Identification and Evaluation of CERCLA 108(b) Chemical Manufacturing non-National Priorities List (non-NPL) Removal Sites. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) ------- Table of Contents Table of Contents i Identification of CERCLA Removal Action Cases 1 SEMS Query 1 Chemical Manufacturing Sites 2 Screening Out Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Funded Actions 2 Screening Out Additional Non-Chemical Manufacturing Sites 3 Screening Out Sites with Insufficient Response Documentation 3 Analytical Steps and Methodology 3 Screening Out Legacy Issues 8 Summary of Findings from the Detailed Review of Chemical Manufacturing Industry Removal Sites with Potential Modern Regulation Releases and Risks 10 Appendix I. List of Chemical Manufacturing Non-NPL Sites 12 Appendix II. List of Chemical Manufacturing Sites with Fund, Mixed, or No Response Lead Designation in SEMS 23 Appendix III. Detailed Case Narratives of Chemical Manufacturing Industry Removal Sites with Potential Modern Regulation Releases and Risk 27 1)5 N Plus 28 2) Moss Soap & Chemical 32 3) OZTechnology, Inc 37 4) Advanced Asymmetries Removal 40 5) National Lacquer and Paint 45 6) Hoopeston Fertilizer 51 7) Livingston Paint 56 8) Traylor Chemicals Site 60 9) Landrum Chemical 64 10) Coco Resources Fire 68 11) Davis Avenue Fire Response 72 12) Danversport Explosion 74 13) Maine Alum Grand Isle 77 14) Saran Protective Coatings 82 15) Evergreen Products Inc. Site 87 16) Lyndon Street Drums 90 17) White Rox Chemical 94 i ------- 18) Dye Specialties Inc 98 19) Petri Paint 105 20) Westwood Chemical Corporation Ill 21) Karl Industries 118 22) Smith Chemical 122 23) DeSanti Paint Company 125 24) Superior Cleaning Solutions Site 127 25) Oregon City Chemical Barn 130 26) Queen Avenue Property Absorbent Technology 134 27) Technic, Inc 140 28) Champion Technologies Anhydrous Ammonia Release 144 29) Thunder Products 148 30) CES PACES - Port Arthur 151 31) Reilley Coal Tar 157 32) Indmar Coatings 162 33) NanoChemonics 166 34) McMurray Road Chemical Removal 173 ii ------- Identification of CERCLA Removal Action Cases EPA sought to evaluate the need for Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 108(b) financial responsibility regulations at classes of facilities in the Chemical Manufacturing, Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing, and the Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution Industry. Specifically, EPA sought to identify whether there were examples of pollution caused by activities within these industries that occurred under an environmental regulatory structure like today's that required taxpayer funded cleanups. EPA believes that this type of cleanup case would be indicative of the potential need for CERCLA 108(b) financial responsibility requirements. EPA prioritized identifying and analyzing Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) sites as those tend to be the largest cleanups with the greatest likelihood of significant taxpayer expenditures. However, to supplement this evaluation, EPA also examined sites that are not listed on the NPL, but that required removal actions. This report is focused specifically on EPA's identification and evaluation of such non-National Priorities List (NPL) Removal Sites within the Chemical Manufacturing industry. SEMS Query In order to establish a universe of non-NPL sites to investigate, in November 2018 EPA queried the EPA's Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) database.1 Within SEMS, EPA filtered the 83,000 records for sites that were not on the NPL. EPA also excluded sites at which cleanup occurred under the Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA) from this analysis. EPA considers those sites in its analysis of NPL 1 SEMS data for removal cases capture CERCLA responses but are not comprehensive of all potential releases. Alternative data sources reveal releases unrelated to CERCLA, and therefore not tracked in SEMS (e.g., non-CERCLA enforcement cases related to the C lean Air Act and Clean Water Act) 1 ------- sites.2 This resulted in 7,565 sites. These sites include sites designated in SEMS as Removal Only Sites (where no site assessment work needed), Referred to Removal - Needs Further Remedial Assessment, and Referred to Removal - No Further Remedial Assessment Planned (NFRAP). This approach erred on the side of over identifying potential damage cases as some of these candidate sites would be already accounted for as part of other NPL sites. Next, EPA filtered the 7,565 sites using SEMS industry identification category (Primary and/or Secondary Subcategory Name in SEMS), which EPA used as a proxy for the type of industrial activity that took place at the site. EPA specifically looked at those identified as oil and gas refining, coke production, chemicals and allied products, chemicals/chemical waste, and electric power generation and distribution. This filtering yielded 363 removal sites. Chemical Manufacturing Sites The 363 removal sites included sites at which any of the three additional classes - Chemical Manufacturing, Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing and the Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution - were identified as the industry Primary and/or Secondary Subcategory Name3. At this point in the analysis, EPA turned its focus to Chemical Manufacturing. To evaluate whether the removal actions resulted from pollution that occurred under a modern regulatory regime for these sites, EPA then further eliminated the petroleum and coal products manufacturing, oil and gas refining, and electric power generation and distribution. This left the sites for which SEMS listed chemicals and allied products and chemicals/chemical waste as the Primary and/or Secondary Subcategory Name. From the original 363 removal sites as identified, EPA found that 290 of these 363 removal sites potentially fall within the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 325 for Chemical Manufacturing. EPA narrowed its scope to focus on evaluating these 290 sites. Screening Out Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Funded Actions The focus of EPA's investigation was to identify sites at which pollution occurred in a modern environmental regulatory structure that required taxpayer funded cleanup. As a result, EPA conducted a preliminary review of the available site documents for each of the 290 Chemical Manufacturing removal sites through the EPA's SEMS and On Scene Coordinator Response (OSC Response) databases. The information collected as part of this review is available in the docket to this action.4 The documents available through the SEMS and OSC Response databases largely comprise Pollution Reports and Removal Action Memoranda. From this initial review, EPA identified 140 sites that appeared to require government funded action or a mix of government and PRP funded action warranting further review. For 130 sites, the PRPs led the response actions; therefore, these sites were screened out of the 2EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0086 - Financial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA Section 108(b) for Facilities in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry 3 SEMS industrial designations within SEMS were used to identify sites (damage case) for evaluation. Incomplete or misplaced designations may result in some cases going unidentified. No additional reviews of non-selected sites were performed unless EPA experience and program knowledge revealed omissions from the list. 4EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0086 - Financial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA Section 108(b) for Facilities in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry 2 ------- analysis. EPA was unable to determine the response leads for 20 sites. In such cases, EPA retained those sites erring on the side of being over inclusive. Screening Out Additional Non-Chemical Manufacturing Sites Once EPA identified these 160 Removal sites at which removal actions were funded in part or in full by the government, EPA conducted initial reviews of site-specific data from the documents available through the SEMS and OSC Response databases. The data generally included information on the nature of the operations at the site. With this information, EPA determined that 81 of the 160 removal sites with government funded removal actions did not have Chemical Manufacturing Industry operations and were therefore outside of the scope of the rulemaking. Once these additional sites were screened out, 79 Chemical Manufacturing Industry sites that possibly required government funded removal actions remained. Screening Out Sites with Insufficient Response Documentation EPA conducted thorough reviews of the available site-specific information and documents for each of those 79 chemical manufacturing sites with government funded actions. However, when EPA consulted the SEMS and OSC Response databases about these sites, there was insufficient information about removal actions at 27 of the sites to conduct a thorough analysis of the site. As a result, EPA focused on the remaining 52 Chemical Manufacturing Industry removal sites for which the agency located sufficient documentation to conduct analyses of those removal actions. Analytical Steps and Methodology Once EPA identified these 52 Chemical Manufacturing Industry removal sites at which removal actions were potentially funded in part or in full by the government and EPA confirmed that sources documenting the removal actions at those sites were available, EPA collected site-specific data from the documents available through the SEMS and OSC Response databases. The data collection included site operation and contamination dates to determine if the site may have operated and/or experienced contamination under a modern environmental regulatory regime. EPA also collected data on the nature of the operations at the site, the cleanup activity that occurred at the site, the contamination at the site, descriptions of the incident that caused the contamination, the sources of contamination, and the media at the site that was contaminated and was removed in the removal action. The data collected as described was entered into a spreadsheet for comparative purposes and can be reviewed within the docket.5 Of the 52 Chemical Manufacturing Industry removal sites with possibly government funded cleanup activities for which EPA collected data, 38 were classified as fully funded by the government, four were classified as partially funded by the government, and site documentation at ten sites did not provide enough information to make a determination about the funding source. Table 1 - Funding Sources for Cleanup Activities at Possible Government Funded Chemical Manufacturing Industry Removal Sites 5 EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0086 - Financial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA Section 108(b) for Facilities in the Chemical Manufacturing Industry 3 ------- Funding Source Count Government 38 Mixed 4 No funding information 10 Total: 52 EPA collected information about the industry specific activities by three or more-digit NAICS associated with each of the Chemical Manufacturing Industry removal sites. Where possible, EPA collected six-digit NAICS codes. In many cases, EPA could only specify the industry associated with the removal site to the five or fewer-digit NAICS. When categorized by four-digit NAICS, 11 sites were associated with industry specific activities for NAICS 3251 - basic chemical manufacturing, nine were associated with industry specific activities for NAICS 3253 - pesticide, fertilizer, and other agricultural chemical manufacturing, ten were associated industry specific activities for NAICS 3255 - paint, coating, and adhesive manufacturing, seven were associated with NAICS 3256 - soap, cleaning compound, and toilet preparation manufacturing, eight were associated with NAICS 3259 - other chemical product and preparation manufacturing, and 13 sites did not have sufficient information available to make a determination about the chemical manufacturing industry activity at the four-digit NAICS level and the sites were categorized as being associated with NAICS 325 - general chemical manufacturing. Table 2 shows the result of this information collection effort. 4 ------- Table 2 - Four-Digit NAICS Classifications for Possible Government Funded Chemical Manufacturing Industry Removal Sites Four-Digit NAICS Industry Classification Count 3251 Basic chemical manufacturing 13 3253 Pesticide, fertilizer, and other agricultural chemical manufacturing 10 3255 Paint coating and adhesive manufacturing 10 3256 Soap, cleaning compound, and toilet preparation manufacturing 7 3259 Other chemical product and preparation manufacturing 6 325 General chemical manufacturing 11 Total: 57 The count in the above table does not add up to 52 because a single site may be associated with multiple chemical manufacturing activities. Table 3 provides a summary of the industry activities at the 58 Chemical Manufacturing removal sites at the most specific level EPA could make a determination using the available site information. Table 3 - Most Specific NAICS Classifications for Possible Government Funded Chemical Manufacturing Industry Removal Sites Specific NAICS Industry Classification Count 325194 Cyclic crude, intermediate, and gum and wood chemical manufacturing 1 325199 All other basic organic chemical manufacturing 1 325311 Nitrogenous fertilizer manufacturing 3 325312 Phosphatic fertilizer manufacturing 1 325611 Soap and other detergent manufacturing 4 325998 All other miscellaneous chemical manufacturing 6 32512 Industrial gas manufacturing 1 32513 Synthetic dye and pigment manufacturing 1 32518 Other basic inorganic chemical manufacturing 6 32531 Fertilizer manufacturing 3 32532 Pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing 3 32551 Paint and coating manufacturing 10 32561 Soap and cleaning compound manufacturing 2 32562 Toilet preparation manufacturing 1 3251 Basic chemical manufacturing 2 ^25 General chemical manufacturing 11 Total: 57 EPA also determined whether the contamination at the non-NPL sites was the result of a single, immediate releases or catastrophic incidents, versus a long-term, gradual release. Of the 52 Chemical Manufacturing Industry removal sites that possibly required government funded cleanup activities for which EPA collected data, there were 12 sites that had single/catastrophic incidents and 45 sites with long-term releases. Note that a single site may have experienced both long-term releases and a 5 ------- catastrophic incident. Table 4 summarizes the contamination timing at the Chemical Manufacturing Industry non-NPL sites with possible government funded cleanup for which information was available. Table 4 - Contamination Timing at Possible Government Funded Chemical Manufacturing Industry non- NPL Sites Contamination Timing Count Single Incident 12 Long-term Release 45 Total: 57 EPA also collected the contaminants that necessitated the removal action. Table 5 presents the number of sites at which each contaminant was identified as a contaminant of concern for contaminants that were the contaminants of concern for at least two sites. Of the 52 Chemical Manufacturing Industry removal sites that possibly required government funded cleanup activities for which EPA collected data, chlorine, fluorine and related compounds were contaminants of concern at 17 sites, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were contaminants of concern at 13 sites, toluene was a contaminant of concern at eight sides, lead was a contaminant of concern at six sites, sulfuric acid and acetone were contaminants of concern at five sites, nitric acid and chromium were contaminants of concern at four sites, arsenic, asbestos, and cyanide were contaminants of concern at three sites, and hydrogen peroxide and potassium hydroxide were contaminants of concern at two sites. Note that more there may be more than one contaminant of concern for a single site. Table 5 - Contaminants that Necessitated Removal at Possible Government Funded Chemical Manufacturing Industry non-NPL Sites Contaminant Count Chlorine/Fluorine and chlorine/fluorine compounds 17 VOCs 13 Toluene 8 Lead 6 Sulfuric acid 5 Acetone 5 Nitric acid 4 Chromium 4 Arsenic 3 Asbestos 3 Cyanide 3 Hydrogen peroxide 2 Potassium hydroxide 2 Total: 75 EPA also collected data on the cause or causes of single/catastrophic types of incidents that led to contamination. At the 12 Chemical Manufacturing Industry non-NPL sites at which a single release necessitated a removal action, a fire or explosion occurred at nine sites, transfer or unloading issues were present at two sites, and mechanical failure, overflowing or overfilling, piping issues, and human 6 ------- error occurred at one site each, as shown in Table 6, below. Note that multiple one-time causes of contamination may have occurred at a single site. Table 6 - Causes of Contaminating Incidents at Possible Government Funded Chemical Manufacturing Industry non-NPL Sites Cause of Incident Count Fire or Explosion 9 Transfer or Unloading Issues 2 Mechanical Failure 1 Overflowing or Overfilling 1 Piping Issues 1 Human Error 1 Total: 15 EPA also collected data on the sources of contamination or the contamination vectors that occurred at each site. Of the 52 Chemical Manufacturing Industry non-NPL sites that possibly required government funded cleanup activities for which EPA collected data, 31 had abandoned containers or tanks of hazardous substances or waste present onsite, 24 had contaminated soil, seven had abandoned structures and debris, five involved a discharge to surface waters, five had waste ponds or other liquid waste retention structure, three involved mismanaged onsite runoff, and two involved a discharge to the air. Table 7 summarizes the contamination sources by number of sites for which they were relevant out of the 52 total Chemical Manufacturing Industry non-NPL sites that possibly required government funded cleanup activities. Note that the total count is more than 52 because a single site may have had multiple sources of contamination, as shown in Table 7. Table 7 - Contamination Sources/Vectors at Possible Government Funded Chemical Manufacturing Industry non-NPL Sites Contamination Source Count Storage of hazardous substance or waste in drums or tanks (abandoned) 31 Contaminated soil 24 Abandoned structures and debris 7 Discharge to surface water 5 Waste ponds, lagoons, trenches, or ditches 5 Mismanaged Onsite Runoff 3 Discharge to Air 2 Total: 77 Finally, EPA also collected information about the contaminated media at each site that needed to be removed or contained as part of cleanup activities. At the 52 Chemical Manufacturing Industry non-NPL sites that possibly required government funded cleanup activities for which EPA collected data, cleanup involved the removal and/or remediation and/or decontamination of: drums and containers at 31 sites; liquid waste at 27 sites; soil at 16 sites; debris at 13 sites; solid waste at seven sites; groundwater at six 7 ------- sites; local air at five sites; buildings and structures at three sites; leachate at two sites; surface water at two sites; sludge at one site; and soil gas at one site. Note that more than one type of media may have been contaminated at a site, which is why the total number of contaminated media shown in Table 8 is greater than 52. Table 8 - Contaminated Media at Government Funded Chemical Manufacturing Industry non-NPL Sites Contamination Source Count Drums and containers 31 Liquid waste 27 Soil 16 Debris 13 Solid waste 7 Groundwater 6 Air 5 Buildings and structures 3 Leachate 2 Surface water 2 Sludge 1 Soil gas 1 Total: 114 Based on Tables 7 and 8, abandoned tanks and drums containing hazardous substances and wastes, particularly chlorine, fluorine, and chlorine or fluorine compounds, and VOCs, as well as corresponding leaks of hazardous materials from those abandoned containers to surrounding soils, were the primary causes of contamination that necessitated response actions at the 52 Chemical Manufacturing Industry removal sites. Screening Out Legacy Issues After compiling information about the risks and history of each site EPA sought to identify instances where issues arose under a regulatory structure like today's that resulted in taxpayer funded response actions. To do so, EPA first screened out the removal sites where the date of the pollution incident or activity was pre-1980. EPA chose 1980 as a cutoff point to screen out legacy issues because it was the year that Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 was enacted, as well as the initial establishment of regulations under RCRA Subtitle C governing hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities in May 1980. EPA believes this is a conservative screen in that only the initial RCRA regulations were in place in 1980 and would be refined, expanded and enhanced several times over the next decade. Moreover, the Agency's enforcement authorities expanded in the 1980s as the RCRA program matured. Notably, the passage in 1984 of Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) resulted in many regulatory changes and enhanced enforcement mechanisms. The dates of RCRA and CERCLA were given greatest consideration due to the large number of instances of waste management, land disposal and contaminated soil issues identified in the review of the removal cases. In many cases, the Superfund site documents would not date where specific releases occurred or polluting activities (e.g., land disposal in unlined impoundments) ceased. At sites where there were multiple releases and/or activities with varying dates, EPA used the most recent date to err on the side 8 ------- of being over inclusive. For example, if a removal site had documented issues in 1968 and 1981 the site would not have been screened out because at least one of the dates occurred in 1980 or later. In instances where EPA could not identify pollution activity or release dates with sufficient confidence, EPA used the relevant operation's end date. For example, at a facility where the exact dates of releases were unknown but industrial activity ceased at the site in 1985, EPA would have used 1985 as the date for applying the screen. In such an example, the site would not have been screened out of the analysis. This analytic approach resulted in EPA erring, again, on the side of being over inclusive. Based on the data collection about site operations, dates of operation, and contamination dates at the 52 Chemical Manufacturing Industry sites that required government or mixed funded cleanup activities, EPA determined that the pollution at 18 of the sites was related to legacy practices. In accordance with the methodology, EPA views such legacy occurrences as not representative of the types of current-day risks that would warrant regulation under CERCLA 108(b). The removal of the above legacy sites left 34 sites where the pollution at issue may have occurred under modern regulatory regimes. For these 34 sites, EPA cross referenced the site operation and contamination dates with the implementation of relevant federal and, if available, state environmental regulations to determine if those relevant regulations were in place at the time of operations and when the pollution occurred. Detailed case narratives were prepared for each of these 34 cases and are included in Appendix III. The key findings of EPA's detailed evaluations for these 34 sites are summarized below. 9 ------- Summary of Findings from the Detailed Review of Chemical Manufacturing Industry Removal Sites with Potential Modern Regulation Releases and Risks Table 9 below presents an overview of EPA's methodology for determining the 34 sites that warranted further investigation, and whether the release events that occurred at those sites are representative of risks at currently operating facilities that could justify 108(b) regulation The detailed review assessed whether the releases identified at these sites occurred prior to the implementation of the regulations similar today's.. Based on this assessment, EPA concluded that the releases at four removal sites were one-time incidents (e.g., drum spill, chemical plant fire, accidental releases to air). While these releases were all found to have occurred after contemporary regulations, according to site documents reviewed, the PRPs had responded to the emergencies, and none of these sites required significant fund expenditure; at one of the four sites, EPA spent $19,500 in fund money to conduct air assessment. For the remaining 30 removal sites, based on a review of the site narratives, the most prevalent issue for the initiation of government funded removal actions was to remove hazardous substances and/or hazardous wastes from these sites that had been abandoned by their operators. Most of these cases involved releases or threatened releases that occurred since the year 2000 which EPA determined to be "modern (post regulatory) releases" that required taxpayer-funded cleanup. The reasons that operators abandoned the sites were primarily either because of bankruptcy or other financial difficulties, or the cessation of operations. Contamination at these sites was usually the result of breached containers that held hazardous substances or wastes and discharged their contents at the site, though in many cases there was no contamination at the site but a removal action was necessary to decontaminate and dispose of the containers stored on site, even if those containers had not released their contents. As a result of the storage of hazardous substances after the cessation of operations being the most common instigator of removal actions at these sites, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste facility regulations were often relevant at these sites. Since 1986 RCRA regulations (40 CFR 264 and 265) required permits for owner and operator that use drums and tanks to store hazardous waste for more than 90 days or are not at location of a hazardous waste generator. Additionally, Sections 311 and 312 of Emergency Planning Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) require facilities that handle hazardous chemical to provide information on the quantity, locations, and the potential hazards of these chemical to local and state emergency responders. If any releases of hazardous substances occurred, CERCLA emergency and notification and emergency response regulations were also commonly identified as relevant regulations. Finally, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations were relevant at sites that had previously handled OSHA designated highly hazardous chemicals and sites at which PRP contractors conducted any hazardous waste storage and disposal activities. Review of fund expenditure data associated with these sites indicates the fund incurred estimated costs ranging from $30,000 to $3 million for response and enforcement activities. For 19 of 30 sites, the fund incurred costs under $500,000 with an average cost of $218,000 per site. For the remaining 11 sites where the response actions resulted in fund expenditures above $500,000 per site; the average cost was $1.4 million. 10 ------- Table 9- Overview of EPA's Review of Chemical Manufacturing Industry Removal Sites and Results of Detailed Review of Sites Potentially Representing Contemporary Risks Table 1: Results of the Removal Analyses for Chemical Manufacturing Sector No Further Consideration Required Cases Potentially Representing Risk that may Warrant FR Regulations No Determination Total Removal Sites Number of Sites Screened Out Based on Pre-1980, or PRP lead Detailed Review Concluded Issue Pre-Contemporary Regulation Cases with at least One Post-Contemporary Regulation issue, but No Record of Taxpayer Expenditures (PRP Led Response) Cases Occurring after Current Regulations with some Taxpayer Expenditures Insufficient documentation 290 148 (81)* - 4 30 27 *Number in Parenthetical indicate sites removed from the analysis because EPA determined no chemical or petroleum manufacturing activities occurred at these sites More information about the 34 sites subject to the detailed review is available in Appendix III of this document. Appendix III provides the operational history of each site, an overview of any regulatory and enforcement actions that occurred, and EPA's evaluation of the applicable regulations for the types of releases that occurred at each site. 11 ------- Appendix I. List of Chemical Manufacturing Non-NPL Sites Row EPA ID Site Name City/Location County State 1 ALN000403395 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY AL 2 ALN000405048 CAUSTIC SODA PIPELINE SPILL MOBILE MOBILE AL 3 ALN000405229 ABBEVILLE SODIUM HYDROXIDE SPILL ABBEVILLE HENRY AL 4 ALN000405523 TIGER-SUL CHEMICAL FIRE ATMORE ESCAMBIA AL 5 ALN000406143 OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS USA ACID SPILL CALVERT MOBILE AL 6 AZF.O10413001 ELECTRO TREATMENT INC SACATON PINAL AZ 7 AZSFN0905415 CRIT PARKER PESTICIDES PARKER LA PAZ AZ 8 CA0000589762 ALTAWOOD INC. WASTE SITE UPLAND SAN BERNARDINO CA 9 CAD008297996 ALL METALS PROCESSING BURBANK LOS ANGELES CA 10 CAN000903494 FRUITLAND MAGNESIUM FIRE INCIDENT MAYWOOD LOS ANGELES CA 11 CAN000904210 DYNAMIC X METALS PLATING UPLAND SAN BERNARDINO CA 12 CAN000905816 SINA CHEMTRANS FONTANA SAN BERNARDINO CA 13 CAN000905906 PHIL'S BURGER & DRUMS SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO CA 14 CAN000905934 ENTERPRISE SALES LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES CA 15 CAN000905953 BEAULIEU VINEYARD WINE SPILL RUTHERFOFD NAPA CA 16 CAN000906019 HESPERIA DRUG LAB FIRE HESPERIA SAN BERNARDINO CA 17 CAN000906032 AIRGAS, INC SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO CA 18 CAN000906116 CALIFORNIA TRUCKING SALES SOUTH GATE LOS ANGELES CA 19 CAN000909462 ANDERSON-DAISHI, INC. COMMERCE LOS ANGELES CA 20 CAN000909534 LONG BEACH COLD STORAGE DIFFUSION TANK LONG BEACH LOS ANGELES CA 21 CAN000909538 LA COUNTY NITROUS OXIDE CYLINDERS NORWALK, LOS ANGELES CA 22 COOOOl101476 TWINS INN ARVADA JEFFERSON CO 23 CON000802486 DARTMOUTH CHEMICAL DENVER DENVER CO 24 CON000802831 FT. COLLINS METAL REFINING FT. COLLINS LARIMER CO 25 CON000802859 DAKOTA AMMONIA DENVER DENVER CO 26 CTN000106115 5 N PLUS GALLIUM TRICHLORIDE RELEASE FAIRFIELD FAIRFIELD CT 27 DEN000305889 GENERAL CHEMICAL CLAYMONT NEW CASTLE DE 12 ------- Row EPA ID Site Name City/Location County State 28 FLN000404449 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) NICHOLS NICHOLS POLK FL 29 FLN000404942 GEORGETOWN CHEMICAL STORAGE GEORGETOWN PUTNAM FL 30 FLN000404962 AIRGAS CANTONMENT EXPLOSION CANTONMENT ESCAMBIA FL 31 FLN000407422 MOSS SOAP & CHEMICAL MIAMI MIAMI-DADE FL 32 FLN000407482 LEESBURG THERMOMETER SITE LEESBURG LAKE FL 33 GAD003277191 VULCAN CHEMICALS 2 SMYRNA COBB GA 34 GAD051010429 AMREP INDUSTRIAL FIRE MARIETTA COBB GA 35 GAD078105749 ESB INC ATLANTA FULTON GA 36 GAN000403346 EAST GOODRICH SITE THOMASTON UPSON GA 37 GAN000403954 BRUNSWICK GA CEMEX RELEASE BRUNSWICK GLYNN GA 38 GAN000403956 SAF FULTON COUNTY SULFURIC ACID SPILL ATLANTA FULTON GA 39 GAN000404394 TRIANGLE CHEMICAL CO BURIED DRUMS MACON BIBB GA 40 GAN000404445 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) SAVANNAH SAVANNAH CHATHAM GA 41 GAN000404452 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) AMERICUS AMERICUS SUMTER GA 42 GAN000404456 LIQUID TRANSFER BAINBRIDGE BAINBRIDGE DECATUR GA 43 GAN000404609 OLD BARWICK MILL PLANT FIRE LAFAYETTE WALKER GA 44 GAN000404950 APOLLO TECHNOLOGIES SPILL SMYRNA COBB GA 45 GAN000405098 SUNSET FARMS AMMONIA SPILL VALDOSTA LOWNDES GA 46 GAN000405174 BAY STREET CHEMICAL MACON BIBB GA 47 GAN000405277 NICHOLSON GA FORMALDEHYDE RELEASE NICHOLSON JACKSON GA 48 GAN000405283 IP AUGUSTA CAUSTIC SPILL AUGUSTA RICHMOND GA 49 GAN000405548 THIELE KAOLIN SODIUM HYDROXIDE SANDERSVILLE WASHINGTON GA 50 GAN000405873 PSC AMMONIA RELEASE AUGUSTA RICHMOND GA 51 GAN000406145 AFCO FIRE GAINESVILLE HALL GA 52 GAN000406288 GOLD CREEK FERRIC CHLORIDE SPILL DAWSONVILLE DAWSON GA 53 GAN000407494 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) AUGUSTA AUGUSTA RICHMOND GA 13 ------- Row EPA ID Site Name City/Location County State 54 GAN000407760 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) SOCIAL CIRCLE SOCIAL CIRCLE WALTON GA 55 GAN000409844 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) ATLANTA ATLANTA FULTON GA 56 GAN000409870 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) NEWNAN NEWNAN COWETA GA 57 GAN000409998 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) NEWNAN NEWNAN COWETA GA 58 GAN000410371 BASF CATALYSTS CHLORINE RELEASE ATTAPULGUS GA 59 GAN000410373 ROME HYDROCHLORIC ACID SPILL ROME GA 60 GAN000410611 CLOROX PINE OIL FOREST PARK CLAYTON GA 61 GAN000410663 BASF AMMONIUM NITRATE SPILL ATAAPULGUS DECATUR GA 62 GUN000909461 GUAM DPW RADIOACTIVE GAUGE BARRIGADA GUAM GU 63 IAN000705795 AMERICAN ECOSYSTEMS WELLMAN WASHINGTON IA 64 IDNOO1002848 OZ TECHNOLOGY RATHDRUM KOOTENAI ID 65 IDNOO1003109 THOMASON CHEMICAL CRAIGMONT LEWIS ID 66 ILN000505560 CHEMICAL PACKAGING SITE NORTH CHICAGO LAKE IL 67 ILN000505561 PELTIER GLASS SITE OTTAWA LA SALLE IL 68 ILN000505642 OLYMPIC OIL ANTIFREEZE CICERO COOK IL 69 ILN000506108 NARCHEM INDUSTRIAL FIREER CHICAGO COOK IL 70 ILN000506124 ADVANCED ASYMMETRICS MILLSTADT ST. CLAIR IL 71 ILN000507457 NORTH SUBURBAN CLEANERS MORTON GROVE COOK IL 72 ILN000508307 ARCO RESEARCH LAB HARVEY COOK IL 73 ILN000508951 NATIONAL LACQUER & PAINT CO. CHICAGO COOK IL 74 ILN000509987 GOR DRUM SITE BEDFORD PARK COOK IL 75 ILN000510084 HOOPESTON FERTILIZER HOOPESTON VERMILION IL 76 ILN000510095 UNIVERSAL FORM CLAMP FIRE BELLWOOD COOK IL 77 ILN000510396 136TH STREET DRUM CHICAGO COOK IL 78 ILN000510496 NUTRONICS, INC. SPRINGFIELD SANGAMON IL 79 ILN000510517 EUCLID CHEMICAL FIRE SHEFFIELD BUREAU IL 80 ILN000510599 BEECHER DITCH DRUMS BEECHER WILL IL 81 ILN000510604 VICKERMAN'S PRODUCTS SITE SOUTH BELOIT WINNEBAGO IL 14 ------- Row EPA ID Site Name City/Location County State 82 ILN000510689 POLYCHEM SERVICES INC., LLC CHICAGO COOK IL 83 ILN000510912 BLUE ISLAND CUMENE RELEASE BLUE ISLAND COOK IL 84 INN000505400 FINATEC LAPORTE LA PORTE IN 85 INN000505633 TONY RAY LAUNDRY INDIANAPOLIS MARION IN 86 INN000508674 ANGOLA SOYA ANGOLA STEUBEN IN 87 INN000510065 LIVINGSTON PAINT WINCHESTER RANDOLPH IN 88 INN000510153 LABOUR PUMP ELKHART ELKHART IN 89 INN000510201 DECATUR DIE CASTING DECATUR ADAMS IN 90 INN000510509 RICKERT DRUM SITE WINCHESTER RANDOLPH IN 91 INN000510784 GENERAL CHEMICAL INDIANAPOLIS MARION IN 92 INN000510838 DIXON ROAD SITE KOKOMO HOWARD IN 93 INN000510934 TRAYLOR CHEMICALS SITE ROYAL CENTER CASS IN 94 KSN000704450 HYDROGEN CHLORIDE- MGP ATCHISON ATCHISON KS 95 KSN000705799 MERCURY-WYANDOTTE COUNTY KANSAS CITY WYANDOTTE KS 96 KYN000403879 DERBY INDUSTRIES FIRE LOUISVILLE JEFFERSON KY 97 KYN000410044 LANDRUM CHEMICAL LOUISVILLE JEFFERSON KY 98 KYN000410869 ZEON CHEMICALS BUILDING 135 RELEASE LOUISVILLE ADAIR KY 99 LAN000605447 DOW CHEMICAL - PLAQUEMINE RELEASE PLAQUEMINE IBERVILLE LA 100 LAN000607076 COCO RESOURCES FIRE DENHAM SPRINGS LIVINGSTON LA 101 LAN000607180 MULTICHEM CHEMICAL FIRE NEW IBERIA IBERIA LA 102 LAN000607417 WESTLAKE CHEMICAL FIRE GEISMAR ASCENSION LA 103 LAN000607534 WILLIAMS OLEFIN GEISMAR EXPLOSION GEISMAR ASCENSION LA 104 MAD044985778 HOLLAND CO INC ADAMS BERKSHIRE MA 105 MAN000101941 DAVIS AVE FIRE RESPONSE NORWOOD NORFOLK MA 106 MAN000105236 DANVERSPORT EXPLOSION DANVERS ESSEX MA 107 MAN000106005 DURASOL CORPORATION AMESBURY ESSEX MA 108 MANOOO106067 GW FOUNDRY REHOBOTH BRISTOL MA 109 MD0001764513 CENTRAL CHEMICAL NORTHWEST SITE HAGERSTOWN WASHINGTON MD 110 MDN000306193 22ND STREET MERCURY BALTIMORE BALTIMORE CITY MD 111 MDN000306570 CONSOLIDATED PHARMACEUTICAL BALTIMORE ANNE ARUNDEL MD 112 MEDO19026749 LEBLANC CLEANERS LEWISTON ANDROSCOGGIN ME 113 MENOOO100784 NATIONAL ALUM MADAWASKA AROOSTOOK ME 114 MENOOO106023 MAINE ALUM GRAND ISLE GRAND ISLE AROOSTOOK ME 115 MIN000500584 ERG Fire Site DETROIT WAYNE MI 15 ------- Row EPA ID Site Name City/Location County State 116 MIN000501388 CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY FIRE DETROIT WAYNE MI 117 MIN000506292 TREX PROPERTIES GRAND RAPIDS GRAND RAPIDS KENT MI 118 MIN000507853 DETROIT DISTILLATE RELEASE DETROIT WAYNE MI 119 MIN000508133 DENISE ROAD PROPERTY BOYNE VALLEY TWP CHARLEVOIX MI 120 MIN000508193 ATOFINA CHEMICAL ER RIVER VIEW WAYNE MI 121 MIN000508312 RONAN AND KUNZL AIRPORT MARSHALL CALHOUN MI 122 MIN000508756 N-FORCER DEARBORN WAYNE MI 123 MIN000508897 AMERICAN RECYCLING FIRE BAY CITY BAY MI 124 MIN000509094 SARAN PROTECTIVE COATINGS DETROIT WAYNE MI 125 MIN000509941 LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY CKD RESORT TOWNSHIP EMMET MI 126 MIN000510076 NATIONAL AUTOMATED SYSTEM (NAS) HARRISVILLE ALCONA MI 127 MIN000510324 LABTECH INDUSTRIES DETROIT WAYNE MI 128 MIN000510388 EVERGREEN PRODUCTS INC YPSILANTI WASHTENAW MI 129 MIN000510447 MILAN BIODIESEL MILAN MONROE MI 130 MIN000510462 PATTERSON CHEMICALS DETROIT WAYNE MI 131 MIN000510559 A-l VILLAGE CLEANERS DETROIT WAYNE MI 132 MIN000510569 BRECKENRIDGE SITE BRECKENRIDGE GRATIOT MI 133 MIN000510572 DIAMOND CLEANERS SITE FLINT WAYNE MI 134 MIN000510573 JEFFERSON DRUM SITE TRENTON WAYNE MI 135 MIN000510574 ROYAL CLEANERS SITE FLINT GENESEE MI 136 MIN000510622 LYNDON STREET DRUMS DETROIT WAYNE MI 137 MIN000510900 REDFORD MI TANK EXPLOSION ER REDFORD WAYNE MI 138 MIN000510947 ARROW ROOFING AND SUPPLY FIRE TRAVERSE CITY GRAND TRAVERSE MI 139 MIN000510948 CENTURY SUN METALS TRAVERSE CITY GRAND TRAVERSE MI 140 M09571824292 RICHARDS GEBAUR AIR FORCE BASE BELTON CASS MO 141 MOD006851323 LAKE ROAD WAREHOUSE CO ST JOSEPH BUCHANAN MO 142 MOD066919440 INDEPENDENT PETROCHEMICAL CORP ST LOUIS ST. LOUIS CITY MO 143 MOD991293564 TOASTMASTER MACON MACON MACON MO 144 MON000704031 PAINT SOLUTIONS ST LOUIS ST. LOUIS MO 145 MON000704041 KINGSBURY RADIUM CLAYTON ST. LOUIS MO 146 MON000704491 PERFECT PLATING MACON MACON MO 147 MON000705540 HPI CHEMICAL PRODUCTS ST JOSEPH BUCHANAN MO 16 ------- Row EPA ID Site Name City/Location County State 148 MON000705793 HPI SOUTH EIGHTH STREET ST JOSEPH BUCHANAN MO 149 MON000705794 HPI PRODUCTS, INC - 3RD STREET ST JOSEPH BUCHANAN MO 150 MON000706532 ENNIS PAINT CUBA CRAWFORD MO 151 MON000706548 LANGER TRUCKING SPILL KANSAS CITY JACKSON MO 152 MPN000903571 GUALO RAI PESTICIDES AND CHEMICALS GUALO RAI SAIPAN MP 153 MPN000909131 CUC ROTA POWER PLANT PCB SONGSONG VILLAGE NORTHERN ISLANDS MP 154 MSN000403441 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) JACKSON JACKSON HINDS MS 155 MSN000410432 POLYCHEMIE DIMETHYL AMINE RELEASE PEARLINGTON HANCOCK MS 156 NCN000400862 TWIN STATE BATTERY NEWTON CATAWBA NC 157 NCN000403386 DUKE ENERGY LINCOLNTON TRANSFORMER RELEASE LINCOLNTON LINCOLN NC 158 NCN000404613 ARCLIN PHENOL RELEASE MONCURE CHATHAM NC 159 NCN000405541 JEA ENTERPRISE DRUM WINSTON SALEM FORSYTH NC 160 NCN000406327 ROBERSONVILLE FUEL SPILL ROBERSONVILLE MARTIN NC 161 NCN000410315 WATER GUARD WILSON NC 162 NCN000410372 DOUGLAS BATTERY ACID SPILL WINSTON SALEM FORSYTH NC 163 NCN000410549 VIKING POOLS DRUM ROCKINGHAM RICHMOND NC 164 NCN000410597 IN VISTA TANK EXPLOSION WILMINGTON NC 165 NCN000410653 BIOTECH DRUM SITE NEWTON CATAWBA NC 166 NEN000704655 A-TREY INDUSTRIES OMAHA DOUGLAS NE 167 NJC200400786 WHITE ROX CHEMICAL PHILLIP SBURG WARREN NJ 168 NJD001271931 PYROLAC CORPORATION HAWTHORNE PASSAIC NJ 169 NJD002159507 JOHN C. DOLPH COMPANY MONMOUTH JUNCTION MIDDLESEX NJ 170 NJD048809487 IMTT - BAYONNE BAYONNE HUDSON NJ 171 NJD067363101 CVC SPECIALTY CHEMICALS MAPLE SHADE BURLINGTON NJ 172 NJD981563687 DYE SPECIALTIES INC JERSEY CITY HUDSON NJ 173 NJD986628873 EVERGREEN PRODUCTS SITE CAMDEN CAMDEN NJ 174 NJN000202650 35 MLKBLVD NEWARK ESSEX NJ 175 NJN000204644 PANTASOTE INC FILM COMPOUND AND PKG DIV PASSAIC PASSAIC NJ 176 NJN000206164 NATIONWIDE CFS NEWARK ESSEX NJ 177 NJN000206579 STANDARD CHLORINE JACOBUS AVENUE KEARNY HUDSON NJ 178 NJR000037960 PETRI PAINT NEWARK ESSEX NJ 17 ------- Row EPA ID Site Name City/Location County State 179 NY0002190205 MORGAN MATERIALS BUFFALO ERIE NY 180 NYD002216125 LUSTER-COATE METALLIZING CORP. CHURCHVILLE MONROE NY 181 NYD034557108 ARYL INC. BUFFALO ERIE NY 182 NYD072710502 WESTWOOD CHEMICAL CORPORATION MIDDLETOWN ORANGE NY 183 NYD095575429 FORMER COVIDIEN PLANT ORISKANY FALLS ONEIDA NY 184 NYD980531545 JEWETT WHITE LEAD CO STATEN ISLAND RICHMOND NY 185 NYD986899912 TCI INCORPORATED HUDSON COLUMBIA NY 186 NYN000201432 LARGE CAR, LLC OWEGO TIOGA NY 187 NYN000204285 BARKER CHEMICAL SOMERSET NIAGARA NY 188 NYR000163998 KENCO GLENVILLE SCHENECTADY NY 189 OHD004296430 HULL POTTERY CROOKSVILLE PERRY OH 190 OHD980903827 GRAY CONTAINER SITE CLEVELAND CUYAHOGA OH 191 OHN000505568 BELPRE ER-KRATON POLYMERS BELPRE WASHINGTON OH 192 OHN000505586 JACAMAR FIRE RESPONSE SPRINGBORO