the land disposal units. The facility would also be required to meet land disposal
restriction pretreatment standards prior to disposal under 40 CFR 268.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2006. Record of Decision: Tower
Chemical Company, Operable Unit 03. Region 04. Clermont, FL.
102
-------
Triangle Chemical Company
EPA Region/State: R6/Texas
EPA SEMS ID: TXD055143705 EPA Registry ID: 110009312984
Operation: 1970s-1981 (Bankruptcy)
Construction Lead: Government Lead Construction
Expenditures: $2,547,236 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: Triangle Chemical Company produced antifreeze, windshield
wash solvent, industrial cleaning compounds, hand cleaners, and brake fluids on a 4.5- acre site
in Bridge City, Orange County, Texas. Operations started in the early 1970s. In 1981, the
company discontinued operations, declared bankruptcy, and abandoned the facility.
About 900 drums and several large tanks of hazardous substances were left at the facility. In
April 1982, using $8,082 in CERCLA emergency funds, EPA fenced the site. In August 1982,
using $74,755 in CERCLA emergency funds, EPA removed the drums and some contaminated
soil and sent them to an approved disposal site. A 1981 cost recovery action for $148K was filed
with the bankruptcy court based on $213K in expenditures. No funds were recovered.
During the company's operating period various types of industrial cleaning compounds,
automobile brake fluid, windshield washer solvents, hand cleaners, and pesticides were produced
raw materials and finished products were stored in bulk surface storage tanks and 55-gallon
drums on the site. During the latter period of plant operation, numerous fish kills in Coon Bayou
were reported by the local residents. Subsequent Investigations by the Texas Department of
Water Resources (TDWR) indicated that these fish kills could have been the result of discharges
of hazardous materials from the site.
In August 1981, TDWR acquired a temporary injunction against Triangle Chemical Company,
calling for compliance with pollution control laws and prevention of further untreated discharges
from the site. In October 1981, TDWR found the site to be abandoned. Limited sampling of
drums, spill areas, runoff areas, and Coon Bayou documented that hazardous materials were
located on-site and were migrating offsite via stormwater runoff and direct discharge reinforcing
the possibility that the fish kills could have been caused by hazardous material spills from the
site. The drums stored on-site were noted to be in a deteriorated condition with some bulging and
leaking. After the Trustee in bankruptcy for the Triangle Chemical Company indicated that the
company assets were insufficient to perform any necessary cleanup work at the site, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated an Immediate Removal Action under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to deter
public access to hazardous materials on the site in April 1982. This action consisted of (1)
building a six-foot high chain link and barbed wire fence around the material storage area, (2)
posting warning signs around the site, and (3) constructing a drainage canal in front of the main
drum storage area to prevent runoff from reaching Highway 87. The cost of this action was
$8,082 25.
103
-------
In August 1982, a Planned Removal Action was conducted to remove the drams and
contaminated debris at the site. Under this action, the drums were staged and liquids were
pumped to bulk transport trucks for offsite disposal. Empty drums were crushed and removed
from the site along with contaminated trash and soil. The soil removal operations were limited to
the drum staging and crushing area. The wastes removed from the site during this action were
taken to an approved hazardous waste disposal site owned by Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
in Port Arthur, Texas and included 21,000 gallons of liquid, 350 cubic yards of contaminated soil
and trash, and 1,095 55-gallon drums. The cost of this action was $74,755.25.
In July 1982, TDWR nominated the Triangle Chemical Company for inclusion on the National
Priorities List. The site ranked high enough to be placed on the list and became eligible for
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) funding. In August, 1983, a cooperative
agreement between EPA and the State of Texas was approved, awarding $183,000 to conduct the
studies. The on-site activities for the remedial investigation were completed in April 1984 and
the final report was received in September 1984. The Feasibility Study was initiated in August
1984 and completed in March 1985.
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: Based on the history of the site, EPA considers
this site represents a case where releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances occurred
mostly before modern regulations were instituted. In August 1981, Texas acquired a temporary
injunction against Triangle Chemical Company, calling for compliance with pollution control
laws and prevention of further untreated discharges from the site. In October 1981, TDWR found
the site to be abandoned. Additionally, modern CWA regulations such as the ELG for Pesticides
Manufacturing in 1996 were not yet promogulated.
Reference:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1985. Record of Decision:
Triangle Chemical Company, Inc. Region 6. Bridge City, TX.
104
-------
Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc.
Facility Name: Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc.