WARREN OH 193 OHN000506028 CASTLE STREET SITE TOLEDO LUCAS OH 194 OHN000506656 AKZONOBLE HURON HURON ERIE OH 195 OHN000507025 CREST RUBBER ALLIANCE ALLIANCE STARK OH 196 OHN000507766 KARL INDUSTRIES AURORA PORTAGE OH 197 OHN000507788 ENON MERCURY SPILL ENON CLARK OH 198 OHN000507877 ENSIGN PRODUCTS CO. CLEVELAND CUYAHOGA OH 199 OHN000509086 SMITH CHEMICAL CANTON STARK OH 200 OHN000509240 TRI-STATE CHEMICAL SITE MACON BROWN OH 201 OHN000510094 FRICK-GALLAGHER MANUFACTURING SITE WELLSTON JACKSON OH 202 OHN000510152 MORROW PLATING CO. SITE TOLEDO LUCAS OH 203 OHN000510235 OHIO FLOOD ER- HANCOCK COUNTY SITE FINDLAY HANCOCK OH 204 OHN000510236 OHIO FLOOD ER-PUTNAM COUNTY SITE OTTAWA PUTNAM OH 205 OHN000510245 ELECTRIC REFINING COMPANY SITE TOLEDO LUCAS OH 206 OHN000510295 NORWOOD INDUSTRIES- NORWOOD AVENUE SITE TOLEDO LUCAS OH 207 OHN000510296 CRETECOTE CREEKSIDE AVENUE SITE TOLEDO LUCAS OH 208 OHN000510305 PLABELL RUBBER MANUFACTURING SITE TOLEDO LUCAS OH 209 OHN000510439 NITRON PLATING SITE DAYTON MONTGOMERY OH 210 OHN000510594 DESANTIS PAINT COMPANY CLEVELAND OH 18 ------- Row EPA ID Site Name City/Location County State 211 OHN000510610 SUPERIOR CLEANING SOLUTIONS SITE DAYTON MONTGOMERY OH 212 OKN000604334 PRYOR CHEMICAL RELEASE PRYOR MAYES OK 213 OKN000605465 AIROSOL INC. RESPONSE LENAPAH NOWATA OK 214 OKN000607490 BACHMAN SERVICES FIRE OKLAHOMA CITY OKLAHOMA OK 215 ORN001001384 OREGON CITY CHEMICAL BARN OREGON CITY CLACKAMAS OR 216 ORNOO1003165 QUEEN AVENUE PROPERTY ABSORBENT TECHNOLOGIES ALBANY LINN OR 217 PAN000305598 WEST DAUPHIN CHEMICAL PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA PA 218 PAN000305629 VERDICT CHEMICAL SITE PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA PA 219 PAN000305668 KRIHWAN PROPERTY CUSSEWAGO TOWNSHIP CRAWFORD PA 220 PAN000305669 PENNSYLVANIA ENGINEERING - E.R. UPPER DARBY DELAWARE PA 221 PAN000305904 ASTATECH, INC. PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA PA 222 PAN000306198 MINK SMELTING AND REFINING WORKS LEAD SMELTER PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA PA 223 PAN000306200 MERCHANTS AND EVANS COMPANY LEAD SMELTER PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA PA 224 PAN000306201 UNITED SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY/LEAD SMELTERS INITIATIVE PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA PA 225 PAN000306544 J&W PHARMLAB EMERGENCY RESPONSE MORRIS VILLE BUCKS PA 226 PRC200400901 BARRIO VIETNAM CHEMICAL DRUM STORAGE GUAYNABO GUAYNABO PR 227 PRD000692756 PUERTO RICO OLEFINS CO PENUELAS PENUELAS PR 228 RID001200252 TECHNIC, INC. CRANSTON PROVIDENCE RI 229 SCN000404467 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) BERKELEY SITE CHARLESTON CHARLESTON SC 230 SCN000404468 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) GREENVILLE - 02 GREENVILLE GREENVILLE SC 231 SCN000404469 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) FETTERESSA CHARLESTON CHARLESTON SC 232 SCN000404473 VIRGININA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) WAPPOO CHARLESTON CHARLESTON SC 19 ------- Row EPA ID Site Name City/Location County State 233 SCN000404608 SANTEE COOPER SULFURIC ACID RELEASE PINEVILLE BERKELEY SC 234 SCN000405085 TRINITY HIGHWAY PRODUCTS ORANGEBURG ORANGEBURG sc 235 SCN000405369 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) MACMURPHY CHARLESTON CHARLESTON SC 236 SCN000405827 CAROLINA EASTERN PESTICIDE NICHOLS MARION sc 237 SCN000406322 CAROLINA PRIDE ANHYDROUS AMMONIA RELEASE GREENWOOD GREENWOOD sc 238 SCN000407801 AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL COMPANY CAYCE LEXINGTON sc 239 SCN000407814 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) GREENVILLE GREENVILLE GREENVILLE sc 240 SCN000410099 NEW SALUDA RIVER CYLINDERS GREENVILLE GREENVILLE sc 241 SCN000410891 WORLD WIDE PLASTICS RECYCLER WAREHOUSE FIRE CAYCE LEXINGTON sc 242 SCR000776880 NEW LIFE CHEMICAL SODIUM HYDROSULFITE FIRE GREENVILLE GREENVILLE sc 243 SCS123457002 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) PON- PON ST. PAUL'S PARISH CHARLESTON sc 244 SD0011980258 REDFIELD PLATING DRUMS REDFIELD SPINK SD 245 TNN000403353 PULASKI TRUCK ROLLOVER PULASKI GILES TN 246 TNN000404499 LUPTON CITY PCB SITE LUPTON HAMILTON TN 247 TNN000405503 OOLTEWAH SODIIUM HYPOCHLORITE RELEASE OOLTEWAH HAMILTON TN 248 TNN000405790 EASTMAN KINGSPORT EXPLOSION KINGSPORT SULLIVAN TN 249 TNN000406100 TRIAD TRANSPORTER CHLOROACETIC ACID SPILL CHATTANOOGA HAMILTON TN 250 TNN000410066 PATENT PLASTICS KNOXVILLE KNOX TN 251 TNN000410818 INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS MT PLEASANT MAURY TN 252 TXD000356816 CHAMPION TECHNOLOGIES ANHYDROUS AMMONIA RELEASE FRESNO FORT BEND TX 253 TXD046844700 PSC CHEMICAL RECLAMATION SERVICES AVALON ELLIS TX 20 ------- Row EPA ID Site Name City/Location County State 254 TXD980625008 HELENA CHEMICAL CO (HAYES SAMON) MISSION HIDALGO TX 255 TXD980745095 NEXEO SOLUTIONS GARLAND DALLAS TX 256 TXN000602024 VERMICULITE PRODUCTS, INC. HOUSTON HARRIS TX 257 TXN000604359 FRITZ INDUSTRIES FIRE MESQUITE DALLAS TX 258 TXN000604412 DOW CHEMICAL- B1700PHENOL FREEPORT BRAZORIA TX 259 TXN000606768 THUNDER PRODUCTS EL PASO EL PASO TX 260 TXN000607005 EL DORADO CHEMICAL FIRE BRYANT BRAZOS TX 261 TXN000607006 GREENHOUSE ROAD CHEMICAL FIRE HOUSTON HARRIS TX 262 TXN000607024 PORT ARTHUR HYDROGEN SULFIDE RELEASE PORT ARTHUR JEFFERSON TX 263 TXN000607072 AGE REFINERY SAN ANTONIO BEXAR TX 264 TXN000607094 PETRA CHEMICAL HCI DALLAS DALLAS TX 265 TXN000607240 MAGNABLEND CHEMICAL FIRE WAXAHACHIE ELLIS TX 266 TXP490351276 CES PACES-PORT ARTHUR PORT ARTHUR JEFFERSON TX 267 UTD009087644 REILLY TAR & CHEM CORP PROVO UTAH UT 268 VAD003064003 ALLIED CHEM CORP FRONT ROYAL WKS FRONT ROYAL WARREN VA 269 VAN000306552 INDMAR COATINGS WAKEFIELD SUSSEX VA 270 VAN000306716 NANOCHEMONICS SITE PULASKI PULASKI VA 271 VAN000306722 AERC ASHLAND HANOVER VA 272 VAN000306730 CHEMSAVERS POWHATAN POWHATAN VA 273 WANOO1001498 UNIVERSITY PLACE CHEMICAL REMOVAL UNIVERSITY PLACE PIERCE WA 274 WAN001001501 MCMURRAY ROAD CHEMICAL REMOVAL TACOMA PIERCE WA 275 WANOO 1002784 ROOT PAINT & GLASS COMPANY HOQUIAM GRAYS HARBOR WA 276 WANOO 1002793 RAMCO DALLESPORT KLICKITAT WA 277 WANOO 1002871 IMPERIUM GRAYS HARBOR EXPLOSION HOQUIAM GRAYS HARBOR WA 278 WIN000503897 LINDY CLEANERS RHINELANDER ONEIDA WI 279 WIN000508647 C&L INDUSTRIAL CLEANERS KENOSHA KENOSHA WI 280 WIN000510089 T. C. ESSER PAINT SITE MILWAUKEE MILWAUKEE WI 281 WIN000510381 WISCONSIN MECHANCIAL WAUKESHA WAUKESHA WI 282 WIN000510596 SANDIES DRY AND LAUNDRY CLEANER SITE LITTLE CHUTE OUTAGAMIE WI 283 WIN000510847 CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS MARINETTE MARINETTE WI 284 WIN000510911 TORREY'S FURNITURE POPLAR DOUGLAS WI 21 ------- Row EPA ID Site Name City/Location County State 285 WIN000510931 OSHKOSH FURNITURE LLC OSHKOSH WINNEBAGO WI 286 WV0002303360 DWR CHEMICAL SITE PENNSBORO RITCHIE wv 287 WVN000305680 BAYER CORP. NEW MARTINSVILLE WETZEL wv 288 WVSFN0305516 KANAWHA RIVER SITE NITRO PUTNAM wv 289 WYOO11980288 CASPER TEAR GAS BARNUNN NATRONA WY 290 WYD988867073 LARAMIE FLUE LARAMIE ALBANY WY 22 ------- Appendix II. List of Chemical Manufacturing Sites with Fund, Mixed, or No Response Lead Designation in SEMS Row EPA ID Site Name Action Lead 1 ALN000403395 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) MONTGOMERY 2 CAN000906019 HESPERIA DRUG LAB FIRE Fund 3 CAN000906116 CALIFORNIA TRUCKING SALES Fund 4 CTN000106115 5 N PLUS GALLIUM TRICHLORIDE RELEASE Fund 5 DEN000305889 GENERAL CHEMICAL Fund 6 FLN000404449 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) NICHOLS 7 FLN000407422 MOSS SOAP & CHEMICAL Mixed 8 GAN000404394 TRIANGLE CHEMICAL CO BURIED DRUMS 9 GAN000404445 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) SAVANNAH 10 GAN000404452 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) AMERICUS 11 GAN000409844 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) ATLANTA Fund 12 GAN000409870 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) NEWNAN Fund 13 GAN000409998 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) NEWNAN Fund 14 IAN000705795 AMERICAN ECOSYSTEMS Fund 15 IDN001002848 OZ TECHNOLOGY Fund 16 ILN000505560 CHEMICAL PACKAGING SITE 17 ILN000506108 NARCHEM INDUSTRIAL FIREER 18 ILN000506124 ADVANCED ASYMMETRICS Fund 19 ILN000508307 ARCO RESEARCH LAB Fund 20 ILN000508951 NATIONAL LACQUER & PAINT CO. Fund 21 ILN000510084 HOOPESTON FERTILIZER Fund 22 INN000505633 TONY RAY LAUNDRY 23 INN000510065 LIVINGSTON PAINT Mixed ------- Row EPA ID Site Name Action Lead 24 INN000510934 TRAYLOR CHEMICALS SITE Fund 25 KYN000410044 LANDRUM CHEMICAL Fund 26 LAN000607076 COCO RESOURCES FIRE Fund 27 MAN000101941 DAVIS AVE FIRE RESPONSE Fund 28 MAN000105236 DANVERSPORT EXPLOSION Fund 29 MDN000306193 22ND STREET MERCURY Fund 30 MEN000106023 MAINE ALUM GRAND ISLE Fund 31 MIN000507853 DETROIT DISTILLATE RELEASE 32 MIN000508193 ATOFINA CHEMICAL ER Fund 33 MIN000509094 SARAN PROTECTIVE COATINGS Fund 34 MIN000510324 LABTECH INDUSTRIES 35 MIN000510388 EVERGREEN PRODUCTS INC Fund 36 MIN000510622 LYNDON STREET DRUMS Fund 37 MIN000510900 REDFORD MI TANK EXPLOSION ER 38 M09571824292 RICHARDS GEBAUR AIR FORCE BASE 39 MON000704031 PAINT SOLUTIONS Fund 40 MON000704041 KINGSBURY RADIUM Fund 41 MSN000403441 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) JACKSON 42 NJC200400786 WHITE ROX CHEMICAL Fund 43 NJD001271931 PYROLAC CORPORATION Fund 44 NJD981563687 DYE SPECIALTIES INC Fund 45 NJD986628873 EVERGREEN PRODUCTS SITE Fund 46 NJR000037960 PETRI PAINT Fund 47 NYD072710502 WESTWOOD CHEMICAL CORPORATION Fund 48 NYN000204285 BARKER CHEMICAL Fund 49 OHN000507766 KARL INDUSTRIES Fund 50 OHN000509086 SMITH CHEMICAL Mixed 51 OHN000510594 DESANTIS PAINT COMPANY Fund 52 OHN000510610 SUPERIOR CLEANING SOLUTIONS SITE Fund 53 OKN000605465 AIROSOL INC. RESPONSE 54 ORN001001384 OREGON CITY CHEMICAL BARN Fund ------- Row EPA ID Site Name Action Lead 55 ORNOO1003165 QUEEN AVENUE PROPERTY ABSORBENT TECHNOLOGIES Fund 56 PAN000305629 VERDICT CHEMICAL SITE Fund 57 PAN000305668 KRIHWAN PROPERTY Fund 58 PAN000305669 PENNSYLVANIA ENGINEERING - E.R. Fund 59 PAN000306198 MINK SMELTING AND REFINING WORKS LEAD SMELTER Fund 60 PAN000306200 MERCHANTS AND EVANS COMPANY LEAD SMELTER Fund 61 PAN000306544 J&W PHARMLAB EMERGENCY RESPONSE Fund 62 RID001200252 TECHNIC, INC. Fund 63 SCN000404467 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) BERKELEY SITE 64 SCN000404468 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) GREENVILLE - 02 65 SCN000404469 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) FETTERESSA 66 SCN000404473 VIRGININA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) WAPPOO 67 SCN000405369 VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL (VCC) MACMURPHY 68 TNN000404499 LUPTON CITY PCB SITE 69 TXD000356816 CHAMPION TECHNOLOGIES ANHYDROUS AMMONIA RELEASE Fund 70 TXD980625008 HELENA CHEMICAL CO (HAYES SAMON) Fund 71 TXN000606768 THUNDER PRODUCTS Fund 72 TXP490351276 CES PACES-PORT ARTHUR Fund 73 UTD009087644 REILLY TAR & CHEM CORP Fund 74 VAN000306552 INDMAR COATINGS Fund 75 VAN000306716 NANOCHEMONICS SITE Mixed 76 WAN001001501 MCMURRAY ROAD CHEMICAL REMOVAL Fund 77 WV0002303360 DWR CHEMICAL SITE Fund ------- Row EPA ID Site Name Action Lead 78 WVN000305680 BAYER CORP. Fund 79 WYOO11980288 CASPER TEAR GAS Fund ------- Appendix III. Detailed Case Narratives of Chemical Manufacturing Industry Removal Sites with Potential Modern Regulation Releases and Risk 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 Industry facilities. As part of this effort, EPA developed the risk profile using chemical manufacturing sites that experienced releases requiring assessments and/or removal actions, but that were not on the NPL. To identify this universe of chemical manufacturing facilities, EPA used the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) database and queried for non-NPL sites. EPA further winnowed the results to Chemical Manufacturing Industry facilities, which resulted in 290 potential chemical manufacturing facilities that experienced a release that were not on the NPL. From these 290 facilities, EPA further screened out PRP funded assessments and actions, sites for which operational activities were not in Chemical Manufacturing Industry and were therefore outside the scope of the rule, and sites which did not have enough response documentation to conduct a detailed analysis, which left 52 facilities. Finally, EPA collected data from the 52 sites at which the government either fully or partially funded assessment or removal actions to determine if the releases that occurred were the result of legacy issues or if they occurred under modern conditions. This data collection process yielded 34 sites, which EPA designated for further investigation to determine if the releases at the sites were relevant to risks at currently operating chemical manufacturing sites. EPA collected additional data in order to develop release case narratives for each of these sites. To assess whether the releases at those sites are potentially indicative of the risk profile at currently operating facilities, EPA then compared those case narratives with the regulations under which those sites were operating at the time of the releases. As part of its rulemaking effort, EPA collected information about the implementation dates and contents of federal environmental and safety regulations relevant to chemical manufacturing facilities. At each of the 34 sites for which EPA has compiled a case narrative, EPA investigated the relevant federal environmental and safety regulations that were in place at the time of any releases or removal actions. EPA also reviewed state environmental and safety regulations relevant to chemical manufacturing facilities. In order to focus its review, EPA selected a sample of states that comprised the eight states with the highest number of chemical manufacturing facilities that in the aggregate constitute over 50 percent of the chemical manufacturing facilities in the United States. The states for which EPA collected regulatory information were: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas. Thirteen of the 34 sites are in states for which EPA conducted a review of state regulations. For the remaining 27 sites, the existing federal policy at the time of operation and removal action illuminates the implications and risks at chemical manufacturing sites. 27 ------- 1) 5 N Plus Facility Name: 5 N Plus Gallium Trichoride Release EPA Region/State: R1 - Connecticut EPA ID: CTN000106115 Contamination Dates: April 12, 2012 Operation Dates: Unknown Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: No Fund Expenditure Site Background/Description: 5 N Plus is a custom metal manufacturer headquartered in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The Fairfield facility is located in a mixed commercial and residential area of Fairfield, Fairfield County, Connecticut, bordered by Commerce Drive and residences to the north, and by industrial buildings to the south, east, and west. As part of its operations, the facility heats a mixture of gallium and chlorine gas in a pressurized reactor vessel to create gallium trichloride, used in LED TVs. The reaction room is equipped with a rooftop ventilation stack and scrubber. On April 12, 2012, 90 kg of gallium was added to the reactor. The reactor vessel over pressurized and malfunctioned, releasing vapors, primarily consisting of chlorine and hydrochloric acid gases, both inside the building and into the environment. The release lasted for six hours. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: When the release occurred Fairfield Fire and Police evacuated the 5 N Plus facility and two adjacent businesses and implemented shelter-in-place for surrounding areas, affecting approximately 35 people. The nearby Fairfield Metro North/Amtrak station was also closed as a result of the incident. Shortly after, the Fairfield Fire Department reported the release to Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), who sent a responder to the site. In addition, the US Coast Guard (USCG) Sector Long Island Sound deployed a responder team to support the Fairfield County HazMat Team and DEEP. EPA's On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) and USCG personnel were also onsite. EPA and START'S contractor provided perimeter monitoring while contractors cleaned up the contaminated area and pooled material with USCG, DEEP, and EPA oversight. Case file on this site indicated the liquid was containerized, and response agencies demobilized the same day. The following day 5 N Plus's contractors finished neutralizing, containerizing and removing residual liquids from the area with DEEP, USCG, and OSHA oversight. Subsequently, regulatory agencies and 5 N Plus met to discuss the incident and follow-up actions. 5 N Plus and its contractors, with oversight by the Fairfield Fire Department, USCG, and DEEP, were directed complete follow-up actions in two phases: Phase 1 included: - Verify that all reactor services (e.g. heating, cooling, pressurization inflow and outflow) are operational 28 ------- - Verify and calibrate all sensors (e.g., pH, temperature, chlorine, etc.) - Add another vent line from the incident reactor to the scrubber - Purge the incident reactor several times with nitrogen to ensure chlorine is removed Phase 2 included: - As necessary, train 5 N Plus staff to comply with 40-hour OSHA HAZWOPER requirements - Purge the receiving containers with nitrogen and heat to 50 degrees C. GaCL3 from the reactor will be pumped into these containers - Heat the reactor at controlled pressure to 100 degrees C to liquify - Apply a vacuum to the reactor and transfer the GaCL3 into the receiving containers - Purge the reactor vessel - Dispose of the containerized GaCL3 according to State and Federal waste requirements - Decontaminate and screen manufacturing facility for unrestricted reuse. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile Federal environmental regulations were applicable at the time of the 2012 release in Fairfield. Specifically, 5 N Plus was subject to Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) regulations at the time of the incident. These regulations set practices and requirements for public notification of releases of hazardous substances, responses to releases, and remediation of harm caused by releases. For example, 40 CFR Part 355, the CERCLA Emergency Planning and Notification regulation, requires disclosure of facility information for facilities that handle hazardous substances to allow state and local authorities to develop and implement chemical emergency response plans. Additionally, CERCLA Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Community Right to Know, 40 CFR Part 370 Subpart C, requires Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and inventory reporting for hazardous and extremely hazardous materials over certain thresholds present at a facility. CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification regulations are set out in 40 CFR Part 302, which requires that owners or operators of facilities that release hazardous substances above reportable quantity thresholds. These regulations were implemented pursuant to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, which were enacted in 1986. The regulations were therefore in place at the time of the incident. The substances released in the incident, chlorine and hydrochloric acid gases, are both listed as CERCLA hazardous substances per 40 CFR Part 372.3 and are therefore subject to reporting requirements for toxic chemical releases. EPA retains reports on releases submitted under this regulation in the Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI). The CERCA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting requirements were implemented in 1988 and therefore effective at the time of the incident. The release at 5 N Plus involved hydrochloric acid. As such, the facility if subject to National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) Hydrochloric Acid Production regulations as promulgated in 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart NNNNN of the Clean Air Act. This rule establishes emissions 29 ------- limitations and work practice standards (Section 63.9000), monitoring guidelines (Sections 63.9035 - 63.9040) and notifications, reports, and record requirements (Sections 63.9045-63.9060) for the chemical. Although machine malfunction is listed as an exclusion from the emissions standards, the rule requires the owner or operator of an affected source must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan that describes, in detail, procedures for operating and maintaining the source during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Operators must also develop a program of corrective action for malfunctioning process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment used to comply with the relevant standard (40 CFR 63.6). According to Operating Limits promulgated in Appendix 2 of 40 CFR Part 63 subpart NNNNN, for each caustic scrubber or water scrubber or absorber, owner or operators must: a. Maintain the daily average scrubber inlet liquid or recirculating liquid flow rate, as appropriate, above the operating limit; and b. Maintain the daily average scrubber effluent pH within the operating limits; or c. Instead of a. and b., maintain operating parameter(s) within the operating limits established according to the monitoring plan established under § 63.8(f). Subpart NNNNN of 40 CFR Part 63 was implemented in 2003 and was applicable at the time of the incident. The available documentation notes that the 5 N Plus facility's air scrubber was removing the majority of the vapors that resulted from the malfunction prior to release to the atmosphere. The Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions in 40 CFR Part 68 of the Clean Air Act were implemented in 1999 and in place at the time of the incident. These provisions require and set guidance for the prevention and detection of accidental releases (Subparts C, D, and F) and emergency response standards (Subpart E) for certain hazardous substances from stationary sources of over certain threshold amounts of the subject substance. The rules address the use, operation, repair, and maintenance of equipment to monitor, detect, inspect, and control releases, including the training of personnel. Subpart G requires regulated facilities to submit Risk Management Plans (RMPs), comprising hazard assessments, prevention programs, and emergency response programs. The facility is also subject to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standards (29 CFR Part 1910), requiring employers to develop a written safety and health program for 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. Employers are required to have Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) under the OSHA (29 CFR Part 1910). EAPs must include procedures for reporting emergencies, procedures for emergency evacuation, and other procedures (29 CFR Part 1910.38 Subpart E). 5 N Plus is also subject to OSHA Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals standards (29 CFR Part 1910.119) due to its use of hydrochloric acid and chlorine, which are both considered highly hazardous chemicals. These standards require employers to develop a plan of employee implementation, complete a compilation of written process safety information, perform process hazard analyses, establish written operating procedures, conduct trainings, conduct incident investigations, establish emergency action plans, and conduct compliance audits for processes involving hazardous chemicals. HAZWOPER, EAP, and Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals requirements were implemented in 1990, 1980, and 1992, respectively, and were therefore in place at the time of the incident. 30 ------- This review demonstrates that modern federal CERCLA reporting regulations, Clean Air Act emission standards and prevention, detection and emergency response rules, OSHA emergency response and preparedness standards, and OSHA Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals standards were in place and applicable at the time of the release. References: • "5 N Plus Consolidating Operations," Semiconductor Today, September 30, 2016. • "5 N Plus Gallium Trichloride Release Site File: Memorandum," Weston Solutions, May 3, 2012. • Pollution Report #1, April 20, 2012 31 ------- 2) Moss Soap & Chemical Facility Name: Moss Soap & Chemical EPA Region/State: R4- Florida EPA ID: FLN000407422 Contamination Dates: 1940s-2002 Operation Dates: 1940s-2002 Response Action Lead: Mixed Lead Expenditures: Approximately $561,000 Site Background/Description: Located in Miami Florida, the Moss Soap & Chemical facility encompasses two large connected warehouses formerly used for product packaging and mixing lines, chemical storage and shipping. The site also has an outdoor loading dock and truck parking area. Leaking drums were discovered in this outdoor area and in two trailers in the parking area. The building is reported to be in poor condition, possessing holes in the roof and eroded support beams. The Moss Soap & Chemical Company operated a soap and chemical manufacturing facility at this site for industrial and janitorial purposes from the 1940s to 2002. Raw materials were combined at the facility to be repackaged for sale. Moss Soap & Chemical Company was the owner and operator of the site at the time the contamination was discovered. The site has been family owned by this company from the 1940s to 2002. Operations ceased in 2002 following an inspection of the site on February 28, 2002 by the Dade County Buildings Department; the Buildings Department declared the building unsafe and ordered the cessation of operations at the site. Throughout its years of operation and as some product lines were discontinued, Moss Soap & Chemical Company began to accumulate various chemicals, which remained on-site. This included the chemicals sulfuric acid, calcium hypochlorite, sodium perborate, and acetone. These chemicals were stored throughout the building in drums and other containers. EPA determined that structure of the facility was compromised posing a potential threat of release. EPA and DERM noted deteriorated and leaking drums on-site, which were exposed to external rainfall through holes in the roof. In addition, they noticed unknown releases on the ground outside the facility in several locations. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: EPA first learned about issues at the site when the Dade County Fire Department notified the agency following the completion of a safety audit. During the audit, Miami-Dade County Fire discovered deteriorating drums and contains and leaking chemicals at the facility. Containers storing several hazardous substances, including highly basic chemicals, highly acidic chemicals, flammable liquids, chlorine compounds, and oxidizers were present at the site. Specifically, EPA and the Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) found sulfonic acid, sulfuric acid, calcium hypochlorite, sodium perborate, and acetone. The storage containers were deteriorating and leaking, releasing hazardous substances into local soils and groundwater. The audit also revealed that the 32 ------- warehouses themselves were in poor condition with corroded support beams and holes in the roof that permitted rain to enter and reach water reactive chemicals, resulting in the release of chlorine gas. In February 2002, EPA and DERM completed a removal assessment at the site. DERM issued a notice of violation to Moss Soap & Chemical Company and contacted the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. At this point, active operations were ongoing at the site. Following the removal assessment, DERM oversaw the cleanup of ground releases and monitored conditions at the facility. In March 2002, EPA contacted Moss Soap & Chemical Company to instigate the immediate cleanup of the facility, but no cleanup was conducted. As a result, EPA initiated a removal at the site, on March 14, 2002. EPA staged leaking containers and moved drums to locations at the site that were least exposed by breaches in the roof. While conducting the removal action, EPA located two trailers on the grounds that contained additional drums of unknown materials. From March to November of 2002, EPA attempted to negotiate a consent agreement to perform further removal actions at the site with Moss Soap & Chemical, which ultimately declined to participate in the action. EPA continued the removal action on its own. During a tour of the site in advance of activities in November of 2002, EPA discovered further deterioration: the holes in the roof had expanded, exposing most of the containers to rain, and more drums and other containers were leaking or otherwise failing. EPA removal activities in November of 2002 consisted of segregation and characterization of on-site wastes. In March of 2003, EPA Region 4 authorized additional funds and a 12-month extension for the removal action. Once again, EPA attempted to negotiate a cleanup agreement with Moss Soap & Chemical Company, and again the company refused. EPA returned to the site and conducted cleanup activities in July and August of 2003. EPA discovered that conditions had further deteriorated at the site. More of the roof had collapsed and additional drums were found to be leaking. During these site visits, the facility laboratory was packed into drums and containers for disposal. Drummed waste was segregated into waste groups in preparation for bulking and disposal. Additional drummed waste was found during a complete search of the facility. For these newly discovered drums, they sampled and conducted hazardous characterization determinations for them. This included 29 drums removed from one of two shipping containers found on-site. The other shipping container was emptied during the November. Additionally, 31 drums were discovered in a previously unknown room and a further eight drums were discovered outside of a breeze way door between the two buildings. Loose soil and debris from behind the shipping container was also excavated and buried drums found. EPA noted that during each rain event, rain mixed with various chemicals from leaking drums and flowed onto the adjacent street. One such release was discovered to have a pH of 11. Therefore, measures were taken to reduce this flow. In October of 2005, the owner of the facility hired a contractor to continue cleanup operations. This included the removal of drums, tanks, and other debris for off-site disposal. By end October 2005, the contactor had finished the disposal of remaining materials off-site. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile 33 ------- During EPA's site assessment, sulfuric acid, calcium hypochlorite, sodium perborate, and acetone were all found. Sulfuric acid and acetone are defined as Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) hazardous substances and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous wastes. Sulfuric acid is listed as a toxic waste and an acute hazardous waste under 40 CFR Part 261.33 and 40 CFR Part 372.3. Sulfuric acid is also listed as a CERCLA toxic chemical under 40 CFR Part 372.65 and a CERCLA extremely hazardous substance under 40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A. Acetone is listed as a toxic waste under 40 CFR Part 261.33. Sulfuric acid is also listed in CERCLA under 347 CFR 355 Appendix A as an extremely hazardous substance. CERCLA and RCRA were passed in 1980 and 1976, respectfully. As a result, regulations within CERCLA and RCRA are applicable to the Moss Soap & Chemical site. Because Moss Soap & Chemical Company stored sulfuric acid on site, it was potentially subject to 40 CFR Part 355, CERCLA Emergency Planning and Notification regulations, as a facility that handled an extremely hazardous substance. It is unclear if Moss Soap & Chemical Company stored or otherwise handled sulfuric acid in an amount above the threshold that would make 40 CFR Part 355 applicable to the facility. Under these regulations, Moss Soap & Chemical Company would have been required to disclose facility information to allow state and local authorities to develop and implement chemical emergency response plans. CERCLA Emergency Planning and Notification regulations went into effect in 1986. . Based on the review of case files on the site, it's not clear the facility reported these releases Additionally, because EPA's site inspection observed leaks from storage drums at the Moss Soap & Chemical Company Site and that some of those drums contained sulfuric acid, and because sulfuric acid is classified as a CERCLA toxic chemical under 40 CFR Part 372.65, the site was also subject to CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting regulations. These regulations require facility owners and operators to submit reports on releases of toxic chemicals to the Toxic Releases Inventory (or TRI). CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting regulations were effective as of 1988. EPA was not aware of releases of sulfuric acid at the site until after a site inspection. Moss Soap & Chemical Company did not adhere to federal notification requirements for reporting a hazardous waste release. Hazardous waste was left on-site exposed to external weather conditions and was not properly disposed. Enacted in the 1968 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, details standards for preparedness and response to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous wastes. CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification regulations, which were effective in 1985, established notification requirements for facility operators that release hazardous substances above reportable quantity thresholds. Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Community Right to Know regulations were also implemented under the authority of CERCLA one year later, in 1986; the regulations created the Material Safety Data Sheet system to catalog hazardous substances at facilities and require facilities that release hazardous materials above certain thresholds to report those releases. EPA discovered the contamination at Moss Soap & Chemicals Company during a site inspection, which may be subject to CERCLA reporting requirements. Over time, buildings and containers at the Moss Soap & Chemical Company facility deteriorated and the waste stored within the facility became exposed to the external environment. EPA noted that during periods of heavy rain, rainwater mixed with chemical substances and flowed outside the site toward the street. These conditions are subject to RCRA regulation. More specifically 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C, established in 1980, stipulates that hazardous waste facilities must be designed, constructed, 34 ------- maintained, and operated to minimize the possibility of an unplanned release of hazardous waste. EPA observed multiple unknown releases at the facility, as well as drums that leaked and had otherwise deteriorated. Effective in 1993, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart DD established design and operating standards for containment buildings that treat or store hazardous waste. These regulations require facility owners and operators to remove or decontaminate all residues, containment components, subsoils, structures, and equipment contaminated with hazardous waste and treat those materials as hazardous waste. In the event that an owner or operator cannot affect removal and/or decontamination, they must close the facility and perform post-closure care. 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. Containers at the facility were eroded and exposed to outside elements causing leakage, and their conditions deteriorated over the course of EPA action at the facility from 2002 to 2003, without any evidence of inspections or decontaminating activities undertaken by Moss Soap & Chemical Company. EPA implemented RCRA regulations addressing the use and management of containers 1981. 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. Therefore, the facility must have enough money to cover the cost during these two periods. 40 CFR 264, Subpart H was promulgated in 1982. It is unclear if Moss Soap & Chemical Company had financial responsibility instruments in place to cover the cost of cleanup, however the company did not participate in a consent agreement to complete initial cleanup of the site and did not perform its own cleanup activities until 2005, three years after the discovery of contamination. The Moss Soap & Chemical Company 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 35 ------- 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. As Moss Soap & Chemical Company was disposing hazardous waste as its facility, it would have been required to obtain a Hazardous Waste Permit; it is unclear if Moss Soap & Chemical obtained a permit as required. The Moss Soap & Chemical Company's storage of hazardous waste 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. In addition to federal regulations, the Moss Soap & Chemical facility may be subject to at least one state regulation. Enacted in 1998, F.A.C 62-150 requires that operators of facilities notify the Florida Department of Environmental Protection upon knowledge of a release of a hazardous substance that exceeds the reportable quantity. References: • Action Memorandum, June 11, 2003 • Pollution Report # 1, October 27, 2005 • Pollution Report # 2, June 20, 2006 36 ------- 3) OZ Technology, Inc. Facility Name: Oz Technology, Inc. EPA Region/State: RIO - Idaho EPA ID: IDN001002848 Contamination Dates: September 20, 2009 Operation Dates: Unknown Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $130,000 Site Background/Description: The Oz Technology, Inc. site, located at 10278 North Church Road, Kootenai County Idaho, contains a single-wide mobile home on about seven acres of land. Additionally, there are two outlying buildings containing palletized shipments of Hydrocarbon Blend B (HC-12a) in tanks, propane tanks, and aerosol containers. The site is located within 150 feet of surrounding residences and businesses. On September 20, 2009, a fire and explosion occurred on site. During this incident, the mobile home was destroyed in the fire, which resulted in the death of a 65-year-old male inhabitant, the owner and operator of Oz Technology. The remaining employee, a secretary, was off-site during the fire and survived. The two additional outlying buildings containing HC-12a remained intact. It is unclear when Oz Technology began operations. On-site, they produce and package HC-12a and HC- 22a. The site owner held a patent for HC-12a. These hydrocarbon refrigerants are substitutes for R-12 and HFC-134a. However, EPA has designated HC-12a as an unacceptable substitute for R12a and HFC 134a under the Clean Air Act. The primary ingredients of HC-12a and HC-22a are compressed flammable gases including butane, isobutene, propane, and propylene. It appears that the site was solely owned by Oz Technology and the 65-year old man who died during the explosion. The secretary of the business, who was off-site during the explosion, provided the EPA and authorities with information after the incident. It is unclear whether the site is still operating. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: Fire personnel responded to the incident on September 20, 2009. In addition to addressing the fire, personnel removed HC-12a found in the two outlying buildings to outside of the immediate fire area. After the incident, EPA performed a site inspection on September 29, 2009. During the site inspection, EPA discovered innumerable packaged and unpackaged HC-12a aerosol canisters scattered throughout the site. Additionally, automotive batteries, propane cylinders, fluorescence lights (containing mercury), and 55-gallon drums were discovered on-site. Considering the proximity of these materials to the surrounding properties, EPA decided that these materials needed to be removed. EPA also determined that the potentially responsible party (PRP) did not have the ability to conduct a quick and extensive clean up. In October 2009, with support of local and state fire and environmental agencies, EPA conducted an emergency response at the site. During these efforts, 2,300 cardboard cartons of 12 eight-ounce 37 ------- flammable gas aerosol canisters were removed from the site. Additionally, six 55-gallon drums of anti- freeze and used oil, six automotive batteries and 60 fluorescent lights were removed. Finally, EPA discovered 100 propane cylinders (three gallons to 300 gallons) and about 1,000 empty aerosol canisters. These were grouped and left onsite for the PRP. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile EPA's involvement in the incident and the disposal of hazardous materials resulted from an explosion and fire at Oz Technology, which may have been caused by a lack of compliant Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) safety measures aimed at minimizing and preventing the consequences of catastrophic releases of hazardous chemicals. First enacted in 1992 under OSHA, 29 CFR Part 1910.119 requires that employers establish and implement a written safety and health program for employees involved in hazardous waste operations, which should be designed to identify, evaluate, and control safety and health standards, and provide for emergency response. Propane tanks were also found onsite. 29 CFR Part 1910.110 also details the requirements for the storage, transportation, and usage of propane tanks. Historically, Oz Technologies was fined by the Department of Transportation/Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration for use of unauthorized containers for transportation in commerce. Beginning in 2002, this is regulated by the Hazardous Materials Safety Regulations in 49 CFR Parts 100-185. Effective in 1990, 29 CFR Part 1910.120 and 29 CFR Part 1926.65 in OSHA requires the development of Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standards, which provide emergency response protocol and safety standards for employees. It is unclear whether the site owner provided these emergency preparedness materials to his employee. Both reporting regulations under both OSHA and CERCLA may have applied to the site and the explosion incident. 29 CFR Part 1910.38, Subpart E, promulgated under OSHA and effective in 1980, outlines procedures for reporting a fire. As of 1986, the Emergency Planning and Notification regulations in 40 CFR Part 355 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) require the disclosure of facility information to allow state and local authorities to develop and implement chemical emergency response plans. This regulation applied if Oz Technology stored CERCLA extremely hazardous substances above threshold planning limits set forth in 40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A. If the fire released CERCLA hazardous substances above reportable quantities set forth in 40 CFR Part 302.4, this release was reportable under the CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification regulations, effective in 1985. If the fire released CERCLA toxic chemicals (listed in 40 CFR Part 372.65), the release was reportable under the CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting rules, effective in 1988. It is unclear the extent of the secretary's involvement in notifying authorities. In addition to HC-12a and HC-22a, EPA discovered automotive batteries, mercury-containing florescent lights, and drums (filled with used oil) within the site. Therefore, RCRA regulations that address these substances are relevant to the site. Effective in 1995, 40 CFR Part 273, pursuant to RCRA, establishes protocol for the disposal of mercury containing equipment as well as other equipment such as batteries. 40 CFR Part 279 establishes standards for the disposal of used oil. Additionally, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I, establishes standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities that store hazardous 38 ------- waste in containers. Passed in 1980, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C in RCRA requires that facilities be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated in a way that minimizes the possibility of a fire, explosion, or unplanned release of hazardous waste. In 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart D, owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities must have a contingency plan designed to minimize hazards to human health or the environment from fires, explosions, or the release of hazardous waste. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart B establishes general facility standards for hazardous waste facilities. Specifically, the regulation requires that facility owners and operators take precautions to prevent accidental ignition or reaction of ignitable or reactive waste. This review demonstrates that modern emergency response, prevention and preparedness, and hazardous waste regulations were in place at the time of the incident on September 20, 2009. Further, site documentation indicates a history of noncompliance and EPA enforcement actions. After the explosion, EPA conducted a removal action. The government bore the cause of the removal action. References: • Coroner's Report, September 26, 2009. • Pollution Report # 1, October 5, 2009. 39 ------- 4) Advanced Asymmetries Removal Facility Name: Advanced Asymmetries Removal EPA Region/State: R5 - Illinois EPA ID: ILN000506124 Contamination Dates: 1994-2016 Operation Dates: 1994-2011 Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: $316,000 Site Background/Description: Advanced Asymmetries operated at this facility from approximately 1994 to 2011 and for a short period of time (2009) from a location in Albers, Illinois. After 2011, site operations ceased and the site was abandoned. Historically, the laboratory specialized in the production of chiral chemicals. Primarily, it synthesized specialty chemicals for the pharmaceutical industry and university research. Products sold were either in the liquid or powder form and sold mainly in small quantities. In 2015, EPA noted the building was unsecure. People could easily enter the building, potentially contaminating themselves and the surrounding residential community. Adding to the concern for release, EPA discovered broken windows as well as deterioration on the roof. In 2015, an individual purchased the back taxes and took possession of the property without knowing about the contamination. During the inspection, EPA discovered various chemicals including, but not limited to: toluene, hydrofluoric acid (muriatic), magnesium chloride, hydrogen peroxide, sodium hydroxide, L-phenylamine, benzoyl chloride greater than 99 percent, dimethoxymethane, diethyl sulfate, acetone, methylene chloride, corrosives, nitromethane 96 percent, (-)-D-mandelic acid greater than 99 percent, acetic acid, hexane, diethyl ether, nitric acid, sulfuric acid, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), hydrogen peroxide solution (35 percent peroxide), tetrahydrofuran, thionyl chloride, 2-methylheptane, methonal (U154), di-tert-buthyl, disulfide, sodium cyanide, and methylene chloride. These chemicals were scattered throughout the building. EPA observed many drums and containers loosely stacked or placed on shelves in a haphazard configuration. Containers were also in areas where the rainwater leaks in from the roof, posing a threat from chemicals that react to water. For example, during site visits EPA found containers labeled "spontaneously combustible chemical when it comes in contact with water" and containers labeled "ignitable" next to each other in an area exposed to rainwater. Other contamination at the site included but was not limited two small polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) containing transformers and light ballasts, compressed gas cylinders containing anhydrous ammonia, carbon dioxide and hydrogen, asbestos containing materials. Due to the proximity of the site to residential buildings and the ease with which the site could be entered, EPA feared exposure either through trespassing or inhalation. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: On August 11, 2015 the Illinois EPA received a call from an individual who claimed to own the building at the site. This individual purchased the back taxes and took possession of the property earlier that month. After taking possession of the property, he entered the building through a broken window and 40 ------- observed large amounts of chemical containers. He immediately left the building and contacted the Illinois EPA. Subsequently, Illinois EPA conducted an inspection and observed that the power meter had been removed from the building and the front door was unlocked. Though the site has been boarded-up to stop trespassing, the building was not fully secured. There were broken windows with missing glass, and every garage bay door was unlocked. Illinois EPA placed a "Seal Order" on the site to warn people that there were "significant chemical waste and unpermitted hazardous materials at the site." In November of 2015, US EPA mobilized to the site to conduct the removal action. From December 2015 to March 2016, EPA preformed site cleanup. EPA categorized, re-containerized and segregated known chemicals with immediate dangerous to life or health considerations. In February of 2016, EPA completed the inventory of all known labeled hazardous materials. EPA opened unknown chemical containers, initiated the beginning of chemical segregation by hazard class, and began the hazardous categorization/identification of the unknown materials. The following month, EPA completed lab- packing of all the known chemical compounds according to their hazard classification. EPA disposed of the chemicals and debris found throughout the laboratory and stabilized the site to minimize the effects of weathering the building had experienced overtime. Over the course of the removal action, EPA removed and sent the following materials to appropriate off-site disposal or recycling facilities: miscellaneous non-hazardous debris; friable and non-friable asbestos; compressed gas cylinders containing hazardous wastes; miscellaneous materials requiring special handling and disposal (e.g., waste dry picric acid, potassium metal strips, and lithium aluminum hydride); flammable and corrosive liquids; hazardous solids; and lab pack chemicals. In addition to site cleanup, EPA reached out to residents to disclose information about the site and coordinated with local government. In June of 2016, EPA pressure washed the floor inside the building and demobilized all equipment; the Illinois EPA removed the Seal Order from the property the same month. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile During its inspection, EPA discovered various hazardous materials abandoned onsite. Many of these substances are defined as toxic waste or acute hazardous waste within the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, codified in 40 CFR Part 261.33. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) also lists some of the substance found onsite as hazardous substances (at 40 CFR Part 302.4), toxic chemicals (at 40 CFR Part 372.3), and/or extremely hazardous substances (at 40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A). The presence of these substances onsite indicates regulations promulgated under CERCLA and RCRA applied to the site owners and operators. During site operations between 1994 and 2011, relevant CERCLA regulations set practices and requirements for public notification of releases of hazardous substances, responses to releases, and remediation of harm caused by releases. CERCLA was passed in 1980, before operations began at the Advanced Asymmetries site. For example, 40 CFR Part 355, the CERCLA Emergency Planning and Notification regulation, requires disclosure of facility information to allow state and local authorities to develop and implement chemical emergency response plans for facilities that store CERCLA extremely hazardous substances about reportable quantities. If the Advanced Asymmetries site stored its CERCLA 41 ------- extremely hazardous substances above threshold quantities set forth in 40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A, it was required to disclose facility information under this regulation effective in 1986. Additionally, CERCLA Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Community Right to Know, 40 CFR Part 370, Subpart C, effective in 1986, requires Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and inventory reporting for hazardous and extremely hazardous materials over certain thresholds present at a facility. 40 CFR Part 302, Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification, effective in 1985, requires notification to the National Response Center (NRC) of releases of CERCLA hazardous substances above reportable quantities. 40 CFR Part 372, Toxic Chemical Release Reporting requirements, requires notification of releases of CERCLA toxic chemicals to the Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI). CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting regulations were effective in 1988. EPA documented several releases of the chemicals found onsite. Superfund documents suggest Illinois EPA and US EPA learned of these releases when an individual purchased the property and discovered the chemicals in 2015. In addition to the federal emergency preparedness and prevention and release reporting requirements promulgated under CERCLA, the site owner was also subjection to similar State of Illinois regulations. Development, Annual Review, Coordination of Chemical Safety Contingency Plans (29 III. Adm. Code 610, effective in 1986) establishes coordination activities that must take place between a business and local geographical jurisdiction's emergency preparedness planning and emergency response agencies to develop and annually review chemical safety contingency plans and procedures. Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know (29 III. Adm. Code 620, effective in 1987) outlines planning requirements and notification procedures. It establishes reporting procedures for facilities that handle hazardous chemicals regulated under the Occupational Safety and Health Standards (29 CFR 1910). It also establishes procedures to ensure that the location and amount of hazardous chemicals in a facility is monitored and made available to the local emergency response agencies. Finally, it requires immediate notification and submission of subsequent written report to the Illinois State Emergency Response Commission in case of an accident or incident that involves the release of a reportable hazardous material or extremely hazardous substance. The majority of relevant RCRA hazardous waste rules are codified in the Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities at 40 CFR Part 264. Effective in 1980, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C, Preparedness and Prevention, requires that facilities be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated in a way that minimizes the possibility of a fire, explosion, or unplanned release of hazardous waste. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart DD, Containment Buildings, establishes design and operating standards for containment buildings that treat or store hazardous waste. Additionally, it requires that owners and operators of facilities with containment buildings remove or decontaminate all waste residues, containment system components, subsoils, and structures and equipment contaminated with waste or leachate, and manage them as hazardous waste. Further, owners and operators must generate closure plans and cost estimates, perform closure activities, and acquire financial responsibilities for containment buildings. This regulation became effective in 1993. Effective in 1986, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart G, Closure and Post-Closure, establishes guidelines for a facility closure. These include two types of requirements: 1. Closure requirements, which include imposition of closure standards, implementation of closure plan, and time allowed for closure activities. These set guidelines for disposal or decontamination of equipment, structures, and soils. After completion of closure, operators must submit a certification of closure to an EPA's regional office. 42 ------- 2. Post-closure requirements, which 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. Financial Requirements, 40 CFR Part 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. Therefore, the facility must have enough money to cover the cost during these two periods. This subpart was promulgated in 1982. Finally, Use and Management of Containers, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I, establishes regulations for operators storing hazardous waste in containers. It requires that hazardous waste be stored in containers that will not react with the substances inside. To avoid contamination, containers must be kept closed and must be handled and stored in a manner that avoids rupture or leakage. During the facilities closure period, all hazardous wastes and hazardous waste residues must be removed from the containment system and containers must be decontaminated. This regulation became effective in 1981. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart E, Manifest System, Recordkeeping, and Reporting, was promulgated in 1980 and in effect during the operation and abandonment of the site barn. The rule stipulates that owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities provide 1) a description and the quantity of each hazardous waste received, and the method(s) and date(s) of its treatment, storage, or disposal at the facility and 2) the location of each hazardous waste within the facility and the quantity at each location. This information must be maintained in the operating record until closure of the facility. In addition to these 40 CFR Part 264 standards, 40 CFR Part 270, effective 1980, requires that owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities obtain permits to conduct those activities. Owners and operators of hazardous waste management units must have permits during the active life of the unit, including during closure. 40 CFR Part 268, Land Disposal Restrictions, became effective in 1986 and designates and regulates certain wastes as prohibited. 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart C, Prohibitions on Land Disposal, prohibits land disposal of specific wastes including wood preserving wastes, dioxin-containing wastes, soils with toxicity characteristics of metals and PCBs, toxicity characteristic metal wastes, inorganic chemical wastes, and ignitable and corrosive wastes, among others. Many wastes found onsite likely qualified as prohibited wastes under the Land Disposal Restrictions. 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart E, Prohibitions on Storage, requires that prohibited wastes be stored in tanks, containers, or containment buildings at disposal facilities, and stipulates that wastes may only be stored to facilitate their proper recovery, treatment, and disposal. It further prohibits storage of prohibited wastes for more than one year. Advanced Asymetrics' abandonment of prohibited wastes therefore represents a potential violation of the Land Disposal Restrictions. The state of Illinois largely adopts the federal RCRA hazardous waste management regulations. Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (35 III. Adm Code 724, effective in 1982), identifies those solid wastes that are subject to regulation as hazardous wastes. Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (35 III. Adm Code 724, effective in 1983) establishes minimum standards that define the acceptable management of hazardous waste. Land Disposal Restrictions (35 III. Adm Code 724, 43 ------- effective in 1987) identifies hazardous wastes that are restricted from land disposal and defines those limited circumstances under which an otherwise prohibited waste may continue to be land disposed. Site documents also indicate violation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which regulates both PCBs and asbestos, both of which EPA removed from the site. 40 CFR Part 761 (PCBs Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions), governs 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 761.79, promulgated on June 29, 1998, which sets forth 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 TSCA also addresses asbestos disposal; Appendix D to Subpart E of 40 CFR Part 763: Transport and Disposal of Asbestos Waste, which went into effect in 1987, outlines asbestos disposal requirements and applied to the asbestos left onsite by the facility owner. The presence of PCB and asbestos contaminated materials onsite indicates that these regulations were applicable at the site. This review demonstrates that federal hazardous waste disposal and hazardous substance release reporting requirements were in effect throughout site operations and site abandonment. In particular, the relevant regulations in place were hazardous waste regulations promulgated under CERCLA, RCRA, and TSCA. After the site's closure, large amounts of hazardous chemicals were left onsite. These chemicals were stored haphazardly, and many were exposed to outside weather conditions through rainwater leaks. Many of these chemicals were released through spills or leaking deteriorating containers. Further, the site owner did not hold financial capacity to clean the site, which transferred responsibility for the cleanup to the EPA. References: Action Memorandum, November 9, 2015. Fox 2 Now Illinois EPA Seals Abandoned Business in Millstadt, September 29, 2015. Pollution Report # 1, December 11, 2015. Pollution Report # 3, May 12, 2016. Pollution Report # 4, August 23, 2016. 44 ------- 5) National Lacquer and Paint Facility Name: National Lacquer and Paint EPA Region/State: R5 - Illinois EPA ID: ILN000508951 Contamination Dates: 1950s-2004 Operation Dates: 1950s-2002 Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $2,915,000 Site Background/Description: The National Lacquer and Paint site is located between 7411 and 7431 South Green Street, Chicago, Illinois. The site consists of several two-story brick buildings identified in the site's contingency plan as Buildings A through F. The 1st floor of Building A houses a main office, warehouse, an outdoor above- ground tank farm, and a dock. Building B houses the main mixing room. The second floor of building B holds a laboratory. Building C houses the roller mill room; Building D houses the pigment room; Building E houses the wash department; and Building F houses the ball mill room. An outdoor storage yard lies between buildings A and F on the west side of the site. The property was not guarded. Residents living adjacent to the site indicated that children regularly enter the property The site was used to manufacture lacquers and paints for over forty years. However, in a 1997 site visit, Chicago Department of Environment (CDOE) noted that site operations changed from paint manufacturing to wood stripping and paint pigment repackaging. The wood stripping operations utilized methylene chloride. By order of the City of Chicago Building Department, site operations ceased in June 2002 due to building code violations. Paul Meyers owned the site as part of National Lacquer and Pain Company until he sold it to Elina Dalleck in 1986. Ms. Dalleck operated the business as its president until 1995, when National Lacquer and Paint Company was dissolved and the business was sold to National Lacquer Company, Inc. The Capital Tax Corporation acquired portions of the site where hazardous wastes are currently stored by tax deed in 2003. Between 1997 and 2002, CDOE and other local agencies documented contamination at the site through multiple site visits. This contamination included hundreds of drums and pails, some of which were rusted and leaking flammable liquids, in various parts of the site; a sub-basement filled with a brownish liquid; and a strong solvent odor in two of the site buildings from leaking drums and pails; and a 2002 release of hazardous substances from a drum that was being moved from one part of the site to another. After the site closure in 2002, many of drums, pails, and jars containing hazardous substances were abandoned onsite in poor condition and, in some instances, releasing some of their contents to the ground. The site contained approximately 800 drums, 8,000 buckets, 6 totes, 10 compressed gas cylinders, 10,000 laboratory jars/bottles and 71 tanks of various sizes. The materials in the drums were mostly labeled as paints, waste solvents, various acids and resins. Many of the drums were rusted and leaking. Analytical results from the sampling of the drums and tanks identified the presence of flammable liquids, chlorinated solvents, acids, bases and wastes exhibiting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) lead toxicity characteristic. Substances found onsite included epichlorohydrin, 45 ------- butyl acetate, trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, dipropylene monomethyl ether, polybutadiene hydroxyl, ethylene dichloride, acetanilide, butyl carbitol, hexamethylene diisocyanate, polyisocyanate, sodium dichromate, ammonium dichromate, potassium dichromate, chromic acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, sodium hydroxide, cobalt, and lead acetate. EPA feared conditions at the site could cause potential exposure to humans, animals and the surrounding environment through exposure of the hazardous materials to weather. The roof contained holes that allowed rainwater into the building, increasing the risk of a release. Additionally, because many of the substances held within the building were flammable, the potential for an explosion or fire existed. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: According to a CDOE complaint investigation form, in September of 1997, CDOE and Chicago Fire Department (CFD) representatives met with William Lerch, Plant Manager, to inspect the site. Hundreds of drums and pails, some of which were rusted and leaking flammable liquids, were observed in various parts of the site. Mr. Lerch indicated that a contractor had been contacted to dispose of the waste materials. According to a CDOE inspection report, CDOE and CFD representatives inspected the site in January of 1998. The report indicates that some of the drums observed during the September 1997 inspection were segregated by their contents, but many of the drums and pails were still unlabeled and leaking. The wood-stripping vats were partially full and the sub-basement beneath them was filled with a brownish liquid. Hundreds of drums, some of which were rusted and leaking flammable liquids, were observed in various parts of the site. A strong solvent odor was present in two of the site buildings from leaking drums and pails. The report indicates that the strong solvent odor at the premises presented a potential fire and environmental hazard. According to a CDOE status inspection report, CDOE re-inspected the site the same month. The report indicates that Mr. Lerch provided the inspector with a business license, a contract with Strong Environmental for removal, disposal and analytical services, a waste manifest, and an inventory of material and material data safety sheets (MSDS's). The process of cleaning was in progress. The drums were labeled and none were leaking. The floor of the warehouse was covered with a mix of rainwater from a leaking roof and spilled products from leaking pails. The wood-stripping vats were covered, but the sub-basement still had liquid in it. Mr. Lerch indicated that the liquid was water from a leaky roof. Approximately 100 drums of stripping waste were present in the yard, awaiting solids separation. CDOE and CFD representatives inspected the site again in May of 1998. The report indicates that many of the drums and pails were still unlabeled and leaking. There still was no paint production operation, only wood-stripping. A strong solvent odor was present in the warehouse. Water mixed with product was flowing out of the door of the warehouse into the street. The roof of the buildings was still leaking. The report indicates that the premises presented potential fire, health and environmental hazards. In April of 2002, CDOE, Chicago Police Department (CPD), and CFD representatives responded to report of a hazardous materials release at the site. The report indicates that Mr. Lerch called the CPD to report that workers for the Capital Tax Corp. were moving drums of hazardous materials from one part of a 46 ------- building to another, causing the drums to leak on the floor. According to Mr. Lerch, the workers were moving drums from the warehouse now owned by Capital Tax Corp. to an adjacent area owned by National Lacquer. Mr. Lerch also indicated that National Lacquer had closed its business, although City inspectors later observed indications that business activities were still ongoing. The City photo- documented site conditions and issued National Lacquer Co. and Capital Tax Corp. Administrative Notices of violations for various City code violations, which included the spillage of hazardous substances due to container movement, accumulation of material, treatment and disposal of liquid and solid wastes, and causing conditions detrimental to health. In June of 2002, the City of Chicago Building Department ordered work at the premises to cease due to building code violations. The following year, in July of 2003, the CDOE requested EPA to assess the NLP site for a removal action in order to address the waste materials abandoned at the site. EPA escorted representatives of the CDOE and CFD on an inspection of the site. Workers in Building F were removing equipment with cutting torches and indicated that they were working for the building's owner. 2003 EPA returned to the site to initiate a removal assessment. EPA and the CFD nailed plywood over the broken overhead door to restrict open access to the storage yard and buildings. EPA then returned to the site to complete the removal assessment, which included extensive sampling of vats, drums, above-ground storage tanks, and other containers. In October of 2003, EPA mobilized personnel and equipment to the site and began site preparation for the removal action. The site was secured, work areas were cleared of brush and debris, open vats of volatile materials were covered with poly sheeting, work zones were delineated, and electric service was installed in the support zone. EPA escorted potentially responsible parties (PRPs) Mr. William Lerch and Mr. Steve Pedi to the site. The PRPs and their contractors conducted an inspection of the portions of the property that they own. EPA then commenced composite sampling and containerizing of small containers (gallon-sized) for disposal in a storage yard. Over 1,000 small containers were overpacked into drums. Removal activities continued onsite through May of 2004. All drums and small containers on the site were overpacked into shippable salvage drums for offsite disposal. Removal activities included, but are not limited to, power washing, shipping drums of waste offsite for disposal, pumping wastewater into tankers for offsite treatment, collecting additional soil samples, and lab packing laboratory chemicals. As of May 2004, shipping of waste off site for disposal and decontaminating the site continue was scheduled to continue. EPA's next steps included shipping overpacked drums and cubic yard boxes offsite for disposal, cleaning out the remaining tank in the storage yard and the pit in the wash department, removing soil, and continuing air monitoring. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile During the site inspections, EPA discovered various hazardous chemicals stored at the site. These chemicals included: epichlorohydrin, butyl acetate, trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, dipropylene monomethyl ether, polybutadiene hydroxyl, ethylene dichloride, acetanilide, butyl carbitol, hexamethylene diisocyanate, polyisocyanate, sodium dichromate, ammonium dichromate, potassium dichromate, chromic acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, sodium hydroxide, cobalt, and lead acetate. 47 ------- Many of these substances are defined as toxic waste or acute hazardous waste within RCRA under 40 CFR 261.33 and as a result, the site is subject to RCRA regulations. RCRA was enacted in 1976. Additionally, some of the chemicals are defined as a toxic chemicals, hazardous substances, and extremely hazardous substances within the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) under 40 CFR 372.3. As a result, the site is subject to reporting regulations under CERCLA. CERCLA was enacted in 1980. Specifically, under CERCLA, the relevant regulations set practices and requirements for public notification of releases of hazardous substances, responses to releases, and remediation of harm caused by releases. Site documentation indicates multiple releases occurred at the facility. In 2002, the site owner reported a release from a drum that was being moved from one part of the site to another. It is unclear if the site owner reported other releases that occurred at the facility through leaking drums, which CDOE discovered and documented between 1997 and 2002. Multiple CERCLA regulations require release reporting. Because toxic chemicals such as cobalt and sulfuric acid were found on-site, CERLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting, 40 CFR Part 372, may have been relevant. This regulation requires facility owners and operators to submit reports on releases of toxic chemicals to the Toxic Releases Inventory (orTRI). CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting regulations were effective as of 1988. In addition, CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification, 40 CFR Part 302, designates hazardous substances and establishes notification requirements for owners or operators of vessels or facilities that release hazardous substances above reportable quantity thresholds. Further, CERCLA Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Community Right to Know, 40 CFR Part 370 Subpart C, requires Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and inventory reporting for hazardous and extremely hazardous materials over certain thresholds present at a facility. Along with these federal regulations, state regulations also applied to the site. Effective in 1986, 29 III. Adm. Code 610 (Development, Annual Review, Coordination of Chemical Safety Contingency Plans) establishes coordination activities which shall take place between a business and local geographical jurisdiction's emergency preparedness planning and emergency response agencies to develop and annually review chemical safety contingency plans and procedures. Building on the previous regulation, 29 III. Adm. Code 620 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know implements comprehensive state and local emergency response plans designed to protect the public and the environment from any harmful effects that may result from an accidental release of an extremely hazardous substance. Specifically, it outlines planning requirements and notification procedures. It also establishes reporting procedures for facilities that handle hazardous chemicals regulated under the Occupational Safety and Health Standards (29 CFR 1910). Code 620 came into effect in 1987. Finally, effective in 1984, the Illinois Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan defined in 35 III. Adm. Code 750 effectuates the response powers and responsibilities of Illinois authorities in order to take preventative or corrective actions that are necessary or appropriate when there is a release or a substantial threat of release of a hazardous substance. Because hazardous substances were abandoned onsite, RCRA regulations were applicable at the site. The majority of relevant RCRA regulations are defined within the Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities in 40 CFR Part 264. Effective in 1980, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C, Preparedness and Prevention requires that facilities are designed, constructed, maintained, and operated in a way that minimizes the possibility of a fire, explosion, or unplanned release of hazardous waste. 48 ------- Effective in 1986, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart G, Closure and Post-Closure, establishes guidelines for a facility closure. These include two types of requirements: 1. Closure requirements, which 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, which 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 the post-closure period. Financial Requirements, 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. Therefore, the facility must have enough money to cover the cost during these two periods. 40 CFR 264, Subpart H was enacted in 1982. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart DD, Containment Buildings, establishes design and operating standards for containment buildings that treat or store hazardous waste. Additionally, it requires that owners and operators of facilities with containment buildings remove or decontaminate all waste residues, containment system components, subsoils, and structures and equipment contaminated with waste or leachate, and manage them as hazardous waste. Further, owners and operators must generate closure plans and cost estimates, perform closure activities, and acquire financial responsibilities for containment buildings. This regulation became effective in 1993. Use and Management of Containers, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I, establishes regulations for operators storing hazardous waste in containers. It requires that hazardous waste be store in containers that will not react with the substances inside. To avoid contamination, containers must be kept closed and must be handled and stored in such a manner that avoids rupture or leakage. During the facilities closure period, all hazardous wastes and hazardous waste residues must be removed from the containment system and containers must be decontaminated. This regulation was effective beginning in 1981. Effective in 1987, Tank Systems in 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart J establishes hazardous waste tank systems in three parts: 1. First, owners and operators that design and install new tank systems or components must obtain and submit an assessment of the new tank system certified by a professional engineer. Requires installation of secondary containment systems for tank systems and establishes minimum design and operating standards for secondary containment systems. 2. Second, after a leak or spill, owners and operators must then remove waste from the tank and secondary containment system, contain visible releases to the environment, and notify EPA regional office. After this response, repairs must be completed on the tank. 3. Third, there must be financial responsibility for the closure and post closure phases of a facility with tanks. In addition to RCRA regulations listed under 40 CFR 264, the regulation Land Disposal Restrictions: Prohibitions on Storage under 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart E may also have applied to the NLP Site. 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart C, Prohibitions on Land Disposal, prohibits land disposal of specific wastes including wood preserving wastes, dioxin-containing wastes, soils with toxicity characteristics of metals and PCBs, toxicity characteristic metal wastes, inorganic chemical wastes, and ignitable and corrosive wastes, 49 ------- among others. If the NPL site contained any of these wastes, the Land Disposal Restrictions applied. Effective in 1986, Subpart E of the Land Disposal restrictions requires that prohibited wastes must be stored in tanks, containers, or containment buildings at disposal facilities, and stipulates that wastes may only be stored to facilitate their proper recovery, treatment, and disposal. It bans the storage of prohibited waste for longer than a year. The state of Illinois largely adopts the federal RCRA hazardous waste management regulations. Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (35 III. Adm Code 724, effective in 1982), identifies those solid wastes that are subject to regulation as hazardous wastes. Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (35 III. Adm Code 724, effective in 1983) establishes minimum standards that define the acceptable management of hazardous waste. Land Disposal Restrictions (35 III. Adm Code 724, effective in 1987) identifies hazardous wastes that are restricted from land disposal and defines those limited circumstances under which an otherwise prohibited waste may continue to be land disposed. An additional regulation within the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) is relevant to the site. 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. This review of the National Lacquer & Paint site demonstrates that modern emergency response and hazardous waste regulations under CERCLA, RCRA, and OSHA, as well as relevant state regulations, were effective during the later years of site operations and during and after site closure in 2002. The site operated between the 1950s and 2002. CDOE documented contamination at the site beginning in 1997. At least from 1997 through 2002, and perhaps earlier, various containers of hazardous substances accumulated on-site. After operations ceased, these substances were not properly removed and were left abandoned. Many of these containers were deteriorated and leaked their contents on the ground. Additionally, it appears that the responsible parties did not have the proper financial assurance to perform a proper removal. As a result, EPA lead removal actions using government funds. References: • Action Memorandum, November 26, 2003. • Pollution Report #1 October 21, 2003. • Pollution Report #3 March 10, 2004. • Pollution Report #11, May 7, 2004. 