EPA Region/State: R4/Georgia
EPA SEMS ID: GAD003269578 EPA Registry ID: 110064243215
Operation: 1910-1999
Construction Lead: Mixed Lead Construction
Expenditures: $62,951,343.33 (Total Expenditures)
Site Background/Description: The Woolfolk Chemical Works Site in Fort Valley, Georgia
includes the facility where Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc., its successors, and several other
companies produced, formulated, and/or packaged pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides
(including arsenic and lead-based products) from 1910 to 1999. Although initially a lime-sulfur
manufacturing plant, the facility began producing arsenic-based pesticides around 1921.
Production expanded during the 1950s to include dichlorodiphenyl-trichlorethane (DDT),
lindane, toxaphene, and other chlorinated pesticides. In 1977, a subsidiary of Reichold, Inc.
acquired the stock of Woolfolk Chemical Works Inc. and later changed the name of the
corporation to Canadyne Georgia Corporation (CGC). CGC continued manufacturing pesticides
at the Site. CGC ceased operations and sold most of the buildings and property to Peach County
Property, Inc (PCPI) in 1984. Since then the company changed hands several times while the
manufacturing of various organic pesticide had continued until 1999.
Contamination at the Site was first investigated in the 1980s when Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (GAEPD) investigated complaints from local citizens that CGC was
discharging waste products to a drainage corridor heading away from the Site. These effluents
would flow into an open ditch located south of the plant and then into Big Indian Creek. Further
investigation at site also revealed that extensive contamination of surface soil, ground water and
surface water resulted from the handling pesticide products over the years and the use of an
unlined disposal pits on the former facility properties. Tests conducted by the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division in 1985 and 1986 detected metals and pesticides, including
arsenic, lead, chlordane, DDT, lindane, and toxaphene, in on-site soil and ground water, and in
an open ditch south of the plant.
Regulatory Action/Responses: Between 1986-1987, as part of the property sales agreement
with Peach County Property Inc (PCPI), CGC funded a removal action at the Woolfolk facility,
which consisted of demolishing several buildings and excavating approximately 3,700 cubic yard
soil contaminated with a combined lead and arsenic concentration above 10,000 mg/kg. In 1984,
the site was discovered by EPA and began the remedial site assessment process for potential
listing the site on the NPL. Between 1985 to 1986, EPA conducted a preliminary assessment and
site investigation of the release or potential releases of hazardous substances at the facility. This
investigation led to the listing of the site on the NPL in August 1990. After the site proposed for
NPL listing, CGC performed a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) after entering
105
-------
into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with EPA. From 1993 to 1997, CGC conducted
a number of removal actions pursuant to an Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO).
Preliminary conclusion regarding whether this NPL case study demonstrates ongoing risk
at modern chemical manufacturing facilities: Based on the site's operational and
contamination history, the releases of hazardous substances primarily occurred due to pre-1980
activities. As the site description makes clear, the pesticide manufacturing activities began in
1910. While the pesticide production activities continued until 1999, site investigations by
GAEPD and EPA started in the mid-1980s and in 1988 the site was proposed for NPL listing. In
addition, some of the pesticides produced at this facility and detected in the soil and groundwater
had been canceled between the early 70s to late 80s, including DDT (canceled in 1972),
toxaphene (canceled in 1982), Chlordane (1988) These timelines seem to suggest that the release
of hazardous substances may have primarily occurred due to historical practices and activities
that predate contemporary regulations.
Historical practices, such as disposal into unlined pits and drainage pathways resulted in
extensive contamination of surface soil, groundwater, and surface water. Such waste
management practices are unlawful under contemporary RCRA and CERCLA regulations
promulgated in the early 1980s. For example, under 40 CFR 264, the disposal of the land
hazardous wastes would require facilities to obtain a RCRA permit, meet unit standards for the
design and operation of the land disposal units and meet land disposal restriction pretreatment
standards prior to disposal. In addition, the releases of hazardous substances due to
mismanagement or mishandling of products would also be subject to the notification
requirements for releases above reportable quantities (40 CFR 302) issued in 1985. For these
reasons, EPA does not consider the WCW site to be representative of current practices subject to
contemporary regulations.
References:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2014. Five-Year Review Report for
Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc. Superfund Site. Region 4. Fort Valley GA.
• US EPA. 2004. Fourth Operable Unit Record of Decision, Woolfolk Chemical Works,
Inc. Superfund Site. Region 4. Fort Valley GA.
• US EPA. 1995. Second Operable Unit Record of Decision, Woolfolk Chemical Works,
Inc. Superfund Site. Region 4. Fort Valley GA.
• US EPA. 1990. NPL Site Narrative for Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc. Superfund Site.
Region 4. Fort Valley, GA.
106
-------
107
------- |