50 ------- 6) Hoopeston Fertilizer Facility Name: Hoopeston Fertilizer EPA Region/State: R5 - Illinois EPA ID: ILN000510084 Contamination Dates: 2002-2016 Operation Dates: Unknown-2002 Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $481,000 Site Background/Description: The Hoopeston Fertilizer site is located at 101 West Thompson, Hoopeston, Vermillion County, Illinois. The site occupies approximately three to five acres and contains three distinct buildings which are collapsing and/or partially demolished. Prior to 2002, an agricultural product supply company owned the property. In 2002, that company closed due to bankruptcy. After bankruptcy, a portion of the facility was sold to another agricultural chemical company. The older, unsold portion of the facility remained vacant and unused for several years. Due to the presence of abandoned containers of chemicals remaining in the old portion of the facility, in 2007 Illinois EPA requested assistance from US EPA to assess and conduct a removal action. EPA removed all chemical wastes at that time, including a polychlorinated-biphenyl PCB transformer. Afterwards, the site remained vacant. In 2012, a local business purchased the old portion of the site in order to demolish the buildings and recover scrap metal. In January 2013, the Illinois EPA conducted a site inspection for asbestos. During this site visit, they discovered six different samples of asbestos materials. Three of these samples came from the southeast corner of the site and consisted of installation where the asbestos was friable. An additional sample was discovered in a pile that had been mixed with other debris. In this sample asbestos had already been crushed in a powdered form. EPA determined that all six samples contained Amosite fibers ranging from 20 to 35 percent, and four samples also contained Chrysotile fibers ranging from trace to five percent. Due to the deteriorating condition of the site, there was a high risk of release to the outside environment. Piles of ACM outside and in the buildings on the site contain substantial quantities of asbestos at hazardous concentrations. Asbestos fibers were likely been released into the environment. The site has no secure fencing or other deterrent to limit access or warn the public of its potential hazards. Buildings were in dilapidated condition, with broken windows and collapsed roofs, and accessible to trespassers. Weather conditions could mobilize the asbestos, causing it to be released into the environment. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: In 2007, EPA conducted a removal action at this facility to remove abandoned containers of waste material, product and a PCB transformer at Illinois EPA's request. 51 ------- In 2013, the Hoopeston Fire Department complained to EPA that the local business was burning suspected asbestos contaminated material (ACM) during the demolition activities. The Illinois EPA conducted an Asbestos Inspection in January 2013, and initiated enforcement actions against the owner for violations of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). The owner never responded to the State's notice, and the state did not expect that the owner would conduct any cleanup at the site. From October through December of 2016, EPA conducted cleanup operations onsite. Initial site cleanup efforts involved removing the roof of the site, removing excess rainwater, and disposing of empty chemical containers. Asbestos was removed within the structure. EPA completed sampling within the warehouse building including the boiler room in early December. EPA then identified and removed asbestos found outside the building structures. Twenty-one total roll offs of ACM were shipped offsite for disposal. The remaining drums and totes were also transported offsite for disposal. The drums and totes contained herbicides, acids, bases, zinc phosphide, zinc chromate, and waste oil. After the disposal of these materials, EPA sealed the site. This included the boarding-up of windows and doorways. EPA also posted no-trespassing signs and installed fencing. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile Along with large quantities of asbestos, drums and totes containing herbicides, acids, bases, zinc phosphide, zinc chromate, and waste oil were also found onsite during the 2016 removal. EPA also removed hazardous wastes, including PCBs, from the site in 2007. Friable asbestos is listed under 40 CFR Part 372.3 as a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) toxic chemical and under 40 CFR Part 302.4 as a CERCLA hazardous substance. Zinc phosphine is listed as a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) acute hazardous substance and a hazardous substance under 40 CFR Part 261.33. Additionally, it is listed as a CERCLA extremely hazardous substance under 40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A, and a CERCLA hazardous substance under 40 CFR Part 302.4. Due to the presence of these substances, site operators should have adhered to regulations promulgated under RCRA and CERCLA. CERCLA and RCRA were enacted in 1980 and 1976, respectively. Further, the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) regulates disposal of both asbestos and PCBs. Relevant CERCLA regulations involve emergency planning and response. Because EPA discovered zinc phosphine onsite, operators may have been required to adhere to the CERCLA Emergency Planning and Notification rules in 40 CFR Part 355. This regulation requires disclosure of facility information to allow state and local authorities to develop and implement chemical emergency response plans if facilities handle designated extremely hazardous substances, such as zinc phosphine, above established thresholds. Both asbestos and zinc phosphine are regulated as a CERCLA hazardous substances. As a result, CERCLA Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Community Right to Know in 40 CFR Part 370 may have applied to facility operations. This regulation establishes the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and inventory reporting requirements for hazardous materials and extremely hazardous materials over certain thresholds present at a facility. Finally, 40 CFR Part 302, CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification may have applied. This rule designates hazardous substances and establishes notification requirements for owners or operators of vessels or facilities that release hazardous substances above reportable quantity thresholds. If the site released asbestos above reportable quantities, this regulation required the site owner/operator to report this release. 52 ------- In addition to the federal emergency preparedness and prevention and release reporting requirements promulgated under CERCLA, the site owner was also subject to similar State of Illinois regulations. Development, Annual Review, Coordination of Chemical Safety Contingency Plans (29 III. Adm. Code 610, effective in 1986) establishes coordination activities that must take place between a business and local geographical jurisdiction's emergency preparedness planning and emergency response agencies to develop and annually review chemical safety contingency plans and procedures. Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know (29 III. Adm. Code 620, effective in 1987) outlines planning requirements and notification procedures. It establishes reporting procedures for facilities that handle hazardous chemicals regulated under the Occupational Safety and Health Standards (29 CFR 1910). It also establishes procedures to ensure that the location and amount of hazardous chemicals in a facility is monitored and made available to the local emergency response agencies. Finally, it requires immediate notification and submission of subsequent written report to the Illinois State Emergency Response Commission in case of an accident or incident that involves the release of a reportable hazardous material or extremely hazardous substance such as asbestos. The majority of relevant RCRA regulations relate to waste storage and post-closure clean up. These are defined within the Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities in 40 CFR Part 264. For example, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C, Preparedness and Prevention, requires that facilities be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated in a way that minimizes the possibility of a fire, explosion, or unplanned release of hazardous waste. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C, became effective in 1980, and was thus in effect during site operations. Effective in 1986, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart G, Closure and Post-Closure, establishes guidelines for a facility closure. These include two types of requirements: 1. Closure requirements, which 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 the post-closure period. Financial Requirements, 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. Therefore, the facility must have enough money to cover the cost during these two periods. 40 CFR 264, Subpart H was enacted in 1982. Use and Management of Containers, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I, establishes regulations for operators storing hazardous waste in containers. It requires that hazardous waste be store in containers that will not react with the substances inside. To avoid contamination, containers must be kept closed and must be handled and stored a manner that avoids rupture or leakage. During the facility's closure period, all hazardous wastes and hazardous waste residues must be removed from the containment system and containers must be decontaminated. This regulation became effective in 1981. 53 ------- Waste Piles under 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart L establishes design and operating requirements for owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities that use waste piles to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. This subpart became effective in 1983. The state of Illinois largely adopts the federal RCRA hazardous waste management regulations. Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (35 III. Adm Code 724, effective in 1982), identifies those solid wastes that are subject to regulation as hazardous wastes. Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (35 III. Adm Code 724, effective in 1983) establishes minimum standards that define the acceptable management of hazardous waste. Since asbestos was found on site, Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) regulations are relevant. Effective in 1990, 29 CFR Part 1910.120 and 29 CFR Part 1926.65 in OSHA requires the development of Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standards, which provide emergency response protocol and safety standards for employees. More specifically, OSHA has regulated the occupational exposure to asbestos since 1986 in 29 CFR Part 1910.1001 and 1926.1101. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which regulates both PCBs and asbestos, is also relevant to the site. In addition to the asbestos piles found onsite during the 2016 removal, EPA removed PCB transformers from the site during its 2007 cleanup. 40 CFR Part 761 (PCBs Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions), governs 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 761.79, promulgated on June 29, 1998, which sets forth 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 TSCA also addresses asbestos disposal; Appendix D to Subpart E of 40 CFR Part 763: Transport and Disposal of Asbestos Waste, which went into effect in 1987, outlines asbestos disposal requirements and applied to the asbestos left on site by the facility owner. Finally, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), which EPA promulgated under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA) beginning in 1973, includes standards for asbestos. 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M establishes air emissions standards for asbestos that prohibit the discharge of visible asbestos emissions and proscribe asbestos storage and disposal practices at manufacturing operations, at 40 CFR Part 61.150, and active waste disposal sites, at 40 CFR Part 61.155. The standards for both manufacturing and disposal sites went into effect in 1990. Illinois adopts NESHAPS in 35 III. Adm. Code 231, effective in 1991. In addition to federal regulations, state regulations also apply to the former operation and site cleanup. In 35 III. Adm. Code 232, asbestos is defined as a "toxic air contaminant." In other words, it is a contaminant which the Pollution Control Board finds may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness, or may pose a significant threat to human health. This article was last amended in 1997. Additionally, 35 III. Adm Code 739, Standards for the Management of Used Oil outlines applicability and classification of used oils, provides standards for generators of used oil as well as collection centers and transporters or transfer 54 ------- facilities, processors, burners, fuel marketers, and disposal of used oil. 35 III. Adm Code 739 became effective in 1993 and it was last amended in 2013. This review demonstrates that modern emergency response, hazardous waste, and asbestos regulations all were in effect during both site abandonments and the asbestos releases which required EPA's 2007 and 2016 removals. Multiple businesses operated out of this site. An agricultural chemical manufacturing site operated the facility beginning in 2002 and abandoned it with hazardous wastes onsite sometime before EPA's removal in 2007. Another business purchased the site to demolish buildings and collect scrap metal, burning asbestos in 2013 and abandoning the building sometime before EPA's 2016 removal. Site operations and conditions during both removals suggest that regulations promulgated RCRA, TSCA, CERCLA, OSHA, and CAA were applicable at the site. The government bore the cost of the removals. References: • Action Memorandum, October 10, 2014. • Pollution Report #1, October 21, 2016. • Pollution Report #6, December 28, 2016. 55 ------- 7) Livingston Paint Facility Name: Livingston Paint EPA Region/State: R5 - Indiana EPA ID: INN000510065 Contamination Dates: Post 1986-2008 Operation Dates: Prior to 1986-Unknown (between 1996 and 2005) Response Action Lead: Mixed Lead Expenditures Approximately $85,000 Site Background/Description: The Livingston Paint Site is an abandoned warehouse located at 3192 East State Road 32 in Randolph County, Indiana. The site is located 3.5 miles from the center of Winchester. The site occupies approximately one acre in a mixed rural agricultural and residential area. The Livingston Paint property consists of one building, which is surrounded by agricultural land. The building contains drums, various containers, and two tanks containing about 5,000 gallons of liquid. The property is unrestricted and without fencing. The building was idle and vacant at the time of EPA's removal in 2005. Lynn Non-Ferrous Foundry, Inc. was the previous owner and operator of the property from sometime prior to 1985 until 1996. During this period, the site was used to manufacture paint products. Jehoshua, Inc. purchased the site in April of 1996. Site documents do not indicate site ownership or operation history after 1996. During EPA's site assessment walkthrough in 2005, approximately 200 drums were noted outside the site building in a field to the northwest. Many of the drums were in poor condition and some had released their contents. The drums were out in the open, and access to the property was completely unrestricted. A large overhead door that opened to the interior of the site building was found to be unlocked. Approximately 63 drums and various containers were identified inside the building. Two tanks containing an estimated 5,000 gallons of liquid were also located inside the building. EPA collected samples from these containers to check for lower explosive limit (LEL), hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, and oxygen. Liquids in drums contained concentrations of methylene chloride as high as 64 parts per million (ppm), trichloroethylene as high as 1,300 ppm, and naphthalene as high as 110 ppm. The liquid contained in the tank exhibited concentrations of barium at 59 ppm and naphthalene at 66ppm. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: In August 2005, EPA conducted site assessment activities. In December 2005, EPA secured the drums and containers located outside the site building at the Livingston Paint site. EPA relocated approximately 114 full 55-gallon drums and 45 empty 55-gallon drums to the interior of the building. The site building was locked, and warning signs placed on the exterior. Site stabilization activities were conducted with $15,000 of verbally approved funding. 56 ------- In September 2007, EPA mobilized to the site to conduct oversight of Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) removal of hazardous waste in drums, tanks, and numerous small containers present at the site. The PRP used a contractor to conduct removal actions. The PRPs removed the compromised 55-gallon drums off-site for disposal at an EPA-approved facility. The contents of the remaining drums, tanks, and small containers were pumped into tanker trucks and transported off-site for disposal at an EPA-approved facility. Approximately 3,256 gallons of liquid were pumped onto a transport truck for off-site disposal as hazardous waste. A total of 163 salvage drums and drums containing hazardous and non-hazardous wastes were transported to the disposal facility. EPA conducted air monitoring in the breathing zone throughout site removal activities using a photo ionization detector (PID) and combustible gas indicator/oxygen meter (GGI/02). All monitoring results for volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the breathing zone were below occupational exposure limits. The PRPs provided Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) with the soil data collected in September 2007 and November 2008, the PRPs received a no further action letter from IDEM. An Environmental Notice regarding the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) action at the site was recorded. In March 2009, the PRP contractor submitted a final report to EPA. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile When EPA sampled containers on-site, they discovered methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, naphthalene, and barium. Methylene chloride is listed as a CERCLA toxic chemical under 40 CFR Part 372.65, a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) toxic waste under 40 CFR Part 261.33, and a CERCLA hazardous substance under 40 CFR 302.4. Trichloroethylene is listed as an RCRA toxic waste under 40 CFR Part 261.33 and a CERCLA hazardous substance under 40 CFR Part 302.4. Naphthalene is listed as a RCRA toxic waste under 40 CFR Part 261.33, a CERCLA hazardous substance under 40 CFR Part 302.4, and CERCLA toxic chemical under 40 CFR Part 372.65. Barium is listed as a CERCLA hazardous substance under 40 CFR Part 302.4 and a CERCLA toxic chemical under 40 CFR Part 372.65. Due to the presence of these chemicals, the site was obligated to adhere to regulations under RCRA and CERCLA. RCRA was enacted in 1976 and CERCLA was enacted in 1980. Relevant CERCLA regulations set practices and requirements for public notification of releases of hazardous substances, responses to releases, and remediation of harm caused by releases. CERCLA was passed in 1980, before operations began at the Livingston Paint site. Because of the presence of hazardous substances onsite, the site operators may have been required to adhere to CERCLA Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Community Right to Know, 40 CFR Part 370. This regulation requires the creation of a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and inventory reporting for hazardous and extremely hazardous materials over certain thresholds present at a facility. Hazardous substances are also regulated under CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification in 40 CFR Part 302. This rule designates hazardous substances and establishes notification requirements for owners or operators of vessels or facilities that release hazardous substances above reportable quantity thresholds. Because toxic chemicals were also found on-site, regulations under CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting in 40 CFR Part 372 were also applicable. This regulation requires facility owners and operators to submit reports on releases of toxic chemicals to the Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI). CERCLA Toxic 57 ------- Chemical Release Reporting regulations were effective as of 1988. 40 CFR Part 355, the CERCLA Emergency Planning and Notification regulation, requires disclosure of facility information to allow state and local authorities to develop and implement chemical emergency response plans but is only relevant to facilities that handle highly hazardous substances above threshold quantities. Because hazardous waste was abandoned on-site, the site was subject to regulations under RCRA. The majority of site relevant RCRA regulations define standards for hazardous waste generation, storage, and disposal. Many of these are outlined in the Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities in 40 CFR Part 264. Effective in 1980, Preparedness and Prevention, defined in 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C, requires that facilities be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated in a way that minimizes the possibility of a fire, explosion, or unplanned release of hazardous waste. Use and Management of Containers, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I, establishes regulations for operators storing hazardous waste in containers. It requires that hazardous waste be store in containers that will not react with the substances inside. To avoid contamination, containers must be kept closed and must be handled and stored in such a manner that avoids rupture or leakage. During the facility's closure period, all hazardous wastes and hazardous waste residues must be removed from the containment system and containers must be decontaminated. This regulation was effective beginning in 1981. In addition to these containers, EPA also observed two storage tanks abandoned onsite, indicating the applicability of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart J, Tank Systems, effective in 1986. This regulation establishes guidelines for determining integrity of tank systems, operating requirements, and data collection and inspection requirements. It requires the removal from use of tank systems or secondary containment systems from which there has been a leak or spill. Owners and operators must then remove waste from the tank and secondary containment system, contain visible releases to the environment, notify EPA, and complete repairs of the tank or containment system. Finally, this regulation establishes closure and post-closure requirements including acquisition of financial responsibility. Effective in 1986 and defined in 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart G, Closure and Post-Closure establishes guidelines for a facility closure. These include two types of requirements: 1. Closure requirements, which 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, which 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 the post-closure period. Financial Requirements, 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. Therefore, the facility must have enough money to cover the cost during these two periods. 40 CFR 264, Subpart H was promulgated in 1982. 58 ------- In addition to RCRA regulations under 40 CFR Part 264, owners and operators may have been required to follow the Land Disposal Restrictions, 40 CFR Part 268. Subpart C of this part, Prohibitions on Land Disposal, prohibits land disposal of specific wastes including wood preserving wastes, dioxin-containing wastes, soils with toxicity characteristics of metals and PCBs, toxicity characteristic metal wastes, inorganic chemical wastes, and ignitable and corrosive wastes, among others. Some of the wastes found onsite may have been prohibited wastes as defined by this subpart, in which case the Prohibitions on Storage, defined in 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart E, applied. This regulation was enacted in 1986 and requires that prohibited wastes be stored in tanks, containers, or containment buildings at disposal facilities, and stipulates that wastes may only be stored to facilitate their proper recovery, treatment, and disposal. It also prohibits the storage of prohibited wastes for more than one year, unless storage is necessary to accumulate enough waste to facility proper recovery, treatment, or disposal. Since the facility manufactured chemical substances, owners and operators regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) were also applicable. Defined under 40 CFR Parts 700-799 and effective in 1977, TSCA imposes reporting and recordkeeping requirements on manufacturers, importers, processors, and distributors of chemical substances. Chemical substances regulated by the TSCA include organics, inorganics, polymers, chemicals of unknown or variable composition, complex reaction products, and biological materials. Finally, in addition to federal regulations, Indiana state regulations are applicable to the Livingston Paint site. The Hazardous Waste Management Permit Program and Related Hazardous Waste Management, defined in 329 IAC 3.1, establishes a hazardous waste management program consistent with the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Enacted in 1992, this article establishes standards for identifying hazardous waste; hazardous waste management procedures for generators, transporters, and owners/operators of hazardous waste facilities; and the permit program for hazardous waste facilities. This review demonstrates that modern RCRA and CERCLA regulations pertaining to emergency response and hazardous waste became effective during or prior to site operations and remained in effect during the facility's abandonment. Lynn Non-Ferrous Foundry, Inc. operated the company until 1996, after the relevant modern environmental regulations came into effect. Jehoshua, Inc. purchased the site in April of 1996. Site documents do not indicate site ownership or operation history after 1996. When operations ceased sometime during or prior to 2005, hazardous substances were not properly removed, leaving drums, containers, and tanks abandoned onsite. In 2005, these substances were removed by the PRPs' contractor under EPA oversight. References: • Action Memorandum, September 27, 2006. • Pollution Report #1, December 13, 2005. • Pollution Report #4, January 8, 2009. 59 ------- 8) Traylor Chemicals Site Facility Name: Traylor Chemicals Site EPA Region/State: R5 - Indiana EPA ID: INN000510934 Contamination Dates: 2009-2014 Operation Dates: Unknown-2009 Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $835,000 Site Background/Description: The Traylor Chemicals Site is located at 126 North Market Street in Royal Center, Cass County, Indiana, 46978. The site operated as the Traylor Chemicals and Supply Company (Traylor Chemicals), a custom fertilizer manufacturing plant. It is unclear when operations began or ceased, but the site was abandoned sometime before 2009. The site consisted of several one-story industrial buildings and occupied approximately 2.9 acres. The site was owned by William Traylor during site removal actions and was undergoing a tax sale. Numerous abandoned wastes in drums, tanks, and laboratory containers were located throughout the site, and sampling results indicated the presence of hazardous substances at the site. The contaminants of concern at the site included fertilizer manufacturing related chemicals and unknown contaminants that were present in an array of tanks, totes, drums, small containers, and/or other miscellaneous containers at the site. Analysis of these containers indicate the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxidizers, corrosives, and strong acids, and other hazardous waste. Large volumes of chemicals were present at the site. Specific chemicals identified included, but were not limited to: sulfate potash, zinc chelate, zinc sulfate, aluminum sulfate, copper sulfate, magnesium sulfate anhydrous, zinc sulfate monohydrate, soluble potash, ferrous sulfate, potassium nitrate, ferrous sulfate heptahydrate, potassium carbonate, liquid zinc, liquid boron, liquid calcium, copper chelate, zinc ammonium complex, fumic acid, sulfuric acid, and potassium bisulfate. These substances were stored in poor conditions, with many of the containers open and exposed to the outside environment. Further, the roof of the building leaked during rain events and was partially collapsed and deteriorated in some areas. Rainwater appeared to be in contact with waste materials, causing them to migrate. EPA was concerned that unsecured hazardous substances, pollutants and/or contaminants, present in a deteriorating building, could either release to the environment or come into contact with the nearby human population. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: In May 2011, City of Royal Center conducted a site reconnaissance. During the City of Royal Center site reconnaissance, several containers/materials were found throughout the former fertilizer chemical manufacturing facility. In November 2012, EPA received a request from the Indiana Department of 60 ------- Environmental Management (IDEM) to assess the site. EPA and IDEM conducted a site reconnaissance in January 2013. EPA then performed a Site Assessment, including sample collection, in April 2013. Between November 2013 and April 2014, EPA performed air monitoring and chemical sampling, secured the building, and prepared for site removal actions. Many of the actions during this period involved consolidating totes found on-site. In totes where there was liquid removed, the totes were cut and rendered useless. These totes were disposed of offsite. Additional cleanup was preformed around the site including the decontamination of machinery. EPA returned to the site to conduct a site removal in April 2014. EPA loaded drums and totes containing hazardous waste for disposal. In total, this included 76 drums and 13 330-gallon totes. Non-hazardous solids were also loaded into roll-off box for disposal. In addition, EPA cleaned the drum staging area as well as conducted air monitoring for carbon monoxide, oxygen, hydrogen sulfide, lower exposure limit, and VOCs. EPA completed site removal in May 2014. During this removal period, EPA removed additional totes, drums, and cubic yard boxes for disposal using a Chemtron truck. Further, EPA removed additional non- hazardous solids in a roll-off box. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile During onsite operations, EPA discovered numerous hazardous substances. Hazardous substances at the site are designated as Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) toxic chemicals (40 CFR Part 372.65), hazardous substances (40 CFR Part 302.4), and highly hazardous substances (40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) toxic wastes and acute hazardous wastes (40 CFR Part 261.33). Site-relevant CERCLA regulations set practices and requirements for public notification of releases of hazardous substances, responses to releases, and remediation of harm caused by releases. CERCLA was passed in 1980. 40 CFR Part 355, the CERCLA Emergency Planning and Notification regulation, requires disclosure of facility information to allow state and local authorities to develop and implement chemical emergency response plans. It is unclear if Traylor Chemicals stored or otherwise handled its CERCLA highly hazardous substances in an amount above the threshold that would make 40 CFR Part 355 applicable to the facility. Additionally, CERCLA Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Community Right to Know, 40 CFR Part 370, requires Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and inventory reporting for hazardous and extremely hazardous materials over certain thresholds present at a facility. This regulation became effective in 1986 and may have been applicable to the site. CERLCA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting, 40 CFR Part 372, establishes reporting requirements for facility operators and requires reporting of releases of toxic chemicals. CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting regulations were effective as of 1988. CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification, 40 CFR Part 302, establishes notification requirements for owners or operators of vessels or facilities that release hazardous substances above reportable quantity thresholds. Due to the presence of CERCLA hazardous substances and toxic chemicals, the spilled materials EPA observed at the site were likely reportable under one or both of these regulations. 61 ------- The majority of relevant RCRA regulations define standards for hazardous waste generation, storage, and disposal. Many of these are outlined in the Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities in 40 CFR Part 264. Effective in 1986 and defined in 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart G, Closure and Post-Closure, establishes guidelines for a facility closure. These include two types of requirements: 1. Closure requirements, which 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, which 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 the post-closure period. Financial Requirements, 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. Therefore, the facility must have enough money to cover the cost during these two periods. This subpart was promulgated in 1982. Effective in 1980, Preparedness and Prevention, defined in 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C, requires that facilities be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated in a way that minimizes the possibility of a fire, explosion, or unplanned release of hazardous waste. Use and Management of Containers, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I, establishes regulations for operators storing hazardous waste in containers. It requires that hazardous waste be store in containers that will not react with the substances inside. To avoid contamination, containers must be kept closed and must be handled and stored in such a manner that avoids rupture or leakage. During the facility's closure period, all hazardous wastes and hazardous waste residues must be removed from the containment system and containers must be decontaminated. This regulation was effective beginning in 1981. In addition to the abandoned containers, EPA also observed storage tanks abandoned onsite, indicating the applicability of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart J, Tank Systems, effective in 1986. This regulation establishes guidelines for determining integrity of tank systems, operating requirements, and data collection and inspection requirements. It requires the removal from use of tank systems or secondary containment systems from which there has been a leak or spill. Owners and operators must then remove waste from the tank and secondary containment system, contain visible releases to the environment, notify EPA, and complete repairs of the tank or containment system. Finally, this regulation establishes closure and post-closure requirements including acquisition of financial responsibility. In addition to RCRA regulations under 40 CFR Part 264, owners and operators may have been required to follow the Land Disposal Restrictions, 40 CFR Part 268. Subpart C of this part, Prohibitions on Land Disposal, prohibits land disposal of specific wastes including wood preserving wastes, dioxin-containing wastes, soils with toxicity characteristics of metals and PCBs, toxicity characteristic metal wastes, inorganic chemical wastes, and ignitable and corrosive wastes, among others. Some of the wastes found onsite may have been prohibited wastes as defined by this subpart, in which case the Prohibitions on Storage, defined in 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart E, applied. This regulation was enacted in 1986 and 62 ------- requires that prohibited wastes be stored in tanks, containers, or containment buildings at disposal facilities, and stipulates that wastes may only be stored to facilitate their proper recovery, treatment, and disposal. It also prohibits the storage of prohibited wastes for more than one year, unless storage is necessary to accumulate enough waste to facility proper recovery, treatment, or disposal. Finally, in addition to federal regulations, Indiana state regulations were also relevant at the Traylor Chemicals site. The Hazardous Waste Management Permit Program and Related Hazardous Waste Management, defined in 329 IAC 3.1, establishes a hazardous waste management program consistent with the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Enacted in 1992, this article establishes standards for identifying hazardous waste; hazardous waste management procedures for generators, transporters, and owners/operators of hazardous waste facilities; and the permit program for hazardous waste facilities. This review demonstrates that modern environmental emergency response and hazardous waste regulations were in place during or after site abandonment. It is unclear when site operations began, but operations ceased sometime before 2009. After operations ceased, hazardous substances were left onsite in deteriorating conditions with many containers exposed to the external environment. The site remained abandoned until EPA's removal in 2014. The government bore the cost of the removal action. References: • Action Memorandum, September 23, 2013. • Pollution Report # 1, November 22, 2013. • Pollution Report # 4, December 23, 2013. • Pollution Report # 6, February 1, 2014. • Pollution Report # 14, April 5, 2014. • Pollution Report # 16, May 31, 2014. 63 ------- 9) Landrum Chemical Facility Name: Landrum Chemical EPA Region/State: R4 - Kentucky EPA ID: KYN000410044 Contamination Dates: March 27, 2007 Operation Dates: Unknown Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: No Fund Expenditures Reported Site Background/Description: Located at 1551 South 10th Street in Louisville, Kentucky, the Landrum Chemical Site has two tenants. A water-based cleaning supply company called Brute, Inc./Kentucky Technology operates in one area of the site while Landrum Chemical operates in another area within the site. The middle section of the building is a storage area used by both parties. On March 27, 2007, while responding to a report of natural gas odors in the area, the Louisville Metro Fire Department (Louisville Fire) discovered an ammonia odor associated with a liquid coming from a building at the site. The liquid, ammonium chloride, was found to be coming from an overturned 55- gallon barrel inside a dilapidated area of the building. Louisville Fire performed air monitoring and found an ammonia level of 70 ppm at the entrance to the building. EPA feared future contamination from the roof damage in the middle and southern sections of the building. In addition to roof damage, both sections had liquids on the floor. In the middle section, these liquids tested a maximum pH of ten. In the southern section, the maximum was pH 14. Additionally, the area had approximately 75 drums; half of the drums were empty, and the majority were unlabeled. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: Louisville Fire completed the initial response actions and site follow ups were completed by the Louisville/Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) and Metro Louisville Environmental Health and Protection (Environmental Health). Environmental Health issued cleanup orders to current and former operators, as well as the property owner (Tenth Street LLC). The orders required stabilization of existing spillage, and to board up openings to prevent unauthorized access in areas of the building which are no longer in use. Deadline for meeting the requirements of the cleanup orders set as April 6, 2007. The drum leak was cleaned and the property was secured to prevent unauthorized access. On April 6, EPA visited along with representatives of Environmental Health, MSD, and Louisville Fire. Inspection of the premises indicated that the free liquids had been secured and stored in 150-gallon totes, pending characterization and disposal. Prior to departing the premises, EPA issued Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Notices of Federal Interest (NOFI) to the property owners and facility operators. The site met the criteria for a time-critical removal action under Section 300.415 of the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), as evidenced by the threatened release of a 64 ------- hazardous substance to the environment. However, the releases discovered initially had been mitigated, and the current and/or planned enforcement actions by local and state government appeared to be capable of preventing additional releases. Accordingly, EPA did not conduct a time-critical removal action. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile The Louisville Fire Department responded to a complaint of an ammonia smell coming from the site. When they arrived, responders found a drum leaking ammonium chloride. Ammonium chloride is defined under 40 CFR 302.4 as a CERCLA hazardous substance and its release was thus regulated by CERCLA. Further, EPA measured a pH of 14 in the liquid accumulated onsite. Aqueous waste with a pH above 12.5 is a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by its corrosivity characteristic under 40 CFR Part 261.22. Thus, regulations under RCRA also applied. Site-relevant CERCLA regulations set practices and requirements for public notification of releases of hazardous substances, responses to releases, and remediation of harm caused by releases. CERCLA was passed in 1980. Because ammonium chloride is defined as a CERCLA hazardous substance, Landrum Chemicals should have adhered to regulations within CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification, 40 CFR Part 302. This regulation establishes notification requirements for owners or operators of vessels or facilities that release hazardous substances above reportable quantity thresholds. 40 CFR Part 302 became effective in 1985. No notification actions were implemented after the spill. The spill was first detected by anonymous bystanders, who notified city authorities. Further, EPA was unaware of the chemicals present on-site. It is unknown whether other containers present at the site held substances classified as extremely hazardous substances or toxic wastes. If an extremely hazardous substance was present on-site, requirements under 40 CFR Part 355, the CERCLA Emergency Planning and Notification were applicable. This regulation requires disclosure of facility information to allow state and local authorities to develop and implement chemical emergency response plans. It is unclear whether Landrum Chemical stored or otherwise handled highly hazardous substances in an amount above the threshold that would make 40 CFR Part 355 applicable to the facility. Because waste was stored on-site, hazardous waste management regulations under RCRA appear to be applicable, as well. The majority of relevant RCRA regulations define standards for hazardous waste generation, storage, and disposal. Many of these are outlined in the Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities in 40 CFR Part 264. For example, Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 264, General Facility Standards, effective in 1980, requires owners and operators to obtain detailed chemical and physical analysis of a representative sample of waste prior to treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes; establish sufficient security programs to prevent unknowing and unauthorized entry of persons or livestock into the active portion of the facility; and carry out general inspection requirements to check for malfunctions, deterioration, operator error, and discharges, among other requirements. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C Preparedness and Prevention, requires that facilities are designed, constructed, maintained, and operated in a way that minimizes the possibility of a fire, explosion, or unplanned release of hazardous waste. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C became effective 1980. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart D, Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures, 65 ------- effective in 1980, further requires owners and operators to have a contingency plan designed to minimize hazards to human health or the environment from fires, explosions, or the release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I, establishes 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. Subpart DD, Containment Buildings, effective in 1993, establishes design and operating standards for containment buildings that treat or store hazardous waste. Like federal regulations under RCRA, 401 KAR 39, Kentucky's Hazardous Waste Management and Disposal regulation, effective in 1983, regulates the management of hazardous waste. Its provisions include standards for used oil and universal waste and standards for hazardous waste handlers, including generators and transporters. It also creates a hazardous waste permit program for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. In addition to RCRA and CERCLA, regulations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) were also applicable because the Landrum Chemical Site was an active operation at the time. OSHA Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standards (HAZWOPER), under 29 CFR Part 1910.120 and 29 CFR Part 1926.65, requires employers to develop a written safety and health program for their employees involved in hazardous waste operations. The program will identify, evaluate, and control safety and health hazards, and provide for emergency response for hazardous waste operations. This regulation was effective beginning in 1990. Additionally, Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemical, 29 CFR Part 1910.119, establishes requirements for preventing or minimizing the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals that may result in toxic, fire, or explosion hazards. OSHA Emergency Action Plan (EAP), 29 CFR Part 1910.38, Subpart E, requires owners and operators to have an EAP that includes: procedures for reporting a fire or other emergency; procedures for emergency evacuation, including type of evacuation and exit route assignments; procedures to be followed by employees who remain to operate critical plant operations before they evacuate; procedures to account for all employees after evacuation; procedures to be followed by employees performing rescue or medical duties; and the name or job title of every employee who may be contacted by employees who need more information about the plan or an explanation of their duties under the plan. Building on OSHA, the state of Kentucky also ensures worker safety under the Occupational Safety and Health in 803 KAR 2. Occupational Safety and Health establishes occupational safety and health standards. Relevant sections of this regulation require all employers to monitor areas and maintain accurate records of potential employee exposure to toxic substances. This review of the Landrum Chemical Site indicates that modern response and hazardous waste were in place during site operations and during the period of release. The PRPs and local agencies conducted the cleanup at this site. References: 66 ------- Pollution Report #1, April 9, 2007. ------- 10) Coco Resources Fire Facility Name: Coco Resources Fire EPA Region/State: R9 - Louisiana EPA ID: LAN000607076 Contamination Dates: March 30, 2010-June 30, 2010 Operation Dates: Unknown Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $1,768,900 Site Background/Description: Coco Resources is located at 30172 Eden Church Road Denham Springs, Livingston Parish, Louisiana. The facility consists of a 17,000 square foot chemical warehouse. The site is located about ten miles away from the center of Baton Rouge and 15 miles from the Mississippi River. Surrounding the site, topography is relatively flat, but the site is near the crest of the watershed for the two creeks. Run-off entered drainage ditches that flowed into both Grays creek and Dixon creek. Both creeks flow into the Amite River. The Amite River is a tributary to Lake Maurepas, which is about 26 miles from the site. Coco Resources buys chemicals from other companies as well as recycled materials that are then remixed as new products for sale to other customers. Some of the products that were made with the chemicals at the warehouse include general chemicals, soaps for oilfield operations, lube oil additives, and fuel additives. The chemical products were stored in various containers including tanks, totes, drums, boxes and sacks. The majority of these were stacked in rows in the 17,000 square foot warehouse. John Coco was the owner of the site. A fire broke out in the warehouse on March 30, 2010. The fire spread to encompass the entire 17,000 square foot warehouse and adjoining outside storage. Drums rocketed into the air, explosions occurred inside the warehouse, and heavy black smoke forced the evacuation of more than 1,000 residents. Run- off from the site resulted from the contents of the containers and the firefighting water. Local responders placed berms and dams in the drainage ditches and Grays and Dixon creeks. The Livingston Parish Fire Department extinguished the fire the same day. The remaining threat involved the large amount of water remaining on the facility property that continued to drain offsite into two primary drainage pathways - Gray's Creek to the east and Dixon Creek to the west. After the fire was extinguished, responders found the containers containing hazardous to be completely compromised. Of the more than 4,000 drums and dozens of totes and other containers on-site, all but 40 drums and a few totes were destroyed or compromised in the fire. Hundreds of these drums still had significant quantities of hazardous substances. Some of these drums would fail when attempting to move them while others smoldered from the inside and smoke and vapors were visible coming out of the bung holes or fire induced holes. The contents continued to leak until all drums were addressed through the removal action. The analyses of water and soil samples found several hazardous substances. Among these were m- and p-cresol; benzidine; and n-nitrosodiphenylamine. In discussions with owner/operator John Coco, he indicated that the warehouse had been storing a substantial amount of n-nitrosodiphenylamine. The n- 68 ------- nitrosodiphenylamine is considered a mutagen and is a primary irritant. The cresols are toxic and may be fatal if inhaled, ingested or absorbed through the skin. Benzidine is a known human carcinogen. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: Local Fire Departments and 17 other assisting departments responded to the fire. The State of Louisiana Police took command of the response and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) responded. The responders found that the site operator failed to take appropriate action and LDEQ requested assistance from the EPA. EPA began addressing the site. The site owner Mr. Coco hired a contractor to help clean the site; however, EPA determined that these efforts would not be sufficient. EPA contained run-off and water in the ditches and creeks were removed by vacuum truck. EPA also assisted with air and water monitoring. After these initial actions, drums, totes and other containers were stabilized and removed from debris piles. The spilled material was collected, solidified or otherwise stabilized for disposal. The contents of the damaged containers were separated into appropriate waste streams and disposed of off-site. To the extent possible, the material was segregated into CERCLA hazardous waste streams, Oil Pollution Act (OPA) oils, and other waste streams. The disposition of the intact containers included use by the operator, reuse or recycling, or disposal. Segregation of oil and other chemicals was conducted. The collected water was treated using a carbon filter, aeration, and other treatment methods and released or sent for disposal. The recovered oils and chemicals were profiled and transported for disposal. Contaminated soil was excavated from the residential yards, ditches, creeks and watershed. Excavation was shallow since the contaminants were at or near the surface. Excavation did not exceed two feet. Removal was completed on June 30, 2010 when final confirmation samples were taken. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile During soil and water analysis, EPA recorded the presence of m- and p-cresol; benzidine; and n- nitrosodiphenylamine. Benzidine is listed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as a toxic waste. Additionally, it is listed as a Clean Water Act (CWA) toxic pollutant under 40 CFR 401.15. M- and p-cresol; benzidine; and n-nitrosodiphenylamine are all listed as CERCLA hazardous substances under 40 CFR 302.4. Additionally, m- and p-cresol, and n-Nitrosodiphenylamine are listed as CERCLA toxic chemicals under 40 CFR 372.65. Because Coco Resources stored m- and p-cresol, benzidine, and n-nitrosodiphenylamine on-site, it may have been subject to 40 CFR Part 302, CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification, effective in 1985. This rule designates hazardous substances and establishes notification requirements for owners or operators of vessels or facilities that release hazardous substances above reportable quantity thresholds. Since EPA discovered water and soil contaminated with m- and p-cresol; benzidine; and n nitrosodiphenylamine, these substances may have been release above reportable quantity thresholds. In addition, the presence of these substances also triggers 40 CFR Part 370 or CERCLA Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Community Right to Know. This rule establishes the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and inventory reporting requirements for hazardous materials/extremely hazardous 69 ------- materials over certain thresholds present at a facility. Further, because m- and p-cresol and n- nitrosodiphenylamine are classified as a CERCLA toxic chemicals under 40 CFR Part 372.65, the site was also subject to CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting regulations. This regulation requires facility owners and operators to submit reports on releases of toxic chemicals to the Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI). CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting regulations were effective as of 1988. 40 CFR Part 355, the CERCLA Emergency Planning and Notification Requirements, effective in 1986, requires disclosure of facility information to allow state and local authorities to develop and implement chemical emergency response plans if facilities handle designated extremely hazardous substances above established thresholds. None of the substances mentioned in the Superfund documents for this site are listed as CERCLA extremely hazardous substances. However, if the facility handled any of the substances above the thresholds specified in 40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A, it was required to disclose facility information under this part. Aligned with CERCLA notification regulations, the Louisiana Spill Prevention and Control Chapter, LAC33: IX 9, effective in 1985, establishes requirements for contingency planning and implementation of operating procedures and best management practices to prevent and control the discharge of pollutants resulting from spill events. It applies to accidental or unauthorized leaking or releasing of a substance that has the potential to be discharged or result in a discharge to the waters of the state. The chapter calls for periodic review of the plans every five years. The facility may also have stored hazardous wastes onsite. Benzidine is an RCRA hazardous waste. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C, established in 1980, stipulates that hazardous waste facilities must be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to minimize the possibility of an unplanned release of hazardous waste. In addition, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart D, Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures, effective in 1980, stipulates that owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities must have a contingency plan designed to minimize hazards to human health or the environment from fires, explosions, or the release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents. Use and Management of Containers, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I, establishes regulations for operators storing hazardous waste in containers. It requires that hazardous waste be store in containers that will not react with the substances inside. To avoid contamination, containers must be kept closed and must be handled and stored in such a manner that avoids rupture or leakage. During the facilities closure period, all hazardous wastes and hazardous waste residues must be removed from the containment system and containers must be decontaminated. This regulation was effective beginning in 1981. The Coco Resources fire destroyed almost all the 4,000 drums and totes found on-site. As a result, many of these containers were leaking their contents on the ground. Louisiana regulates hazardous waste at treatment storage, and disposal facilities in LAC 33: V 15. Like 40 CFR Part 264, it establishes regulations for onsite discharges, preparedness and prevention, contingency plans and emergency procedures, and personnel training. As an active workplace, regulations promulgated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) also applied to the facility at the time of the incident. 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 70 ------- and provide emergency response guidelines for hazardous waste operations. Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, in 29 CFR Part 1910.119, establishes requirements for preventing or minimizing the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals that may result in toxic, fire, or explosion hazards. In addition, OSHA Emergency Action Plan (EAP) regulations were relevant to during the fire and subsequent evacuation. Emergency Action Plans must include: procedures for reporting a fire or other emergency; procedures for emergency evacuation, including type of evacuation and exit route assignments; procedures to be followed by employees who remain to operate critical plant operations before they evacuate; procedures to account for all employees after evacuation; procedures to be followed by employees performing rescue or medical duties; and the name or job title of every employee who may be contacted by employees who need more information about the plan or an explanation of their duties under the plan. The HAZWOPER, EAPs, Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, became effective in 1990, 1980, 1992 respectively, and thus applied to the facility at the time of the explosion in 2010. Due to the large quantities of dangerous chemicals emitted into the air during the fire, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 40 CFR Part 50 may have applied to the release. This regulation establishes national primary and secondary air quality standards for: sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen oxides, lead, and exceptional pollutant events. Primary standards protect the public health, and second standards protect the public welfare from any adverse effects of the pollutants. The review of the Coco Resources Site demonstrates that modern emergency preparedness and response and hazardous waste regulations were in place before the fire broke out on March 30, 2010. It is unclear if Coco Resources adhered to relevant RCRA, CERLA, and OSHA emergency preparedness and response regulations. However, the responders found that the site operator failed to take appropriate action, causing LDEQto request assistance from the EPA. The fire destroyed containers on-site leading to local contamination. The owners and operators of the site did not have the financial capabilities to clean the site and the government bore the cost of removal action. References: • Action Memorandum, November 17, 2012. • Pollution Report # 1, March 31, 2010. • Pollution Report # 2, September 27, 2010. 71 ------- 11) Davis Avenue Fire Response Facility Name: Davis Avenue Fire Response Site EPA Region/State: R1 - Massachusetts EPA ID: MAN000101941 Contamination Dates: June 16, 2016 Operation Dates: Unknown-2016 Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $471,500 Site Background/Description: The Davis Avenue Fire Response Site is located at 85 Davis Avenue in Norwood, Massachusetts, within Norfolk County. The site is an abandoned industrial facility that had operated as a dye and soap manufacturer, tannery, and pool chemical storage site, among other uses. The site is reported to have been abandoned for 10-15 years prior to the date of the fire. On June 16, 2016, Norwood Fire Department notified Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) of a fire at the site. The Site's runoff flows to Hawes Brook, which runs beneath the building. Hawes Brook flows into the Neponset River, approximately 4000 feet downstream of the site. Before the fire, numerous drums and other containers with hazardous substances and suspected asbestos containing materials resided on the site. Based on reported building use history and operating experience, such substances include dyes, acids, caustics, metal solutions, VOCs, and flammable and explosive materials. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: The fire was reported on June 16, 2016, and was brought under control by the Norwood Fire Department on the same day. Firefighters continued to apply suppression water to smoldering hotspots in subsequent days. The fire and resulting clean-up caused firefighting runoff water to mix with leaking contaminants and flow to Hawes Brook through pathways beneath the fire damaged building and debris. Such releases stained the brook red for some distance and investigators spotted an evident fish kill and received reports of a bird kill. Following a sampling and analysis of fire-fighting water runoff by MassDEP, OSC, and START, the first priority was to prevent further contaminated water runoff from entering and impacting Hawes Brook. The mix of runoff water and leaking fluids from the containers and drums were continuously flowing to Hawes Brook though unknown pathways under the fire-damaged building. To address the hazardous release, the response team disassembled the building, then moved secure drums and containers with the intention of finding, accessing, and stopping the uncontrolled release. On-Scene Coordinators visually identified numerous containers and drums of potentially hazardous materials and suspected asbestos containing materials (ACM) which were later confirmed to be hazardous and asbestos containing, respectively. Fire-damaged suspected ACM presents an airborne 72 ------- hazard. The building's concrete foundation potentially included hazardous substances and asbestos containing debris. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile The debris and liquids such as friable asbestos, chromium, and lead found abandoned and released at the facility qualify as toxic chemicals and hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLA toxic chemicals (as codified at 40 CFR Part 372.65) found at the site include asbestos and chromium. CERCLA hazardous substances (as codified at 40 CFR Part 302.4) found at the site include asbestos, chromium, and lead. The Superfund, Emergency Planning, and Community Right-to-Know Programs, (codified in 40 CFR Parts 300- 399 under the authority of CERCA and effective in 1980,) sets practices and requirements for emergency planning, public notification of releases of hazardous substances, responses to releases, and remediation of harm caused by releases. 40 CFR Part 302, Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification, effective in 1985, requires notification to the National Response Center (NRC) of releases of CERCLA hazardous substances above reportable quantities. 40 CFR Part 372, Toxic Chemical Release Reporting requirements requires notification of releases of CERCLA toxic chemicals. This part of the regulation requires facility owners and operators to submit reports on releases of toxic chemicals to the Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI). CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting regulations were effective as of 1988. The Clean Water Act was relevant to the site, as well, because friable asbestos is also classified as a toxic pollutant under 40 CFR 401.15. Asbestos disposal is also covered by the TSCA. Appendix D to Subpart E of 40 CFR Part 763: Transport and Disposal of Asbestos Waste, which went into effect on December 14, 1987 (52 FR 41897), outlines additional asbestos disposal requirements. Further, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), which EPA promulgated under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA) beginning in 1973, include standards for asbestos. 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M establishes air emissions standards for asbestos that prohibit the discharge of visible asbestos emissions and proscribe asbestos storage and disposal practices at manufacturing operations, at 40 CFR Part 61.150, and active waste disposal sites, at 40 CFR Part 61.155. The standards for both manufacturing and disposal sites went into effect in 1990. References: • Action Memorandum, June 21, 2016 • Pollution Report #1, June 18, 2016 • Pollution Report #4, November 21, 2016 73 ------- 12) Danversport Explosion Facility Name: CAI Inc. Site EPA Region/State: R1 - Massachusetts EPA ID: MAN000105236 Contamination Dates: November 22,2006-March 9, 2007 Operation Dates: Unknown-2006 Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $1,943,000 Site Background/Description: This site is located at 126 Water Street in Danvers, Massachusetts, and includes two plants within one building. The site is on a tidal river, used for recreational boating, fishing, and for commercial purposes. Both CAI, Inc and Arnel Cooperate privately owned and operated chemical manufacturing in the same building located on site. CAI Inc. manufactured inks and coatings for plastics while Arnel manufactured surface coatings. On November 22, 2006, an explosion completely destroyed both facilities and the surrounding area. Both operations ceased operations due to the explosion that destroyed the facility and proximal areas. The operators stored chemicals at the site in containers and tanks. Multiple chemicals stored at the facility may have been released to the surrounding environment. According to Tier II chemical inventory data, chemicals that may have been involved in the fire include, but are not limited to: Toluene, 1-propyl alcohol, ethyl alcohol, isopropyl alcohol, nitrocellulose, and polyamide resin. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: The fire was completely extinguished on the same day. EPA also responded to the site on November 22. EPA performed perimeter air monitoring to ensure the safety of response personnel and the public and collected various air and water samples. Contractors and NOAA also monitored water ways. Later in November, Emergency Rapid Response Services contractor representative conducted a site walk through. After the explosion, toluene, 1-propyl alcohol, ethyl alcohol, isopropyl alcohol, nitrocellulose, 2- butanone, acetone, MIBK, and polyamide resin were discovered on the site through testing. All were found within drums, containers, air, soil and water. Given the fact the site resides on a tidal river, these contaminants may have leaked off site due to runoff and other factors such as precipitation. Following the testing and demolition operations, drums, containers, and contaminated soil were removed. Demolition also allowed for site stabilization with hazardous material removal. Water and air were also determined to be contaminated, but it is unclear if removals of these media occurred. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile: 74 ------- Site testing following the fire revealed major CERCLA hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants released, or potentially released, included toluene, 2-butanone, acetone, MIBK, very flammable nitrocellulose, poyamide resin, 1-propyl alcohol, and ethyl alcohol. N-Butyl acetate is both a CERCLA Hazardous Substance and Toxic Chemical. As toluene and n-butyl acetate are both defined as RCRA Toxic Wastes under 40 CFR 261.33. The majority of relevant RCRA regulations define standards for hazardous waste generation, storage, and disposal. Many of these are outlined in the Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities in 40 CFR Part 264. For example, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C Preparedness and Prevention, requires that facilities are designed, constructed, maintained, and operated in a way that minimizes the possibility of a fire, explosion, or unplanned release of hazardous waste. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C became effective 1980. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I established RCRA regulations for operators storing hazardous waste in containers. Danversport's storage of hazardous substances and toxic chemicals at its facility made it subject to OSHA regulations, in addition to RCRA and CERCLA 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. Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemical, in 29 CFR Part 1910.119, establishes requirements for preventing or minimizing the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals that may result in toxic, fire, or explosion hazards. In addition, OSHA Emergency Action Plan (EAP) should have been adhered to during the fire and subsequent evacuation. Emergency Action Plans must include: Procedures for reporting a fire or other emergency; procedures for emergency evacuation, including type of evacuation and exit route assignments; procedures to be followed by employees who remain to operate critical plant operations before they evacuate; procedures to account for all employees after evacuation; procedures to be followed by employees performing rescue or medical duties; and the name or job title of every employee who may be contacted by employees who need more information about the plan or an explanation of their duties under the plan. 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. Due to the large amount of dangerous chemicals emitted into the air during the fire, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 40 CFR Part 50 may have applied to the site. This regulation establishes national primary and secondary air quality standards for: sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen oxides, lead, and exceptional pollutant events. Primary standards 75 ------- protect the public health, and second standards protect the public welfare from any adverse effects of the pollutants. The Danversport Explosion and subsequent cleanup was covered by CERCLA Hazardous Substances, Toxic Chemicals, and RCRA Toxic Wastes regulations, and OSHA and TSCA PCBs regulations were also relevant to the site. These regulations were effective as of 1998, at the latest, meaning they were in place at the time of the explosion. References: • Action Memorandum, November 29, 2006 • Pollution Report #1, November 24, 2006 • Pollution Report #9, December 19, 2006 • Pollution Report #13, May 30, 2007 76 ------- 13) Maine Alum Grand Isle Facility Name: Maine Alum Grand Isle EPA Region/State: R1 - Maine EPA ID:MEN000105236 Contamination Dates: 2009-2010 Operation Dates: 1999-2009 Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $321,000 Site Background/Description: The Maine Alum Grand Isle Site is the former site of the aluminum sulfate manufacturing operations of the Maine Alum Corporation in Grand Isle, Maine. Operations at the site consisted of a metal fabricated building that contained six vertical aboveground storage tanks. Tanker trailers were used to transport materials to the site and to ship aluminum sulfate product from the site. There is a stream adjacent to the facility's east that flows 2,000 feet to the St. John River. The Maine Alum Corporation produced aluminum sulfate by mixing alumina trihydrate with sulfuric acid at the site from 1999 to 2009. A Maine Department of Environmental Protection inspection of the active site in 2004 did not observe any hazardous waste at the facility; the Maine Alum Corporation used all of the materials present at the site in its aluminum sulfate manufacturing operation and did not store any waste. When the Maine Alum Corporation ceased operations in 2009, however, the company left unused hazardous substances at the site. A 2010 site inspection discovered a polyethylene aboveground storage tank containing 6,000 gallons of 60 percent sulfuric acid, one polyethylene tank containing 2,500 gallons of corrosive poor grade alum, three fiberglass tanks containing a total of 16,000 gallons of corrosive poor grade alum, and one empty fiberglass mixing tank. A tanker trailer that held non-hazardous alum was also in the building. Two more tanker trailers were located outside of the building: one tanker trailer containing a clear corrosive liquid, and one severely corroded tanker trailer containing a corrosive solid material. Releases had occurred from both tankers outside of the building. In addition to the aboveground storage tanks and the tanker trailers, several small containers holding hazardous substances were also discovered around the building. Approximately 1 to 2 inches of corrosive sludge had collected on the floor of the building, itself. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: In November 2010, Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) personnel inspected the site and discovered the storage tank containing 3,000 gallons of sulfuric acid and other potentially hazardous substances. MEDEP contacted EPA to initiate a response action two days later. EPA personnel mobilized at the site later that month to address the sulfuric acid and other containers holding hazardous substances. During the removal of the sulfuric acid tank, EPA discovered the corrosive sludge covering the building floor, the two tanker trailers outside of the building that contained corrosive materials, and four additional storage tanks that held alum. 77 ------- As a result, EPA recommenced removal actions in December 2010 and addressed the two tanker trailers outside of the building. At this time, EPA also removed the corrosive sludge on the floor of the building, characterized the substances in the remaining tanks, and secured the facility. EPA returned in February 2011 to remove the corrosive contents of the aboveground storage tanks and any remnant acidic liquid and sludge from the building floor, and to characterize and determine the volume of any sludge that remained in the tanks after the removal of the liquids. In April, EPA personnel returned to complete treatment and decontamination of the hazardous waste containers and pumped out the remaining sulfuric acid. EPA actions removed all but a small amount of corrosive sludge that remained in the former poor grade alum storage tanks. In June of 2011, a contractor disassembled the above ground storage tank so that EPA personnel could address the remaining corrosive sludge, which EPA removed two months later in August. EPA completed treatment and decontamination of the sludge that remained at the site in September of 2011. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile The primary materials of concern at the site were sulfuric acid, corrosive alum, other corrosive liquids and sludges, and other hazardous substances. Sulfuric acid is a CERCLA hazardous substance under 40 CFR Part 302.4, a CERCLA extremely hazardous substance under 40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A, and a CERCLA toxic chemical as defined by 40 CFR Part 372.65. Sulfuric acid is also a RCRA acute hazardous waste and a RCRA toxic waste under 40 CFR Part 261.33. Site documents describe the remaining materials of concern as corrosive and define them as both CERCLA hazardous substances and RCRA hazardous wastes. As a result of the releases of CERCLA hazardous substances at the site, as well as the presence of a CERCLA extremely hazardous substance and RCRA hazardous wastes, there were several CERCLA and RCRA regulations that were applicable to the facility. Although it was not released, sulfuric acid is a designated as an extremely hazardous substance under CERCLA Emergency Planning and Notification regulations at 40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A. These regulations came into effect on October 17, 1986; they require facilities that handle extremely hazardous substances above certain thresholds to notify state and local authorities so that those authorities can develop emergency response plans to address those materials. During a site inspection, MEDEP discovered approximately 3,000 gallons of sulfuric acid that had been left in a tank at the site. Additionally, CERCLA Hazardous Chemical Reporting and Community Right to Know regulations, at 40 CFR Part 370 and effective October 17, 1986, apply to facilities that handle CERCLA extremely hazardous substances, like sulfuric acid. Given that EPA discovered 6,000 gallons of sulfuric acid at the Maine Alum Grand Alum site, it is possible that the amount of sulfuric acid at the site exceeded the thresholds set by the CERCLA Hazardous Chemical Reporting and Community Right to Know regulations. Under those regulations, facilities must complete Material Safety Data Sheets for those substances and record and report their inventory of extremely hazardous substances on-site. In addition to the hazardous waste stored in containers at the site, MEDEP discovered one to two inches of corrosive sludge that covered the floor of the building at the site. The presence of the corrosive 78 ------- sludge indicates that CERCLA hazardous substances had been released at the site. Assuming this was the case, the Maine Alum Corporation would have been required to report the release under CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification regulations at 40 CFR Part 302 and effective April 4, 1985. These regulations establish notification requirements for owners and operators of facilities that release designated hazardous substances above certain quantity thresholds. Given the amount of corrosive sludge on the floor of the building, it is possible that the release at the Maine Alum Corporation facility exceeded those thresholds. The presence of hazardous substances at the Maine Alum Grand Isle facility following its abandonment by its former operator suggests that RCRA hazardous waste regulations applied to the site as it was storing hazardous waste. In that case, the owner and operator of the site after abandonment would have been required to comply with RCRA regulations at 40 CFR Part 264, Subparts B, C, and D, and 40 CFR Part 270, which were all effective as of November 19, 1980. The RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit Program was established under regulations at 40 CFR Part 270. The permitting program requires that generators and transporters of hazardous waste and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities notify EPA of those activities and obtain permits through EPA to conduct those activities. Owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities must have permits for the active life of the facility, including during closure. In addition to permitting requirements, the regulation also establishes monitoring and reporting requirements. EPA was not aware of the presence of hazardous waste stored at the Maine Alum Grand Isle site as it only initiated the removal action when MEDEP contacted the agency. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart B contains RCRA General Facility Standards, and requires hazardous waste facilities to apply for an EPA identification number, meet certain location standards, establish security programs, inspect the facility on a regular basis, and train personnel in hazardous waste management procedures. RCRA Preparedness and Prevention regulations at 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C require that hazardous waste facilities be designed, constructed and maintained to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or unplanned release of hazardous waste. Under this subpart, facilities must obtain emergency response equipment and make arrangements with local emergency response personnel to familiarize them with the facility. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart D establishes RCRA Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures regulations. These regulations require owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities to develop a contingency plan to minimize the hazards to human health from fires, explosions, or the release of hazardous waste. Plans describe the actions personnel must take in the event of fires, explosions, or hazardous waste releases. Plans must include a list of the emergency equipment at the facility, evacuation plans, and describe arrangements with local emergency response personnel. RCRA Closure and Post-Closure regulations, located at 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart G and effective October 29, 1986, impose requirements for closure preparedness and practices at hazardous waste facilities. These requirements include the development and implementation of a closure plan, guidelines for the disposal and/or decontamination of equipment, structures, and soils, submission of certification of closure to the EPA regional office, and the maintenance of closure conditions within RCRA requirements for 30 years after closure. 79 ------- 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart H contains RCRA Financial Requirements regulations, effective July 6, 1982, which establish financial responsibility standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities. Owners and operators must generate detailed written estimates of the cost of closure and establish financial assurance for closure and post-closure activities at the facility. The presence of small containers of hazardous substances that had been left at the facility mean that the site was subject to RCRA Use and Management of Containers regulations at 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I and effective July 13, 1981. These regulations establish standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities that store waste in containers. Under these regulations, owners and operators are required use container materials that will not react with hazardous wastes to be stored, that containers must be kept closed, and that containers must be handled in such a manner as to avoid rupture or leakage. Containment systems for container storage areas must be in place under these regulations, and the owner and/or operator must conduct weekly inspection. At facility closure, all hazardous wastes and residues must be removed from the containment structure and all containers must be decontaminated. Most of the hazardous waste found at the Maine Alum Grand Isle facility was stored in tanks and tanker trucks that had been left at the site. As a result, the site was subject to RCRA Tank Systems regulations, at 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart J and effective January 12, 1987. These regulations establish guidelines for determining the integrity of tank systems, operating requirements for storage of hazardous waste in tanks, and data collection and inspection requirements. Tank storage systems must include secondary containment systems. Additionally, when tank systems experience a leak or spill, RCRA Tank Systems regulations require that facility owners and operators remove the tank systems from use and contain any visible releases. Finally, facilities that use tanks systems to store hazardous waste must meet tank- specific closure and post-closure requirements, including the acquisition of financial assurance for tank and secondary containment system closure. At the Maine Alum Grand Isle site, the Maine Alum Corporation stored corrosive alum in tanks in a building, and two tanker trucks full of corrosive material were also abandoned on site. EPA discovered a corrosive sludge that covered the floor and that the two tanker trucks were leaking corrosive material. Site documents do not specify if the corrosive sludge was leaking from the tanks or from other containers at the facility. The presence of abandoned tanker trailers at the site, two of which contained corrosive materials that had spilled to the ground at the facility, mean that the site was also subject to Hazardous Materials Safety Regulations under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, at 49 CFR Parts 100-185 and effective as of July 25, 2002. Hazardous Materials Safety Regulations include regulations that specify packaging requirements for the transportation of hazardous materials, and specifications for tank cars. At the Maine Alum Grand Isle site, Maine Alum Corporation abandoned tanker trailers and let them corrode and release their contents. The Maine Alum Grand Isle removal action involved the removal of tanks and containers that held corrosive hazardous waste from a building at the site, and the cleanup of corrosive material that had spilled onto the building floor and from tanker trucks outside of the building. All relevant CERCLA, RCRA, and Hazardous Materials Transportation Act regulations were in place at the time the Maine Alum Corporation abandoned the site and left hazardous materials in storage at the site. Maine Alum Corporation abandoned the site when it ceased operations and did not make a financial or operational contribution to the removal action. 80 ------- References: • Action Memorandum, November 10, 2010. • OSC Site Profile. • Pollution Report #1, December 6, 2010. • Pollution Report #3, September 23, 2011. ------- 14) Saran Protective Coatings Facility Name: Saran Protective Coatings EPA Region/State: R5 - Michigan EPA ID: MIN000509094 Contamination Dates: 2000-2004 Operation Dates: 1987-2002 Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $372,000 Site Background/Description: The site comprises a production building, three storage buildings, an office and laboratory building, and a shed in Detroit, Michigan. Saran Protective Coatings Co. originally incorporated in 1950 and operated at the site from 1987 to 2002. Site operations included the manufacture of protective coatings for metal products, especially polyurethane coatings, and recycling lubricants. In 1987, the site also received waste from another Saran Protective Co. facility in Detroit. EPA conducted a separate removal action at this additional facility in 1996. Saran Protective Coatings Co. ceased operations at the site in August of 2002. The company did not own the site property and operated under a lease during its period of activity at the site; an individual named Noel Smith was the owner of the property as of early 2003. EPA and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) inspected and noted environmental compliance issues at the site both during the site's period of operation and after its abandonment. MDEQ cited Saran Protective Coatings Co. for failing to follow Michigan state hazardous waste management practices and liquid industrial waste practices in 2000 and 2001. EPA noted that hazardous substances related to paint manufacturing and solvents were stored in open 55-gallon drums at the site, as well as the presence of lab-grade chemicals in small- to mid-size containers in an on-site chemical laboratory. Saran Protective Coatings failed to come into compliance with the citations because of financial difficulties. When EPA assessed the site in October 2003, it found approximately 400 drums containing various materials, including hazardous substances, as well as small containers, laboratory containers, storage tanks, and totes. EPA analyzed samples collected from the containers and confirmed the presence of hazardous substances at the site, including ignitable waste, corrosive waste, laboratory-grade chemicals, and solvents. Those substances included hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, triisopropanolamine, triethanolamine, and sodium hydroxide. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: The MDEQ first cited Saran Protective Coatings Co. for violations of Michigan hazardous waste management practices and liquid industrial waste practices in May of 2000 in response to a complaint about the site, while Saran Protective Coatings Co. was still operating the site. MDEQ subsequently inspected the site in November 2001 - again while the site was active - and August 2003, after Saran Protective Coatings Co. had ceased operations at the site in August 2002. MDEQ issued Saran Protective Coatings Co. a total of 10 letters of warning about the hazardous waste management and liquid 82 ------- industrial waste violations between June 2000, and December 2002. Saran Protective Coatings Co. was unable to come into compliance with the letters of warning because of financial difficulties. In February of 2003, Saran Protective Coatings notified MDEQ of its intention to dispose of materials of concern when the weather was warmer. One month later, in March, MDEQ issued another letter of warning. Noel Smith, the owner of the property, then informed MDEQ that the materials would be disposed of by June 2003; that deadline was not met. In August 2003, a United States Postal Service employee attempting to deliver Saran Protective Coatings Co.'s mail to the site noted that the site was abandoned and not secured and notified EPA of the site's condition. The following day, EPA informed the owner of the requirement to secure the site and because of the site's abandoned status, a hazardous waste cleanup would need to be conducted. Following that communication, the property owner's contractors repaired the gate and fence surrounding the site. EPA obtained access to the site on in October of 2003 and observed approximately 400 drums, other tanks and containers, and bags of various substances. Analysis of site samples indicated that ignitable and corrosive material, solvents, and other hazardous substances were present at the site. EPA first mobilized to the site to initiate a removal action in September 2004. Preliminary activities at the site included hazard categorization, sampling of the drums and other containers at the site, and identification and segregation of the approximately 2,000 small containers that were present at the site. EPA assigned materials into waste streams for additional sampling, staging, and disposal. The following month, EPA started the second phase of response and removal activities at the site. Activities in this phase included the consolidation of non-hazardous liquids, the decontamination and disposal of the empty drums and totes that had contained the hazardous substances and other materials at the site, the decontamination of the shed building, and the processing of solid drum wastes. EPA then consolidated and staged the hazardous and flammable solids, neutral liquids, water reactive liquids, fuel blends, and non-hazardous solids into drums and shipped the drums off site. The shipping of drums containing the segregated waste streams marked the start of EPA's disposal of hazardous wastes off site, which occurred in late October of 2004. EPA also rendered any aboveground storage tanks and totes that remained at the site unusable and used a vacuum truck to transport non- hazardous liquids off site. EPA completed the removal action in November of 2004. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile EPA response documents noted the presence of CERCLA hazardous substances under 40 CFR Part 302.4 at the site. Of the chemicals explicitly listed in the documents, hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, triethanolamine, and sodium hydroxide are all defined as CERCLA hazardous substances under 40 CFR Part 302.4. In addition, hydrochloric acid and nitric acid are designated as CERCLA toxic chemicals under 40 CFR Part 372.65 and as OSHA highly hazardous substances under 29 CFR Part 1910.119, Appendix A. Nitric acid is further defined as a CERCLA extremely hazardous substance under 40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A. While the site was cited by MDEQ for uncompliant hazardous waste management practices and liquid waste practices and EPA removed hazardous wastes stored on site after Saran Protective 83 ------- Coatings Co. abandoned the site, response documents do not indicate that any hazardous substances or hazardous wastes were released at the site. Although it was not released, nitric acid is a designated as an extremely hazardous substance under CERCLA Emergency Planning and Notification regulations at 40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A. These regulations came into effect on October 17, 1986; they require facilities that handle extremely hazardous substances above certain thresholds to notify state and local authorities so that those authorities can develop emergency response plans to address those materials. EPA analysis of samples taken from the site indicated that containers left at the site held nitric acid. Additionally, CERCLA Hazardous Chemical Reporting and Community Right to Know regulations, at 40 CFR Part 370 and effective October 17, 1986, apply to facilities that handle CERCLA extremely hazardous substances, like nitric acid. It is unclear whether the amount of nitric acid that was present at the site exceeded the thresholds set by the CERCLA Hazardous Chemical Reporting and Community Right to Know regulations. Under those regulations, facilities must complete Material Safety Data Sheets for those substances and record and report their inventory of extremely hazardous substances on-site. In addition to its designation as a CERLCA extremely hazardous substance, nitric acid - along with hydrochloric acid, which was also found in containers at the site - is defined as a highly hazardous substance under OSHA standards at 29 CFR Part 1910, which were effective June 27, 1974. Facilities that handle OSHA highly hazardous substances must comply with the Process Safety Management standards to prevent or minimize the consequences of catastrophic releases of highly hazardous substances, including process hazard analyses, operating procedures, and training protocols. Under OSHA standards, employers must also develop and implement written safety and health program for employees involved in hazardous waste operations, which must be designed to identify, evaluate, and control safety and health standards and provide for emergency response protocols. Facilities that handle highly hazardous chemicals must also develop Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) under OSHA regulations at 29 CFR Part 1910.38, Subpart E, effective December 11, 1980. EAPs must include emergency response protocols for reporting, evacuation, critical facility operations, and rescue or medical duties. Finally, OSHA Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standards (HAZWOPER) regulations at 29 CFR Part 1910.120. These regulations require employers to develop a written safety and health program for employees involved in hazardous waste operations; programs will identify, evaluate, and control safety and health hazardous and provide emergency response procedures for hazardous waste operations. Programs will also include information about organizational structure, workplan, site-specific safety and health, training programs, and operating procedures. Response documents do not indicate whether Saran Protective Coatings Co. was compliant with OSHA standards. MDEQ issued citations to Saran Protective Coatings Co. for the company's violations of Michigan's hazardous and liquid waste management practices, but there is no mention of the company's compliance with federal occupational standards with respect to hazardous waste. The site's receipt of hazardous waste from another facility operated by Saran Protective Coatings Co. and the presence of hazardous substances and wastes at the site at the time of the company's abandonment of the site in 2002 suggests that RCRA hazardous waste regulations applied to the site. In 84 ------- that case, the Saran Protective Coatings Co. and/or the owner of the site would have been required to comply with RCRA regulations at 40 CFR Part 264, Subparts B, C, and D, and 40 CFR Part 270, which were all effective as of November 19, 1980. The RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit Program was established under regulations at 40 CFR Part 270. The permitting program requires that generators and transporters of hazardous waste and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities notify EPA of those activities and obtain permits through EPA to conduct those activities. Owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities must have permits for the active life of the facility, including during closure. In addition to permitting requirements, the regulation also establishes monitoring and reporting requirements. EPA appears to have been aware of the presence of hazardous waste at the site because in 2003 it informed the owner that a hazardous waste cleanup was required. It is unclear, however, if EPA was aware of the presence of hazardous waste at the site because the facility had acquired a RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit or if MDEQ and/or a post office employee who notified EPA of the abandoned site informed the agency of the presence of hazardous waste. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart B contains RCRA General Facility Standards, and requires hazardous waste facilities to apply for an EPA identification number, meet certain location standards, establish security programs, inspect the facility on a regular basis, and train personnel in hazardous waste management procedures. As above, it is unclear if Saran Protective Coatings Co. and/or the owner of the site met RCRA General Facility Standards, including applying for an EPA identification number. RCRA Preparedness and Prevention regulations at 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C require that hazardous waste facilities be designed, constructed and maintained to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or unplanned release of hazardous waste. Under this subpart, facilities must obtain emergency response equipment and make arrangements with local emergency response personnel to familiarize them with the facility. After abandonment, a postal worker noted that the site was not secure. Response documents also note that the facility stored hazardous substances in open 55-gallon drums. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart D establishes RCRA Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures regulations. These regulations require owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities to develop a contingency plan to minimize the hazards to human health from fires, explosions, or the release of hazardous waste. Plans describe the actions personnel must take in the event of fires, explosions, or hazardous waste releases. Plans must include a list of the emergency equipment at the facility, evacuation plans, and describe arrangements with local emergency response personnel. RCRA Closure and Post-Closure regulations, located at 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart G and effective October 29, 1986, impose requirements for closure preparedness and practices at hazardous waste facilities. These requirements include the development and implementation of a closure plan, guidelines for the disposal and/or decontamination of equipment, structures, and soils, submission of certification of closure to the EPA regional office, and the maintenance of closure conditions within RCRA requirements for 30 years after closure. Saran Protective Coatings Co. abandoned the site with hazardous waste in containers at the facility and EPA performed decontamination and disposal as part of the removal action. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart H contains RCRA Financial Requirements regulations, effective July 6, 1982, which establish financial responsibility standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities. 85 ------- Owners and operators must generate detailed written estimates of the cost of closure and establish financial assurance for closure and post-closure activities at the facility. EPA's removal action focused on the disposal and decontamination of approximately 2,000 containers of hazardous substances and waste at the site. Because the site stored hazardous waste in containers, it was subject to RCRA Use and Management of Containers regulations at 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I and effective July 13, 1981. These regulations establish standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities that store waste in containers. Under these regulations, owners and operators are required use container materials that will not react with hazardous wastes to be stored, that containers must be kept closed, and that containers must be handled in such a manner as to avoid rupture or leakage. Containment systems for container storage areas must be in place under these regulations, and the owner and/or operator must conduct weekly inspection. At facility closure, all hazardous wastes and residues must be removed from the containment structure and all containers must be decontaminated. While Saran Protective Coatings Co. and/or the site owner did not remove the hazardous waste from containment and decontaminate the containers, site documents do not indicate that any of the hazardous waste leaked, spilled, or otherwise discharged from the containers. The Saran Protective Coatings Co. stored hazardous substances at the site, including after site abandonment. All relevant OSHA, CERCLA, and RCRA regulations were in place during at least some part of Saran Protective Coatings Co.'s operations at the site from 1987 to 2002 and upon the company's abandonment of the site with hazardous substances stored at the site in 2002. Although MDEQ indicated that Saran Protective Coatings Co. and the site's owner were in violation of state hazardous waste management practices and liquid waste practices, response documents do not report any spills, discharges, or other releases of the hazardous substances and wastes stored at the facility. Financial difficulties prevented Saran Protective Coatings Co. and the site owner from coming into compliance with state regulations. EPA completed the removal action at the site without operational or financial contributions from either Saran Protective Coatings Co. or the site owner. References: • Action Memorandum, June 18, 2004. • Pollution Report #1, October 11, 2004. • Pollution Report #2, December 23, 2004. 86 ------- 15) Evergreen Products Inc. Site Facility Name: Evergreen Products Inc. Site EPA Region/State: R5 - Michigan EPA ID: MIN00510388 Contamination Dates: 2009 Operation Dates: Unknown-2009 Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $205,000 Site Background/Description: The Evergreen Products Inc. Site contains three buildings located at 265 South Harris Road in Ypsilanti, Michigan The site was a cleaning chemical manufacturing and packaging facility until April 1, 2009. On that date, Washtenaw County took possession of the site as a result of the previous owner defaulting on its taxes. Following the tax default, the previous owner abandoned its operations at the site. An individual purchased the property from the county on October 30, 2009, in the middle of EPA's response and removal actions at the site. It was unclear from site documents whether that individual had any liability as a PRP. When Washtenaw County took possession of the site, it found that the previous owner had left approximately 200 drums and miscellaneous containers of flammable and corrosive materials. When EPA mobilized to the site, the agency found that the containers held volatile organic compounds and flammable materials with flashpoints - meaning the lowest temperature at which the liquid may be ignitable - as low as 97 degrees Fahrenheit, as well as containers with labels that indicated the presence of corrosive materials. EPA also observed the storage of drums that contained substances of concern, including flammable liquids, in the same areas as combustible materials. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) requested EPA's assistance at the site in July of 2009. EPA conducted a site assessment soon after the request was made. EPA mobilized to conduct response and removal actions in October of 2019. EPA consolidated the drums and other containers from the three buildings at the site into a single building. Once those containers were staged in the same location, EPA conducted sampling of the containers' contents and subsequently categorized the hazardous substances on site. In the next phase of response actions, EPA submitted samples for disposal analysis and, once the agency received a response, packaged the waste into seven waste streams. The waste streams were transported off site to appropriate disposal locations, depending on the stream. EPA completed response and removal actions at the site in November of 2009. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile 87 ------- EPA identified the threat at the site to be the presence of containers that held hazardous chemicals. Approximately 200 drums and other vessels contained flammable and corrosive waste material, which is characterized as a CERCLA hazardous substance under 40 CFR Part 302.4. EPA also observed the presence of volatile organic compounds. Flammable and corrosive substances were stored in the same locations as combustible materials. The site had been a cleaning chemical manufacturing and packaging facility before it was abandoned and possessed by the county following a tax default. Despite the presence of hazardous substances stored in unsecure conditions, EPA site documents did not report a spill, leak, or other release of hazardous substances from their containers. The presence of hazardous substances at the Evergreen Product Inc. Site following its abandonment by its former operator suggests that RCRA hazardous waste regulations applied to the site as it was storing hazardous waste. In that case, the owner and operator of the site after abandonment would have been required to comply with RCRA regulations at 40 CFR Part 264, Subparts B and C, and 40 CFR Part 270, which were all effective as of November 19, 1980. The RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit Program was established under regulations at 40 CFR Part 270. The permitting program requires that generators and transporters of hazardous waste and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities notify EPA of those activities and obtain permits through EPA to conduct those activities. Owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities must have permits for the active life of the facility, including during closure. In addition to permitting requirements, the regulation also establishes monitoring and reporting requirements. EPA was not aware of the presence of hazardous waste stored at the Evergreen Products Inc. Site as it only initiated the removal action when MDEQ contacted the agency. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart B contains RCRA General Facility Standards, and requires hazardous waste facilities to apply for an EPA identification number, meet certain location standards, establish security programs, inspect the facility on a regular basis, and train personnel in hazardous waste management procedures. RCRA Preparedness and Prevention regulations at 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C require that hazardous waste facilities be designed, constructed and maintained to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or unplanned release of hazardous waste. Under this subpart, facilities must obtain emergency response equipment and make arrangements with local emergency response personnel to familiarize them with the facility. Although there was no release of the hazardous substances stored at the Evergreen Products Inc. Site, ignitable and corrosive materials were stored alongside combustible materials. RCRA Closure and Post-Closure regulations, located at 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart G and effective October 29, 1986, impose requirements for closure preparedness and practices at hazardous waste facilities. These requirements include the development and implementation of a closure plan, guidelines for the disposal and/or decontamination of equipment, structures, and soils, submission of certification of closure to the EPA regional office, and the maintenance of closure conditions within RCRA requirements for 30 years after closure. The previous operator of the Evergreen Products Inc. Site abandoned the site with hazardous waste in containers at the facility and EPA performed decontamination and disposal as part of the removal action. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart H contains RCRA Financial Requirements regulations, effective July 6, 1982, which establish financial responsibility standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities. 88 ------- Owners and operators must generate detailed written estimates of the cost of closure and establish financial assurance for closure and post-closure activities at the facility. The former owner and operator of the Evergreen Products Inc. Site had the site taken over by the county due to a tax default and EPA funded and conducted the removal action. EPA's removal action at the Evergreen Products Inc. Site focused on the approximately 200 drums and other containers that held the hazardous substances, the facility was subject to RCRA Use and Management of Containers regulations, under 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I and effective July 13, 1981. These regulations establish standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities that store waste in containers. Under these regulations, owners and operators are required use container materials that will not react with hazardous wastes to be stored, that containers must be kept closed, and that containers must be handled in such a manner as to avoid rupture or leakage. Containment systems for container storage areas must be in place under these regulations, and the owner and/or operator must conduct weekly inspection. At facility closure, all hazardous wastes and residues must be removed from the containment structure and all containers must be decontaminated. While the Evergreen Products Inc. site did not remove the hazardous waste from containment and decontaminate the containers, EPA did not report that any of the hazardous waste leaked, spilled, or otherwise discharged from the containers. The Evergreen Products Inc. Site removal action involved the removal of containers of hazardous substances that were abandoned at the site following the former owner and/or operator defaulting on its taxes and ceding ownership of the site to the county. The facility effectively stored the hazardous waste after the abandonment. All relevant RCRA regulations were in place at the time of abandonment. The site did not experience a discharge of hazardous substances to the local environment. EPA completed the removal action at the site without operational or financial contributions from any PRPs. References: • Action Memorandum, September 29, 2009. • Pollution Report, November 5, 2009. 89 ------- 16) Lyndon Street Drums Facility Name: Lyndon Street Drum Site EPA Region/State: R5- Michigan EPA ID: MIN000510622 Contamination Dates: Unknown-2012 Operation Dates: Unknown Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $796,000 Site Background/Description: The Lyndon Street Drums Site is located at 8100 Lyndon Street in Detroit, Wayne County, Michigan in a developed, mixed-use area containing industrial, commercial, and residential properties. According to the City of Detroit Law Department, the site was formerly a chemical manufacturing facility operated by Riverside Organics, Inc. The company abandoned the building and the site is no longer operational. At the time of EPA's removal assessment in 2011, hundreds of drums and other containers holding hazardous materials were in an abandoned building at the site. The vessels were in various states of deterioration, with multiple signs of leakage and spills, including puddles and pools of liquid waste on the floor. The building was in a state of disrepair. Holes in the roof were allowing precipitation to infiltrate the building. The precipitation was contributing to the already unstable condition of the drums and containers. There was no perimeter fencing and the building was open and unlocked. EPA detected the presence of numerous hazardous gas, liquid, and solid wastes. The emergency response site assessment determined that the uncontrolled hazardous wastes present at the site posed an imminent and substantial threat to public health and welfare and to the environment. EPA issued an Action Memorandum for a time-critical removal action to abate imminent and substantial endangerment posed by hazardous substances at the site. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: In August of 2011, the Detroit Fire Department (DFD) responded to a complaint of odor at the site. Upon entering the site building, DFD found hundreds of drums and other containers that appeared to be leaking. DFD contacted EPA and requested assistance with securing the site and removing the drums and containers. EPA met the DFD at the site to conduct an emergency response site assessment. EPA confirmed the presence of hundreds of drums and containers with labels indicating hazardous materials. The drums and containers were in various states of deterioration, with multiple signs of leakage and spills, including puddles and pools of liquid waste on the floor. Compressed gas cylinders, manufacturing tanks, vessels, and laboratory equipment were also observed. In September 2011, EPA issued an Action Memorandum for a time-critical removal action at the site to abate imminent and substantial endangerment posed by hazardous substances at the site. Onsite 90 ------- removal action activities began in October 2011, and were completed in January 2012. A summary of removal action activities is provided below. • Development and implementation of a site-specific work plan, health and safety plan (HASP), and emergency contingency plan • Initial site setup and construction of the contaminated reduction zone (CRZ), exclusion zone (EZ), and support zone • Site perimeter and breathing zone air monitoring • Removal of non-hazardous and hazardous wastes from the site • Sampling of potentially impacted soils, building floor sweepings, and processing equipment • Off-site disposal of identified hazardous and non-hazardous wastes • Implementation of site security measures and demobilization from the site Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile Hazardous substances found at the site are designated and regulated as Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous substances and acute hazardous wastes (listed at 40 CFR Part 261.33), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) hazardous substances (listed at 40 CFR Part 302.4), CERCLA toxic chemicals (listed at 40 CFR Part 372.65), and CERCLA extremely hazardous substances (listed at 40 CFR Part 355 Appendix A). Site documentation does not indicate when this facility was abandoned. Site documentation indicates containers and drums on site leaked toxic and hazardous substances, demonstrating the facility may have been subject to CERCLA release reporting requirements. 40 CFR Part 372, effective 1988, requires facility owners to report toxic chemical releases. Under this regulation, the site owner/operate was required to report the release of toxic chemicals to the Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI). Similarly, 40 CFR Part 302, Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification, effective in 1985, requires notification to the National Response Center (NRC) of releases of CERCLA hazardous substances above reportable quantities. If the releases of CERCLA hazardous substances at the site exceeded reportable quantities listed at 40 CFR Part 372.65, the site owner/operator was required to report these releases. Further, CERCLA Emergency Planning and Notification, 40 CFR Part 355, effective 1986, requires disclosure of facility information to allow state and local authorities to develop and implement chemical emergency response plans if facilities handle designated extremely hazardous substances above established thresholds. If the site stored extremely hazardous substances above the threshold amount, these regulations would have been applicable. RCRA governs the disposal of hazardous waste and therefore applied to the abandoned hazardous substances at the chemical barn. 40 CFR Part 270 (Hazardous Waste Permit Program), effective 1980, requires that owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities obtain permits to conduct those activities. Owners and operators of hazardous waste management units must have permits during the active life of the unit, including during closure. 40 CFR Part 264, the Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal facilities, regulated numerous aspects of site operations and closure. Specifically, 40 CFR Part 91 ------- 264, Subpart C, implemented under RCRA in 1980, stipulates that hazardous waste facilities must be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to minimize the possibility of an unplanned release of hazardous waste. In addition, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart D, Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures, effective in 1980, stipulates that owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities have a contingency plan designed to minimize hazards to human health or the environment from fires, explosions, or the release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents. Site abandonment and condition of the site suggest the site owner/operator did not comply with these subparts. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart E, Manifest System, Recordkeeping, and Reporting was promulgated in 1980. The rule stipulates that owners and operators provide 1) a description and the quantity of each hazardous waste received, and the method(s) and date(s) of its treatment, storage, or disposal at the facility and 2) the location of each hazardous waste within the facility and the quantity at each location. This information must be maintained in the operating record until closure of the facility. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart G, Closure and Post-Closure, effective in 1986, establishes closure and post- closure requirements for hazardous waste facilities. These include imposition of closure standards, implementation of closure plan, and time allowed for closure activities. The regulation sets guidelines for disposal or decontamination of equipment, structures, and soils. Upon completion of closure of a hazardous waste disposal unit, owners and operators must submit a certification of closure to the EPA regional office. Post-closure requirements apply for 30 years after closure. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart H, Financial Requirements, effective in 1982, establishes financial responsibility standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste management facilities. Owners or operators must generate detailed written estimates of the cost of closure. Subpart I of 40 CFR Part 264 came into effect in 1981 and establishes 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. During its inspection of the site, EPA observed leaking and bulging containers. In addition to containers, EPA's discovery of several abandoned storage tanks at the facility indicates that 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart J, Tank Systems, effective in 1986, was also relevant to operations at the site. This regulation establishes guidelines for determining integrity of tank systems, operating requirements, and data collection and inspection requirements. It requires the removal from use of tank systems or secondary containment systems from which there has been a leak or spill. Owners and operators must then remove waste from the tank and secondary containment system, contain visible releases to the environment, notify EPA, and complete repairs of the tank or containment system. Finally, this regulation establishes closure and post-closure requirements including acquisition of financial responsibility. The condition of the site also indicates violation of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart DD, which applies to containment buildings (buildings used to store or treat hazardous waste) and was promulgated in 1993. The rule requires owners and operators of facilities with containment buildings to remove or decontaminate all waste residues, containment system components, subsoils, and structures and equipment contaminated with waste or leachate, and manage them as hazardous waste. Owners and operators must generate closure plans and cost estimates, perform closure activities, and acquire financial responsibilities for containment buildings. If owners and operators cannot effectively remove 92 ------- or decontaminate contaminated components, subsoils, structures, and equipment, they must close the facility and perform post-closure care, including acquiring financial responsibility. 40 CFR Part 268, Land Disposal Restrictions, became effective in 1986 and designate and regulate certain wastes as prohibited. 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart C, Prohibitions on Land Disposal prohibits land disposal of specific wastes including wood preserving wastes, dioxin-containing wastes, soils with toxicity characteristics of metals and PCBs, toxicity characteristic metal wastes, inorganic chemical wastes, and ignitable and corrosive wastes, among others. The Lyndon Street Drums site likely contained prohibited wastes. 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart D, Treatment Standards, establishes treatment standards that prohibited wastes must meet in order to be land disposed, including alternative land disposal restriction standards for contaminated soil, which would have applied to the PAH, PCB, and metal contaminated soil at the site. 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart E, Prohibitions on Storage, requires that prohibited wastes be stored in tanks, containers, or containment buildings at disposal facilities, and stipulates that wastes may only be stored to facilitate their proper recovery, treatment, and disposal. State regulations were also applicable at the chemical site. Specifically, Michigan Administrative Code (MAC) R 299.9201-9234, effective 1985, regulates residues of hazardous waste in empty containers and identifies and regulates discarded hazardous wastes, among other rules and requirements. Additionally, MAC R 299.9301-9313, effective 1985, establishes requirements for generators of hazardous waste. Requirements include site identification, manifest requirements, pre-transport requirements, accumulation time, recordkeeping, reporting, exporting and importing of hazardous waste, land disposal restrictions, and more. A generator who treats, stores, or disposes of hazardous waste on-site must comply. MAC R 299.9601-9640, effective 1985 applies to waste storage facilities and was thus applicable to the site. The rule covers environmental and human health standards, location standards, facility design and operating standards, preparedness and prevention, contingency plans and emergency procedures, use of manifest systems, operating records, retention and disposition of records, reporting, environmental monitoring, groundwater monitoring, closure and post-closure, use and management of containers, tank systems, leak detection systems, land disposal restrictions, and more. Because of the uncertainty about the dates of site operation and site abandonment, it is unclear if CERCLA release reporting requirements and emergency planning and response, RCRA hazardous waste standards and requirements, and state regulations were applicable to the site. However, the site remained abandoned and contaminated until EPA completed the removal action in 2012. The government bore the cost of the removal action. References: • Pollution Report #1, January 31, 2019. • Weston Solutions, "Lyndon Street Drum Site Removal Action," Start Removal Report, March 28, 2012. 93 ------- 17) White Rox Chemical Facility Name: White Rox Chemical EPA Region/State: R2 - New Jersey EPA ID: NJC200400786 Contamination Dates: 2006-2011 Operation Dates: Unknown-2006 Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $347,000 Site Background/Description: The site is located at 660 South Main Street, Phillipsburg, Warren County, New Jersey. The site is approximately 5.5 acres and contains a 30 by 70-foot steel building along with several outbuildings, a 40-foot office trailer, and two buildings currently being used by an auto glass repair shop and an auto body repair shop. The steel building was the main production facility on site. This building contains three large storage tanks. The tanks are contained and held with a concrete dike. In total there were 100 55- gallon drums, 3000 -5-gallon containers and 200 laboratory sized containers identified in the building and on the surrounding property. These containers stored materials including caustics, acids, and ignitable. The site was used mostly as a repackaging and warehouse facility. The repackaging operations consisted of reducing volumes of high concentrated sodium hypochlorite into lower concentrations depending on a customer request. These sodium hypochlorite solutions were sold to commercial businesses. Operations ceased and the site was abandoned in 2006. It is unclear from the site documentation when operations began on-site. The site documentation does not identify the owner of the site. EPA contacted the site owner and was informed that they did not have the means to fund a site removal. In April 2011, a brushfire impacted the site after lightning struck an electric transformer mounted on a telephone pole. While fighting the fire, the local fire department discovered thousands of five-gallon pails and 55-gallon drums of unknown chemicals in the rear portion of the site and along the site's fence line. Many of these barrels were destroyed in the fire. A site assessment the same day confirmed the presence of sodium hypochloride, hydrochloric acid, ammonium hydroxide, and methanol. After the fire was extinguished, the site was not secured. The structures were open to the environment, and the containers within the building and outside were in poor condition and in a state of deterioration due to exposure to the elements and impingement of the containers by the brush fire. Many of the containers showed evidence of leaking. Many more had been compromised by weather and the firefighting activities and were posing a continued threat of release. Weathering had even resulted in the release of the contents of some containers prior to the fire. Additionally, trespassing had occurred present at the site. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: 94 ------- After the brushfire was extinguished, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) officials conducted an inspection at the site. NJDEP requested EPA Emergency Response division for assistance at the site. NJDEP directed a contractor to identify and segregate all chemicals near the fire location only. EPA's removal actions began In May of 2011. EPA removed one 3,000-gallon stainless steel tank, 112 55- gallon drums, 62 35-gallon drums, 3011 five-gallon drums, 137 two and a half gallon drums, 357 one- gallon drums, and numerous smaller containers had been recovered. Additionally, EPA profiled waste samples and identified eight hazardous waste streams and two non-hazardous waste streams. All empty containers were recycled off-site. EPA demobilized from the site in August 2011. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile EPA identified sodium hypochloride, hydrochloric acid, ammonium hydroxide, and methanol within the containers on-site. Sodium hypochloride, ammonium hydroxide, methanol, and hydrochloric acid are listed as a CERCLA hazardous substance under 40 CFR Part 302.4. Hydrochloric acid is classified as a toxic chemical under 40 CFR 372.65, and an OSHA highly hazardous substance under 29 CFR Part 1910.119 Appendix A. Methanol is also listed as a RCRA toxic waste under 40 CFR Part 261.33 and a CERCLA toxic chemical under 40 CFR Part 372.65. Under CERCLA, relevant regulations set practices and requirements for public notification of releases of hazardous substances, responses to releases, and remediation of harm caused by releases. Because methanol and hydrochloric acid were found onsite, CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting, 40 CFR Part 372 was applicable at the site. This regulation requires facility owners and operators to submit reports on releases of toxic chemicals to the Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI). CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting regulations were effective as of 1988. Pollution Reports and Action Memorandums pertaining to the site do not indicate if these regulations were followed by the responsible party, because sodium hypochloride, hydrochloric acid, ammonium hydroxide, and methanol are defined as a CERCLA hazardous substance, regulations under CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification, 40 CFR Part 302. This regulation establishes notification requirements for owners or operators of vessels or facilities that release hazardous substances above reportable quantity thresholds. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), 40 CFR Part 302 became effective in 1985. Finally, if an extremely hazardous substance was present on-site, CERCLA Emergency Planning and Notification regulation at 40 CFR Part 355 were also applicable. This regulation requires disclosure of facility information to allow state and local authorities to develop and implement chemical emergency response plans. In 2006, the owner/operator abandoned the site, leaving various containers containing caustics, acids, and ignitable on site. These chemicals were left unsecure and began deteriorating. The majority of relevant RCRA regulations are defined within the Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities in 40 CFR Part 264. For example, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C, established in 1980, stipulates that hazardous waste facilities must be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to minimize the possibility of an unplanned release of hazardous waste. In 95 ------- addition, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart D, Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures, effective in 1980, stipulates that owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities must have a contingency plan designed to minimize hazards to human health or the environment from fires, explosions, or the release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart DD, Containment Buildings, establishes design and operating standards for containment buildings that treat or store hazardous waste. Additionally, it requires that owners and operators of facilities with containment buildings remove or decontaminate all waste residues, containment system components, subsoils, and structures and equipment contaminated with waste or leachate, and manage them as hazardous waste. Further, owners and operators must generate closure plans and cost estimates, perform closure activities, and acquire financial responsibilities for containment buildings. This regulation became effective in 1993. Effective in 1986, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart G, Closure and Post-Closure, establishes guidelines for a facility closure. These include two types of requirements: 1. Closure requirements, which 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, which 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 the post-closure period. Financial Requirements, 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. Therefore, the facility must have enough money to cover the cost during these two periods. 40 CFR 264, Subpart H was enacted in 1982. Use and Management of Containers, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I, establishes regulations for operators storing hazardous waste in containers. It requires that hazardous waste be store in containers that will not react with the substances inside. To avoid contamination, containers must be kept closed and must be handled and stored in such a manner that avoids rupture or leakage. During the facility's closure period, all hazardous wastes and hazardous waste residues must be removed from the containment system and containers must be decontaminated. This regulation was effective beginning in 1981. Further, effective in 1987, Tank Systems in 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart J, establishes hazardous waste tank This regulation establishes guidelines for determining integrity of tank systems, operating requirements, and data collection and inspection requirements. It requires the removal from use of tank systems or secondary containment systems from which there has been a leak or spill. Owners and operators must then remove waste from the tank and secondary containment system, contain visible releases to the environment, notify EPA, and complete repairs of the tank or containment system. Finally, this regulation establishes closure and post-closure requirements including acquisition of financial responsibility. 96 ------- In addition to 40 CFR 264, RCRA regulations under 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart E were also applicable to the site. Effective in 1986, 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart E requires that prohibited wastes must be stored in tanks, containers, or containment buildings at disposal facilities, and stipulates that wastes may only be stored to facilitate their proper recovery, treatment, and disposal. It bans the storage of prohibited waste for longer than a year. In addition to federal regulations, the site was also obligated to follow state regulations. Worker and Community Right to Know Act Rules under N.J.A.C. 8:59 provide a procedure and comprehensive program for state residents to gain access to information about hazardous substances in the workplace and community; facilitates monitoring and detection systems for adverse health effects attributable to hazardous substances; enables individuals to detect and minimize the effects of exposure to hazardous substances; and provides individuals and local authorities with information about hazardous substances and the attendant risks. Additionally, Hazardous Waste, under N.J.A.C. 7:26G, constitutes the rules of the Department of Environmental Protection which govern the registration, operation, closure and post- closure maintenance of hazardous waste facilities in the State of New Jersey; registration, operation, and maintenance of hazardous waste transporting operations and facilities in the State of New Jersey. This review demonstrates that modern emergency response and hazardous waste were in place during site operations and the subsequent fire. Before the fire, containers were deteriorating and leaking their contents on the ground. After the fire, the majority of containers were destroyed or damaged. To address the contamination due to the fire, EPA preformed removal actions; EPA found that the PRP did not have sufficient assurance to perform a removal. As a result, the government bore the cost of the removal action. References: Action Memorandum, June 21, 2011. Pollution Report #1, June 21, 2011. Pollution Report #2, August 8, 2011. Pollution Report #3, September 28, 2011. 97 ------- 18) Dye Specialties Inc. Facility Name: Dye Specialties Inc. EPA Region/State: R2 - New Jersey EPA ID: NJD981563687 Contamination Dates: 2001-Unknown Operation Dates: 1927-2003 Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $1,279,000 Site Background/Description: The Dye Specialties, Inc. (DSI) is in the City of Jersey City, Hudson County, New Jersey. The facility was owned and operated by DSI from 1927 to July 3, 2003. DSI is a privately-owned manufacturer of aniline dyes for use in printed ink and other industrial products. The manufacturing process formerly required the use of phosgene, but DSI discontinued the use of this chemical some time in 2001. DIS also used phosphorous oxychloride at the site and some of this material was present at the time of initial response. The facility consists of nine buildings, including a main process building, chemical storage building, shipping building, laboratory, pilot plant, mixing plant, warehouse, offices and shower/locker building. The City of Jersey City considered the facility to be abandoned. During its initial evaluation, EPA found approximately 2,000 drums, 40 vats/tanks, 1,500 laboratory containers, numerous above ground storage tanks, and unidentified spilled materials throughout the facility. Material was stored in an unsafe manner with incompatible materials near one other and most of the containers were not labeled. Buildings one and two were process plants that contained mixers, ovens, vats, tanks, drums and bag houses used in the dye manufacturing process. EPA found drums containing unknown solids in both buildings. Building two had three large aboveground storage tanks, one wood and two metal, located outside of the process building. These tanks were open at the top and reported to be part of a water treatment system. Building one, the main process building, contained several wooden tanks reported to contain sodium hydroxide. Building three was used for the temporary storage of both raw products and manufactured dye products and an attached structure was used as a phosphorous oxychloride room. Building three contained six poly drums containing residual phosphorous oxychloride and drums of sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, glacial acetic acid. Building four was used as the shipping/office building. EPA observed some drummed materials and some smaller containers labeled "toxic" at the rear of this building. Building five housed a laboratory on the first floor and executive offices on the second. The laboratory contained various small containers including dyes, pigments, acids and other reagent chemicals. Spilled material and open containers with unknown liquids and solids were located throughout the lab. Building six also contained drums of unknown material, several tanks, and spilled materials. Building nine is a large chemical storage warehouse in poor condition. It contained approximately 1,200 drums various stages of decay. Some of their contents had spilled onto the floor. EPA found drums stacked in an unsafe manner and incompatible materials stored in close proximity. Many of the steel drums were rusted and many of the fiber drums had lost their integrity and showed signs of the contents soaking through the packaging. Building nine's leaking roof could have allowed 98 ------- rainwater to accumulate, increasing the volume and mobility of the contaminants. A storm drain in building nine would reportedly discharge any collected runoff into the Passaic River. Hazardous substances found at the site included phosphorus oxychloride, benzyl chloride, acetic anhydride, acetic acid, chloroacetic acid, magnesium hydroxide, lead dioxide, sodium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, muratic acid, phenolsulfonic acid, N,N-Diethylaniline, N,N- Dimethylaniline, alcohols, and n-propanol. The primary concern is the threat of direct contact of these substances to the nearby human population should these and other materials be released into the environment. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: In September 2003, the Jersey City Fire Department (JCFD) responded to an alarm in the main process building (building one) at DSI. Unable to contact any facility personnel, the fire department forced entry into the building and discovered tanks and drums containing various amounts of unknown materials. JCFD discovered process materials, unlabeled drums in various stages of decay, and spilled products on the floor. Entry into other facility buildings revealed similar problems. JCFD notified the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) who responded to the site. NJDEP requested EPA assistance at the site. As EPA evaluated the facility, state and local authorities were concerned about the potential presence of phosgene at the facility. DSI used phosgene as part of its manufacturing processes. Visual inspection and air monitoring results did not identify the presence of phosgene. However, due to the large quantities of other hazardous substances located throughout the site and deteriorated containers releasing hazardous substances, EPA initiated an emergency removal action the same day. JCFD issued a Notice of Violations and Order to Correct Violations to DSI due to the lack of a functioning fire suppression system in any of the process buildings. The Order stated that all locations within the facility were to be vacated based upon an imminent hazard until approval for occupancy was granted by JCFD. DSI provided EPA with a written workplan for completing a portion of the removal work. This work was limited due to lack of available funds and because JCFD would not allow DSI to operate any processing equipment because of the uncorrected fire violations. EPA disposed of phosphorous oxychloride, overpacked leaking drums, compiled an inventory of all materials on-site, collected waste classification samples and asbestos samples, stabilized stacked pallets of incompatible materials, and encapsulated friable asbestos containing materials in work areas. EPA's work plan for completing the removal action involved: • Inventorying and documenting all drums, tanks, vats, presses, cylinders, reagents, and lines; • Stabilizing and securing vats, sumps, drums, tanks, presses, cylinders and other containers of hazardous materials; • Segregating, repackaging and overpacking of materials as necessary; • Sampling and analyzing the contents of vats, drums and all other containers to determine waste characteristics for subsequent waste consolidation and final disposal; • Preparing waste streams for shipment; 99 ------- • Removing contaminated debris from the facility; • Decontaminating buildings, if necessary; • Addressing the dust collection systems in each building; and • Transporting and disposing of materials at the site. As of February 2004, DSI's actions included decommissioning all heating to the main plant and dryer building due to recent weather conditions and numerous frozen heating lines; inspecting all containerized materials on-site and providing EPA with material safety data sheets (MSDSs) for these items; and contacting many of the suppliers of raw materials and arranging for materials to be removed. EPA suspended site activities on in February 2004 and planned to negotiate with DSI for completion of the remaining disposal work. EPA was also negotiating cost-reimbursement with DSI. Site operations were tentatively scheduled to resume in April. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile EPA conducted a removal action at the DSI facility due to existing releases and threatened future releases of hazardous substances at site and the inability of the Responsible Party (RP), DSI, to properly close and decontaminate the site. Many substances found abandoned at the facility are hazardous wastes under 40 CFR Part 261, Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, effective in 1980. This part identifies wastes which are subject to regulation and notification requirements as hazardous wastes under RCRA, Subtitle C. 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C, Characteristics of Hazardous Wastes, designates wastes as hazardous based on the characteristics of toxicity, corrosivity, reactivity, and ignitability. In the course of the removal action, EPA characterized several substances found abandoned at the site as hazardous under this subpart due to their characteristic corrosivity (phosphorus oxychloride, benzyl chloride, acetic anhydride, acetic acid, chloroacetic acid, and magnesium hydroxide), ignitability (lead dioxide, alcohols, and n-propanol), and/or toxicity (lead dioxide). As such, rules promulgated under RCRA regulated this facility. For example, 40 CFR Part 270, effective in 1980, required DSI to have a permit both during operations and closure and to file notifications for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal. The RCRA Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (40 CFR Part 264) regulate numerous aspects of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility operations. Subpart B of 40 Part 264, General Facility General Facility Standards, effective in 1980, requires owners and operators to obtain detailed chemical and physical analysis of a representative sample of waste prior to treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes; establish sufficient security programs to prevent unknowing and unauthorized entry of persons or livestock into the active portion of the facility; and carry out general inspection requirements to check for malfunctions, deterioration, operator error, and discharges, among other requirements. Furthermore, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C, Preparedness and Prevention, effective in 1980, stipulates that hazardous waste facilities must be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or unplanned release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents. Additionally, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart D, Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures, effective in 1980, further requires owners and operators to have a contingency plan designed to minimize hazards to human health or the environment from fires, explosions, or the release of 100 ------- hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents. JCFD issued a Notice of Violations and Order to Correct Violations to DSI due to the lack of a functioning fire suppression system in any of the process buildings. 40 CFR Part 264, Subparts G and H outline closure, post-closure, and financial responsibility requirements. Subpart G, Closure and Post-Closure, effective in 1986, requires imposition of closure standards, implementation of closure plan, and time allowed for closure activities. The regulation sets guidelines for disposal or decontamination of equipment, structures, and soils. Upon completion of closure of a hazardous waste disposal unit, owners and operators must submit a certification of closure to the EPA regional office. Post-closure requirements apply for 30 years after closure. Subpart H, Financial Requirements, effective in 1982, establishes financial responsibility standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste management facilities and requires them to generate detailed written estimates of the cost of closure. The presence of hazardous waste storage containers at the site indicates applicability of requirements under 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I, Use and Management of Containers, effective in 1981. This Subpart requires that owners or operators handle and store containers in such a manner as to avoid rupture or leakage, employ containment systems for container storage areas, and provides guidelines for containment system design. It also requires weekly inspections. At closure, all hazardous wastes and hazardous waste residues must be removed from the containment system and containers must be decontaminated in order to comply with this regulation. During its initial evaluation, EPA found approximately 2,000 drums and 1,500 laboratory containers abandoned and decaying at the site. In addition to these containers, EPA also observed numerous storage tanks abandoned onsite, indicating the applicability of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart J, Tank Systems, effective in 1986. This regulation establishes guidelines for determining integrity of tank systems, operating requirements, and data collection and inspection requirements. It requires the removal from use of tank systems or secondary containment systems from which there has been a leak or spill. Owners and operators must then remove waste from the tank and secondary containment system, contain visible releases to the environment, notify EPA, and complete repairs of the tank or containment system. Finally, this regulation establishes closure and post-closure requirements for tanks including acquisition of financial responsibility. EPA's removal action included decontaminating a deteriorating building. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart DD, Containment Buildings, effective in 1993, requires owners and operators of facilities with containment buildings to remove or decontaminate all waste residues, containment system components, subsoils, and structures and equipment contaminated with waste or leachate, and manage them as hazardous waste. Owners and operators must generate closure plans and cost estimates, perform closure activities, and acquire financial responsibilities for containment buildings. If owners and operators cannot effectively remove or decontaminate contaminated components, subsoils, structures, and equipment, they must close the facility and perform post-closure care, including acquiring financial responsibility. 40 CFR Part 268, Land Disposal Restrictions, became effective in 1986 and designates and regulates certain wastes as prohibited under RCRA. 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart C, Prohibitions on Land Disposal, prohibits land disposal of specific wastes including wood preserving wastes, dioxin-containing wastes, soils with toxicity characteristics of metals and PCBs, toxicity characteristic metal wastes, inorganic 101 ------- chemical wastes, and ignitable and corrosive wastes, among others. 40 CFR Part 268.2 defines land disposal as placement in or on the land, except in a corrective action management unit or staging pile, including but not limited to, placement in a landfill, surface impoundment, waste pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt dome formation, salt bed formation, underground mine or cave, or placement in a concrete vault, or bunker intended for disposal purposes. EPA disposed of RCRA hazardous waste which included wastes designated as hazardous due to their characteristics of ignitibility, corrosivity, and metal toxicity. These wastes qualify as prohibited wastes. 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart E, Prohibitions on Storage, requires such prohibited wastes be stored in tanks, containers, or containment buildings at disposal facilities, and stipulates that wastes may only be stored to facilitate their proper recovery, treatment, and disposal. It further prohibits storage of prohibited wastes for more than one year. The State of New Jersey regulates hazardous waste under New Jersey Administrative Code (NJAC) 7:26G. Effective in 1996, this regulation governs the registration, operation, closure and post-closure maintenance of hazardous waste facilities and largely incorporates the federal regulations. NJAC 7:26G- 5, Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Standards, incorporates 40 CFR Part 261 by reference, NJAC 7:26-G-8, Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities incorporates 40 CFR Part 264 by reference, and NJAC 7:26G-12, the Hazardous Waste Permit Program, incorporates 40 CFR Part 270 by reference. The Superfund, Emergency Planning, and Community Right-to-Know Programs, codified in 40 CFR Parts 300-399 under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCA) and effective in 1980, set practices and requirements for emergency planning, public notification of releases of hazardous substances, responses to releases, and remediation of harm caused by releases. 40 CFR Part 302, Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification, effective in 1985, requires notification to the National Response Center (NRC) of releases of CERCLA hazardous substances above reportable quantities (listed at 40 CFR Part 302.4). 40 CFR Part 372, Toxic Chemical Release Reporting, requires notification of releases of CERCLA toxic chemicals (listed at 40 CFR Part 372.56). This part requires facility owners and operators to submit reports on releases of toxic chemicals to the Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI). CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting regulations were effective as of 1988. EPA found several CERCLA hazardous substances onsite (e.g., sulfuric acid; silver; hydrochloric acid; phosphorus oxychloride; benzyl chloride; acetic anhydride; acetic acid; chloroacetic acid; sodium hydroxide; N;N-Diethylaniline; and N;N-Dimethylaniline) and toxic chemicals (e.g., sulfuric acid; hydrochloric acid; chloroacetic acid; and N;N-Dimethylaniline); releases of these substances above reportable quantities thus required reporting under CERCLA. In addition to these release reporting requirements, because DSI stored CERCLA extremely hazardous substances onsite, it was potentially subject to 40 CFR Part 355, Emergency Planning and Notification requirements, effective in 1986. EPA found the CERCLA extremely hazardous substances phosphorus oxychloride, chloroacetic acid, and sulfuric acid at the site. If DSI handled these substances in quantities above the reportable and threshold planning levels set forth in 40 CFR Part 355 Appendix A, it was required to disclose facility information to allow state and local authorities to develop and implement chemical emergency response plans. In addition to these federal Superfund, Emergency Planning, and Community Right-to-Know Programs, the New Jersey Worker and Community Right to Know Act Rules at NJAC 8:59 applied to DSI. Effective in 1984, these regulations facilitate monitoring and detection systems for adverse health effects 102 ------- attributable to hazardous substances and provide individuals and local authorities with information about hazardous substances and their attendant risks. EPA removed friable asbestos materials from the site. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), which EPA promulgated under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA) beginning in 1973, include standards for asbestos. 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M establishes air emissions standards for asbestos that prohibit the discharge of visible asbestos emissions and proscribe asbestos storage and disposal practices at manufacturing operations, at 40 CFR Part 61.150, and active waste disposal sites, at 40 CFR Part 61.155. The standards for both manufacturing and disposal sites went into effect in 1990, well before site closure in 2003. The TSCA addresses asbestos disposal, as well. Appendix D to Subpart E of 40 CFR Part 763: Transport and Disposal of Asbestos Waste, which went into effect on December 14, 1987 (52 FR 41897), outlines additional asbestos disposal requirements. Finally, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has regulated the occupational exposure to asbestos since 1986 in 29 CFR Part 1910.1001 and 1926.1101. EPA noted that a leaking roof in one of the buildings could allow rainwater to accumulate in the building, thus increasing the volume and mobility of the contaminants. EPA further noted that a storm drain in building nine discharged into the Passaic River. If pollutants reached the river in this way, that discharge could violate regulations promulgated under the authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Both the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) (40 CFR Parts 122-125) and the Effluent Limitation Guidelines (40 CFR Parts 400-471) regulate point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States beginning in 1972. The NPDES requires facilities to have a permit for discharges to water of the United States and sets forth standards, duration limits, and permit conditions. In addition to permit limitations, the federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines (40 CFR Parts 400-471) prescribe effluent limitations guidelines for existing sources, standards of performance for new sources and pretreatment standards for new and existing sources of point source water pollution. 40 Part 447, effective in 1995, specifically sets effluent limitation guidelines for the ink formulating point source category. The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the production of oil-base ink where the tank washing system uses solvents. It prohibits the discharge of process waste waters from sources within this point source category. New Jersey establishes the regulatory framework within which the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection regulates the discharge of pollutants to the surface and ground waters of the state at NJAC 7:14A. Effective in 1981, the New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) requires facilities to obtain discharge permits and prohibits facilities from exceeding the discharge pollutant concentration established in their permit. DSI began operations in 1927, before modern environmental regulations existed. However, DSI continued to operate until 2003; its operations were thus regulated by many modern federal and state of New Jersey regulations, most notably hazardous waste and reporting and notification regulations. DSI lacked available funds to contribute to the removal actions and EPA bore the cost and responsibility for conducting the removal. References: 103 ------- • Action Memorandum, January 6, 2004. • Fact Sheet, No Date. • Pollution Report #4, December 10, 2004, • Pollution Report #5, January 16, 2004. • Pollution Report #6, February 13, 2004. 104 ------- 19) Petri Paint Facility Name: Petri Paint EPA Region/State: R2 - New Jersey EPA ID: NJR000037960 Contamination Dates: 2012-2017 Operation Dates: Unknown-2012 Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $99,600 Site Background/Description: The site is a former polyurethane varnish, wood finish, and plastic coating manufacturing facility in Newark, New Jersey. The facility covers approximately 6,000 square feet over two floors. Both floors were used for manufacturing operations and storage. Petri Paint, Inc. operated the polyurethane varnish, wood finish, and plastic coating manufacturing facility until 2012. Another business, Link Laboratories, also had an address listed at the site; it was a commercial cosmetic research laboratory. Petri Paint is currently defunct. The company was the subject of Chapter 7 liquidation bankruptcy proceedings in July 2016, and in March 2017 a foreclosure tax sale to PLEH 198 Corporation was completed. A final judgment in the bankruptcy proceedings transferred the property to PLEH 198 Corporation after the initiation of the removal action, though as the removal action neared completion, a tax lien holder of the property - Lienbase - was contemplating taking title of the property to recover its tax lien investment. Following Petri Paint, Inc.'s cessation of operations in 2012, the company abandoned the facility. Petri Paint, Inc. left behind over 75 55-gallon drums of solvents and resins, 2,000 5-gallon or smaller containers of varnishes, and 15 1,000-gallon or greater tanks housing partially solidified resins and/or varnishes. Inspections of the site in 2017 revealed that the containers were in poor condition, haphazardly stored, and scattered across the facility. In addition to the hazardous substances in the manufacturing containers, a further 20 laboratory chemicals were found in small bottles, with oxidizers, toxics, and corrosives stored in close proximity to one another. Combustible materials - such as paper, cardboard, waste oil, hardened varnish, and wood - were present throughout the building. While the building possessed a fire suppression system, it was not charged and not in operating condition. The presence of ignitable hazardous substances in 29 of the containers and volatile organic compounds at concentrations of greater than 100 ppm in 26 samples and over 1,000 ppm in 11 samples taken at the site, in conjunction with the combustible material and the lack of a functioning fire suppression system, created a significant fire risk. Any such fire could have released hazardous substances into the environment and damaged nearby buildings in the mixed commercial and residential neighborhood. Further, the site's roof let in water during precipitation events and there are no floor drains in the building. While the lack of floor drains suggests that hazardous substances have not washed out of the buildings, the conditions have created puddles and other standing water. Puddles around the hazardous substance containers created rust and corrosion which compromised their structural integrity. In 105 ------- addition to that potential release vector, any flood event that occurred at the site would carry water bearing hazardous substances out of the facility and into the local environment and neighborhood. Inspections of the site found asbestos-containing material on a boiler in the rear of the facility, but EPA determined that the asbestos was not a threat to workers or the public and it was not a subject of the response and removal actions. The facility also included an underground storage tank, but an evaluation indicated that it only contained residual oil and it, too, was not subject to response or removal. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) conducted an inspection of the site and contacted EPA to request a site evaluation the following week in February 2017. EPA inspected the site and observed the numerous abandoned containers, and noted the containers' degradation and poor storage conditions. In April 2017, EPA contractors inventoried the tanks and containers at the site and collected samples. The contractors also performed basic hazard characterization field testing. This testing showed that ignitable materials were in 29 of the containers and that 26 samples showed volatile organic compounds greater than 100 parts per million in 26 samples and greater than 1,000 parts per million in 1,000 samples. The testing confirmed the presence of RCRA ignitable characteristic waste and a suite of CERCLA hazardous substances. EPA initiated the removal action on in October 2017 with a site walkthrough. The following week, EPA and a contractor set up support facilities across the street from the site and began clearing out debris from the site building to create working space. EPA began by collecting paints and coatings from the smaller containers at the site, organizing them by hazard class, and staging them in boxes for disposal. Next, EPA began unstacking the 55-gallon drums at the site, securing the leaking drums. EPA transferred varnish and water from an 800-gallon tank to storage for disposal. The tank was exposed to rainwater and had overflown, spilling varnish onto the second floor which had seeped into the first floor. EPA shipped the first load of waste from the site in late October 2017 and emptied the 800-gallon tank. Following the completion of this stage of cleanup, EPA kept the site demobilized in preparation for future removal actions. Cleanup activities at the site resumed in December. With the additional space in the site building, EPA began segregating drums and removing the remaining small containers. EPA then started to decontaminate areas of the site that had experienced large spills. Hazardous substances that had leaked or spilled in the recent past had hardened on the outside while retaining liquid characteristics on the inside, which maintained the ignitability of the material compared with fully hardened spills and leaks. EPA scraped spills and leaks off of the floor and placing the material in drums for a combustible solids waste stream. Next, EPA started the process of removing residual material in the tanks on the site. These tanks held hardened and semi-hardened varnish products. 106 ------- EPA completed the removal of residual materials from the site tanks in mid-December 2018. The tanks contained approximately six to 36 inches of the solid residual material. Ultimately, because of the hardened state of the material, EPA cut out the side of many of the tanks to facilitate access and removal. Overall, EPA removed the contents of 13 tanks and three process vessels, yielding over 45 drums of combustible solids. Cleanup of the tanks and vessels continued through the second week of January 2018. As of January 2018, residual products had been removed from all remaining tanks, process vessels, and process lines at the site, and EPA had containerized the residual material for disposal. These tanks and process vessels ranged in size from 350 to 1,100 gallons. EPA completed the final load out of wastes from the site and demobilized equipment and support facilities in April 2018. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile EPA discovered several hazardous substances for which there was a release or threat of release at the site. These substances included acetone, acetophenone, ammonium bifluoride, benzene, 2-butanone, chromic sulfate, cyclohexane, cupric sulfate, dibromoethane, ethylbenzene, isopropylbenzene, methylene chloride, methyl tert-butyl ether, naphthalene, toluene, and xylene. All of these substances are designated as hazardous substances under CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification regulations at 40 CFR Part 302.4. Site documents also reported the presence of unlisted hazardous wastes with characteristics of ignitability, which are designated as "prohibited wastes" under RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions at 40 CFR Part 268. As a result of the releases of CERCLA hazardous substances at the site and the storage of hazardous substances at the site after abandonment, there were several CERCLA and RCRA regulations that were applicable to the facility. Under 40 CFR Part 302, CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification regulations, which were effective as of April 4, 1985, owners or operators of facilities that release designated hazardous substances above reportable quantities are required to notify local authorities of the release. Authorities were not aware of the spills of hazardous materials at the site until the NJDEP inspected the site. The presence of hazardous substances at the Petri Paint site following its abandonment by its former operator suggests that RCRA hazardous waste regulations applied to the site as it was storing hazardous waste. In that case, the owner and operator of the site after abandonment would have been required to comply with RCRA regulations at 40 CFR Part 264, Subparts B, C, and D, and 40 CFR Part 270, which were all effective as of November 19, 1980. The RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit Program was established under regulations at 40 CFR Part 270. The permitting program requires that generators and transporters of hazardous waste and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities notify EPA of those activities and obtain permits through EPA to conduct those activities. Owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities must have permits for the active life of the facility, including during closure. In addition to permitting 107 ------- requirements, the regulation also establishes monitoring and reporting requirements. EPA was not aware of the presence of hazardous waste stored at the Petri Paint site as it only initiated the removal action when NJDEP contacted the agency. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart B contains RCRA General Facility Standards, and requires hazardous waste facilities to apply for an EPA identification number, meet certain location standards, establish security programs, inspect the facility on a regular basis, and train personnel in hazardous waste management procedures. RCRA Preparedness and Prevention regulations at 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C require that hazardous waste facilities be designed, constructed and maintained to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or unplanned release of hazardous waste. Under this subpart, facilities must obtain emergency response equipment and make arrangements with local emergency response personnel to familiarize them with the facility. RCRA Closure and Post-Closure regulations, located at 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart G and effective October 29, 1986, impose requirements for closure preparedness and practices at hazardous waste facilities. These requirements include the development and implementation of a closure plan, guidelines for the disposal and/or decontamination of equipment, structures, and soils, submission of certification of closure to the EPA regional office, and the maintenance of closure conditions within RCRA requirements for 30 years after closure. Petri Paint, Inc. abandoned the facility with hazardous materials in containers and EPA conducted disposal and decontamination activities as part of its removal action. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart H contains RCRA Financial Requirements regulations, effective July 6, 1982, which establish financial responsibility standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities. Owners and operators must generate detailed written estimates of the cost of closure and establish financial assurance for closure and post-closure activities at the facility. Petri Paint, Inc. went through bankruptcy proceedings in 2016 and EPA funded and conducted the removal action. Site documents identified the primary purpose of the removal action as the mitigation of threats from hazardous substances left in on-site containers - drums, pails, cans, tanks, etc. - after the cessation of operations at the site. EPA discovered and removed 75 55-gallon drums and over 2,000 smaller drums and other containers that held solvents, resins, varnishes, and other hazardous waste at the site. Site documents noted that many of the drums and other containers at the site exhibited signs of degradation and had leaked hazardous material. The presence of small containers of hazardous substances that had been left at the facility mean that the site was subject to RCRA Use and Management of Containers regulations at 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I and effective July 13, 1981. These regulations establish standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities that store waste in containers. Under these regulations, owners and operators are required use container materials that will not react with hazardous wastes to be stored, that containers must be kept closed, and that containers must be handled in such a manner as to avoid rupture or leakage. Containment systems for container storage areas must be in place under these regulations, and the owner and/or operator must conduct weekly inspection. At facility closure, all hazardous wastes and residues must be removed from the containment structure and all containers must be decontaminated. At the Petri Paint site, standing water had rusted and led to breaches in containers at the facility and EPA removal actions included securing leaking drums at the site. 108 ------- In addition to the drums and containers, EPA found and removed 15 tanks with capacities of 1,000 gallons or more that that held partially solidified resins and/or varnishes. As a result, the site was likely subject to RCRA Tank Systems regulations, at 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart J and effective January 12, 1987. These regulations establish guidelines for determining the integrity of tank systems, operating requirements for storage of hazardous waste in tanks, and data collection and inspection requirements. Tank storage systems must include secondary containment systems. Additionally, when tank systems experience a leak or spill, RCRA Tank Systems regulations require that facility owners and operators remove the tank systems from use and contain any visible releases. Finally, facilities that use tanks systems to store hazardous waste must meet tank-specific closure and post-closure requirements, including the acquisition of financial assurance for tank and secondary containment system closure. At the site, at least one tank was exposed to rainwater because of the deterioration of the building, which led to water carrying varnish from the tank to the floor the building. Additionally, EPA activity at the site included the removal of liquid and solid hazardous materials from the tanks. RCRA Containment Buildings regulations, at 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart DD and effective February 18, 1993, establish design and operating standards for containment buildings that treat or store hazardous waste. Like the container regulations, containment building regulations require owners and operators to remove hazardous waste from buildings and decontaminate the buildings, any other containment system structures, and any affected subsoils and equipment and manage them as hazardous waste. The regulations require owners and operators to then perform closure and post closure activities. At the Petri Paint facility, hazardous waste was abandoned in the building that formerly housed site operations. The roof of the building let in rainwater which pooled around containers of hazardous waste and entered tanks of hazardous waste, leading to spills and releases in both cases. Further, EPA performed disposal and decontamination activities as part of its removal action. Site documents indicated that wastes with characteristics of ignitability were stored at the Petri Paint site. Ignitable wastes are designated as "prohibited wastes" under RCRA Land Disposal Restriction regulations at 40 CFR Part 268. Subpart E of 40 CFR Part 268, which was effective November 8, 1986, prohibits the storage of "prohibited wastes" for longer than one year, unless storage was necessary to facilitate proper recovery, treatment, or disposal. Following the 2012 abandonment of the facility, Petri Paint, Inc. stored large amounts of ignitable wastes in containers and drums of various sizes at the site until NJDEP discovered the hazardous wastes during an inspection in 2017. EPA also collected information about New Jersey state regulations that applied to the Petri Paint site. Under New Jersey regulations at N.J.A.C. 7:26G and effective October 21, 1996, NJDEP was to oversee the registration, operation, closure, and post-closure maintenance of hazardous waste facilities in New Jerseys. New Jersey Discharges of Petroleum and Other Hazardous Substance regulations at N.J.A.C. 7:1E, which were effective March 31, 1977, set guidelines and procedures to be followed in the event of discharges of hazardous substances, including reporting requirements. NJDEP only discovered releases of hazardous substances at the Petri Paint facility during a site inspection. Further, New Jersey regulations establish registration, design, operational, and maintenance requirements of facilities that handle hazardous substances, that would have applied to Petri Paint, Inc. Modern state and federal emergency response and hazardous waste regulations were in place at the time that Petri Paint, Inc. abandoned its facility and left hazardous waste in storage at the site in 2012. 109 ------- The abandonment of hazardous substances at the facility led to releases caused by the deterioration of drums and containers and rainwater that entered the facility. Petri Paint, Inc. later went through bankruptcy proceedings prior to the initiation of an EPA removal action. As a result, the government bore the cost of the removal action. References: Action Memorandum, August 8, 2017. Pollution Report #1, December 5, 2017. Pollution Report #2, January 10, 2018. Pollution Report #3, May 15, 2018. 110 ------- 20) Westwood Chemical Corporation Facility Name: Westwood Chemical Corporation EPA Region/State: R2 - New York EPA ID: NYD072710502 Contamination Dates: 1980s-2006 Operation Dates: 1973-2004 Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $2,952,000 Site Background/Description: The site is located at 146 Tower Drive, City of Middletown, Town of Wallkill, Orange County, New York. Westwood Chemical Corporation (Westwood) owned and operated the facility. Westwood was originally organized in 1973 under the name Comet Chemical Corp. Westwood manufactured two primary product lines at the site: ingredients used in the cosmetic and toiletry industry and flocculent agents used by municipal water supplies. Westwood sampled and analyzed raw materials and final products on onsite. Raw materials included hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, zirconium basic carbonate and zirconium oxychloride. Westwood manufactured an aluminum zirconium chloride complex and aluminum chlorohydrate, both in liquid and powdered form. These compounds are hygroscopic and evolve hydrogen chloride when in contact with moisture. Westwood manufactured aluminum chlorohydrate by adding hydrochloric acid to aluminum ingots in a series of reactor vessels. Westwood also reacted aluminum chlorohydrate with sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid and carbonate salts of magnesium, calcium and sodium to form polyaluminum hydroxychlorosulfate for use as a flocculent agent. These two processes generated approximately 8,000 gallons of wastewater per day at their peak. The local publicly owned treatment works (POTW) notified Westwood that their discharge exceeded some of the discharge permit parameters (aluminum, copper, pH, solids and nitrogen), and Westwood ceased discharging to the sewer and began shipping the wastewater off-site. Later, as a cost saving measure after Westwood began to encounter financial difficulties around 2001, it stored wastewater on site in totes, unused storage tanks and secondary containment. During the height of the manufacturing operations, Westwood employed more than one hundred people at the site and operated two shifts over each 24-hour period. An involuntary petition filed by creditors on January 28, 2005 put Westwood into bankruptcy. A voluntary petition superseded this involuntary petition on February 11, 2005. Westwood discontinued operations and abandoned the site in October 2004 due to financial problems. The site includes two adjacent tax lots with a combined land area of approximately nine acres. The site includes a series of interconnected buildings functioning as a single building and adjacent tank farms, a parking lot, and driveways. The interconnected buildings housed executive offices, conference rooms, a small basement dedicated to QA/QC sample and QA/QC report storage, three laboratories, additional offices, an employee breakroom, a research and development room, and production facilities including bulk storage tanks and warehouse space. The three laboratories served for QA/QC testing, research and development and general laboratory. Immediately adjacent to and outside of the building were tank farms and reactor farms. Ill ------- The production facility contained numerous abandoned tanks and several dryer units. Along the southeastern wall of the production area were two sets of tank/reactor farms; one for forming aluminum chlorohydrate for use in antiperspirants, the second for forming aluminum chlorohydrate and polyaluminum hydraxychlorosulfate used in municipal water supply flocculent agents. Around the year 2000, Westwood was planning to expand its antiperspirant ingredient production and, according to information provided to EPA by former Westwood employees, Westwood spent an estimated $2.5 million in purchasing stainless steel dryers, blowers and steel I-beams for this expansion. The expansion progressed only to the point of laying the foundation for a new building and in fabricating the secondary containment for an additional tank/reactor farm. At the time of EPA's mobilization for this removal action, numerous totes and poly drums were still staged outdoors. There were approximately 70 large storage tanks, 400 totes, 2,000 lab-pack size containers and 3,500 tons of solid material (primarily off-spec and finished hygroscopic substances) present at the site. Portions of the southern boundary of the site along Tower Road, as well as the entire eastern boundary of the site abutting an unnamed tributary of the Wallkill River were unfenced, affording easy and unrestricted access to the site and to the chemicals stored outside of the building. Two known releases occurred at the site during the period Westwood was conducting business operations. In the mid-1980s, an explosion occurred in one of the reactor vessels for production of aluminum chlorohydrate. In 1989, a hydrochloric acid delivery over-filled the on-site storage tank and the acid impacted the surrounding soil. Due to the condition of the tanks and containers at the site, many of which were stored outside in an uncontrolled unsecured location, several releases occurred while EPA was conducting its removal action. During a March 2005 site tour, EPA observed a liquid nitrogen tank visibly and audibly venting. Ice formation around a vent on the tank had prevented proper venting. This could have led to a catastrophic failure of the tank if it had been left unattended. EPA broke the ice and vented the contents. Later in March, one of the elbow joints at the bottom of a reactor vessel failed. Site personnel noted the resulting leak and fixed it by installing a blank cap. Also in March, an interior metal tank containing suspected process wastewater began leaking from a metal pipe located between the gate valve and the tank. EPA responded by safely transferring the contents of that tank to a secure container. The following month, in April 2005, secondary containment at multiple locations in the water treatment production tank farm failed. EPA responded by again safely transferring the contents to a secure container. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: In response to the 1989 hydrochloric acid spill, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) directed Westwood to install three monitoring wells and to pay for the cost of monitoring by NYSDEC personnel. In February 2005, a Town of Wallkill Code Enforcement Officer conducted an inspection at the site. Upon noting several storage tanks and numerous totes with labels indicating corrosive contents, laboratory rooms with potentially shock sensitive material and the absence of utilities servicing the building, the Code Enforcement Officer notified NYSDEC. Operations at the site had been discontinued in October 2004 due to financial problems of the site owner and operator, and numerous chemicals had 112 ------- been abandoned at the site as a result of the shutdown of operations. NYSDEC provided site security, arranged for the temporary restoration of power to the site, began moving containers of corrosives from an outdoor staging area to the warehouse portion of the building situated on the site, and removed certain potentially shock sensitive materials from the site. In February 2005, NYSDEC requested that EPA conduct a time-critical removal action. EPA conducted a site visit and met with NYSDEC in March. The NYSDEC officially requested that EPA assume responsibility for site security. EPA initiated a removal action by assuming the responsibility for the 24-hour site security. Next, EPA mobilized to the site and began restaging the totes and inventorying the hazardous substances and other chemicals that had been abandoned at the site. During the removal action, 73 polyethylene and fiberglass tanks were disassembled, chopped up and placed into debris roll offs that were sent for disposal. Four glass lined steel tanks (three of approximately 10,000-gallon capacity and one of approximately 10- gallon capacity) were not disassembled but were thoroughly rinsed out with a pressure washer to remove residual material. EPA pressure washed all building walls and floors to remove settled aluminum chlorohydrate and aluminum zirconium chlorohydrex powder. EPA also pressure washed three dryers. All rinse water generated from this operation was consolidated into the frac tanks and disposed of as part of the wastewater waste stream. All hazardous substances shipped offsite for disposal were sampled for proper disposal characterization. Prior to shipment for treatment and disposal, EPA consolidated wastewater into five frac tanks that it brought to the site. In October 2005, analytical results were received for the wastewater that had been contained in two of the frac tanks. Both exceeded Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) toxicity characteristic for silver. The waste stream was shipped offsite for disposal at an approved RCRA facility. EPA believes that some of the totes at the site were the source of the silver in this waste stream. As part of the removal action, EPA conducted soil sampling at 58 locations and conducted water sampling at the three monitoring wells that were installed in the late 1980s. In total, 89 soil samples were submitted for analyses. The sampling was concentrated in the nonvegetative areas to the west of the production building where there appeared to be obvious discharge areas, and in the south eastern paved parking area, where gelatinous seep was noted in late winter through early summer. In November 2005, EPA conducted a site tour with counsel to the bankruptcy trustee, a representative from each of New York State Department of Health and NYSDEC, and Personnel from EPA's Office of Regional Counsel and from the United States Attorney's Office. The purpose of the tour was to describe the status in which EPA was leaving the site at the conclusion of the removal action. In addition to describing the work performed and the types of data available, EPA identified locations of the soil sampling activities and noted that it was still awaiting determination of recommendations for possible soil action. Later in November, EPA conducted a site tour for the Assistant Building Inspector, Town of Wallkill. EPA informed him that the water lines had been purged using air, and that EPA was discontinuing further site security. EPA determined that there was a need to elevate pH levels in certain site soils which exhibited vegetative stress in order to enhance vegetative growth and to control potential erosion. In January 2006, EPA mobilized to buffer approximately 65,000 square feet of site soils by addition of lime. As of March 2006, pH in the impacted soil was near neutral, starter fertilizer was applied, and the was area seeded with mix and straw. 113 ------- EPA also noted a sprinkler head in the compressor room had failed and was leaking water. EPA drained residual water in the sprinkler line by opening a valve. EPA observed water leaking from cracks in sprinkler pipes inside the building. EPA notified the Wallkill Water and Sewer Company, who closed the main gate valve in the street outside of the building. EPA demobilized from the site in March 2006. Over the course of the removal action, EPA removed the following wastes: • Wastewater: 353,035 gallons • Silver bearing wastewater: 38,775 gallons shipped as RCRA hazardous waste due to toxicity characteristics for silver • Labpacks: 24 drums totaling 987 pounds, 21 drums and 687 pounds of which contained RCRA designated waste due to its characteristics of ignitibility; corrosivity and toxicity; toxicity of arsenic, barium, lead, and mercury; and other characteristics • Selenium totes: 27 tons of gel like material designated as RCRA toxicity characteristic for selenium • RCRA hazardous containers: 212 drums totaling 11,660 gallons of RCRA hazardous waste • Debris roll-offs: 1,680 tons of debris generated from polyethylene and fiberglass tank disassembly, polyvinyl chloride process lines, spent personal protective equipment, dry in- process and raw chemicals • Empty totes: 277 empty totes • Soda ash: 38,750 pounds • Reusable in-process and raw chemicals: 199,600 pounds and 32,108 gallons • Non-RCRA hazardous waste: 126 drums totaling 7,150 gallons In 2009, the former executive vice president of Westwood Chemical plant pleaded guilty to charges that he knowingly released harmful chemicals from the plant. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile Site documents note several releases of hazardous substances both during the site operations and as a result of abandonment of tanks, drums, and containers. The Superfund, Emergency Planning, and Community Right-to-Know Programs, codified in 40 CFR Parts 300-399 under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCA) and effective in 1980, set practices and requirements for emergency planning, public notification of releases of hazardous substances, responses to releases, and remediation of harm caused by releases. 40 CFR Part 302, Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification, effective in 1985, requires notification to the National Response Center (NRC) of releases of CERCLA hazardous substances above reportable quantities (listed at 40 CFR Part 302.4). 40 CFR Part 372, Toxic Chemical Release Reporting, requires notification of releases of CERCLA toxic chemicals (listed at 40 CFR Part 372.56). This part requires facility owners and operators to submit reports on releases of toxic chemicals to the Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI). CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting regulations were effective as of 1988. The Westwood site handled several CERCLA hazardous substances (e.g., sulfuric acid, silver, hydrochloric acid) and toxic chemicals (e.g., silver, hydrochloric acid); releases of these substances above reportable quantities thus required reporting under CERCLA. In addition to these release reporting requirements, because Westwood stored CERCLA extremely hazardous substances onsite, it was potentially subject to 114 ------- 40 CFR Part 355, Emergency Planning and Notification requirements, effective in 1986. Superfund documents indicate that the CERCLA extremely hazardous substance sulfuric acid was a raw material at the facility, raising the possibility that the facility handled it at levels above the 1,000-pound reportable and threshold planning quantity for that substance. If this was the case, 40 CFR Part 355 required Westwood to disclose facility information to allow state and local authorities to develop and implement chemical emergency response plans. In addition to the federal CERCLA hazardous wastes listings, 6 NYCRR V E 597, the New York State Hazardous Substances Identification, Release Prohibition, and Release Reporting regulations, designates many contaminants of concern at the site as hazardous substances. It establishes criteria for identifying a hazardous substance and lists such substances and the reportable quantities for their spill or release. The rule requires reporting of hazardous substance releases and prohibits the unauthorized release of a hazardous substance. Substances found abandoned at the facility are also listed as hazardous wastes under 40 CFR Part 261, Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, effective in 1980. This part identifies wastes which are subject to regulation and notification requirements as hazardous wastes under RCRA, Subtitle C. In particular, EPA identified the presence of potassium cyanide and arsenic trioxide onsite, both of which 40 CFR Part 261.33 lists as RCRA acute hazardous wastes. As such, rules promulgated under RCRA regulated this facility. For example, 40 CFR Part 270, effective in 1980, required the Westwood facility to have a permit and to file notifications for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal. The RCRA Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (40 CFR Part 264) regulate numerous aspects of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility operations. Subpart B of 40 Part 264, General Facility General Facility Standards, effective in 1980, requires owners and operators to obtain detailed chemical and physical analysis of a representative sample of waste prior to treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes; establish sufficient security programs to prevent unknowing and unauthorized entry of persons or livestock into the active portion of the facility; and carry out general inspection requirements to check for malfunctions, deterioration, operator error, and discharges, among other requirements. The state of the facility at the time of EPA and NYDEC's investigations included signs of vandalism and other evidence of entry. Furthermore, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C, Preparedness and Prevention, effective in 1980, stipulates that hazardous waste facilities must be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or unplanned release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents. 40 CFR Part 264, Subparts G and H outline closure, post-closure, and financial responsibility requirements. Subpart G, Closure and Post-Closure, effective in 1986, requires imposition of closure standards, implementation of closure plan, and time allowed for closure activities. The regulation sets guidelines for disposal or decontamination of equipment, structures, and soils. Upon completion of closure of a hazardous waste disposal unit, owners and operators must submit a certification of closure to the EPA regional office. Post-closure requirements apply for 30 years after closure. Subpart H, Financial Requirements, effective in 1982, establishes financial responsibility standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste management facilities and requires them to generate detailed written estimates of the cost of closure. The presence of hazardous waste storage containers at the site indicates applicability of requirements under 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I, Use and Management of Containers, effective in 1981. This Subpart 115 ------- requires that owners or operators handle and store containers in such a manner as to avoid rupture or leakage, employ containment systems for container storage areas, and provides guidelines for containment system design. It also requires weekly inspections. At closure, all hazardous wastes and hazardous waste residues must be removed from the containment system and containers must be decontaminated in order to comply with this regulation. EPA removed 212 RCRA hazardous containers that Westwood had abandoned onsite in violation of this Subpart. In addition to these containers, EPA also observed 70 large storage tanks abandoned onsite, indicating the applicability of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart J, Tank Systems, effective in 1986. This regulation establishes guidelines for determining integrity of tank systems, operating requirements, and data collection and inspection requirements. It requires the removal from use of tank systems or secondary containment systems from which there has been a leak or spill. Owners and operators must then remove waste from the tank and secondary containment system, contain visible releases to the environment, notify EPA, and complete repairs of the tank or containment system. Finally, this regulation establishes closure and post-closure requirements including acquisition of financial responsibility. Westwood's bankruptcy and abandonment of tank systems lead to releases of wastewater and liquid nitrogen. EPA's removal action included pressure washing all building walls and floors to remove settled aluminum chlorohydrate and aluminum zirconium chlorohydrex powder. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart DD, Containment Buildings, effective in 1993, requires owners and operators of facilities with containment buildings to remove or decontaminate all waste residues, containment system components, subsoils, and structures and equipment contaminated with waste or leachate, and manage them as hazardous waste. Owners and operators must generate closure plans and cost estimates, perform closure activities, and acquire financial responsibilities for containment buildings. If owners and operators cannot effectively remove or decontaminate contaminated components, subsoils, structures, and equipment, they must close the facility and perform post-closure care, including acquiring financial responsibility. 40 CFR Part 268, Land Disposal Restrictions, became effective in 1986 and designates and regulates certain wastes as prohibited. 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart C, Prohibitions on Land Disposal, prohibits land disposal of specific wastes including wood preserving wastes, dioxin-containing wastes, soils with toxicity characteristics of metals and PCBs, toxicity characteristic metal wastes, inorganic chemical wastes, and ignitable and corrosive wastes, among others. EPA disposed of 21 drums of RCRA hazardous waste which included wastes designated as hazardous due to their characteristics of ignitibility; corrosivity and reactivity; and arsenic, barium, lead, or mercury toxicity. These wastes qualify as prohibited ignitable and corrosive wastes and prohibited toxicity characteristic metal waste. 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart E, Prohibitions on Storage, requires that prohibited wastes be stored in tanks, containers, or containment buildings at disposal facilities, and stipulates that wastes may only be stored to facilitate their proper recovery, treatment, and disposal. It further prohibits storage of prohibited wastes for more than one year. In addition to the federal RCRA regulations, New York State similarly regulates hazardous wastes. 6 NYCRR IV B 371, Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes, also defines criteria for identifying the characteristics of hazardous waste and a list of regulated hazardous waste, similar to 40 CFR Part 261. The New York State Hazardous Waste Manifest System and Related Standards for Generators, Transporters and Facilities rule (6 NYCRR IV B 372), establishes standards for generators; transporters; and treatment, storage or disposal facilities relating to the use of the manifest system and its 116 ------- recordkeeping requirements. The Hazardous Waste Management Facilities rule (6 NYCRR IV B 373) regulates the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste. It sets forth permit requirements and construction and operation standards applicable to owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities. Finally, the New York State Land Disposal Restrictions (6 NYCRR IV B 376) prohibit the land disposal of certain wastes, establish treatment standards required prior to land disposal, and set forth prohibitions on storage of restricted wastes, similar to 40 CFR Part 268. Site documents note that Westwood discharged wastewater to the local POTW and that these discharges exceeded discharge parameters for aluminum, copper, pH, solids and nitrogen. 40 CFR Part 403, the General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution, prohibits such a discharge. This regulation came into effect pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1974 and prohibits certain discharges to POTWs. Westwood began operations 1974, around the time many modern environmental regulations came into effect. Westwood's hazardous substance and hazardous waste storage and management practices led to deterioration of storage containers and tanks. Westwood abandoned the site in 2004 and entered bankruptcy proceedings in 2005. As a result, EPA bore the cost and responsibility for the removal action. References: • Action Memorandum, April 15, 2005. • Action Memorandum, October 31, 2005. • Oliver Mackson and Keith Goldberg, "Former Westwood Chemical VP pleads guilty in toxic chemical dumping case," Times Herald-Record, July 29, 2009. Accessed December 27, 2018 at: https://www.recordonline.com/article/20090729/news/907299968?template=ampart • Pollution Report #10, January 26, 2006. • Pollution Report #11, March 20, 2006. 117 ------- 21) Karl Industries Facility Name: Karl Industries EPA Region/State: R5 - Ohio EPA ID: OHN000507766 Contamination Dates: December 30, 2016 Operation Dates: Unknown-December 30, 2016 Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $111,000 Site Background/Description: Karl Industries is a specialty chemical manufacturer situated at 11415 Chamberlain Road in Aurora, Ohio. The site is approximately three acres in size. Karl Industries has been operating an interim containment/collection system to control water and prevent it from entering the adjacent wetland. On December 30, 2016, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) responded to a fire at a laboratory at the Site. The fire resulted in the destruction of the lab and all chemicals within. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: On December 30, 2016, a fire destroyed the laboratory on site. The fire resulted in the destruction of the lab and all chemicals within. Runoff from the fire damaged laboratory contained elevated levels of chemicals such as acetone, nickel and cyanide. Ohio EPA oversaw the cleanup of the laboratory. In January 2017, OEPA issued a Notice of Violation to Karl Industries for unauthorized release of a corrosive solution into a tributary of the Chagrin River and a wetland. U.S. EPA and OEPA conducted a Site visit in February of 2017. Following the visit, OEPS issued a Notice of Violation to Karl Industries for failure to determine if the fire damaged laboratory and its content contained hazardous wastes, failure to characterize the run-off from the fire and failure to evaluate numerous containers and compressed gas cylinders in the warehouse building. Due to delays in the cleanup and what was gleaned from the site visit, Ohio EPA referred the site to U.S. EPA for assessment for an Emergency Response and Time-Critical Removal Assessment four days later. During a visit in February, a trailer was identified that contained additional drums, some of which were leaking. EPA gave a verbal Notice of General Liability to both the owner and operator. Both indicated that they did not have the ability to address the immediate stabilization of the Site. Following verbal Notice of General Liability, EPA began plans to stabilize the site. Site mobilization began by securing compromised compresses gas cylinders, overpacking leaking drums on the property and containerizing potentially contaminated debris. Runoff from the fire damaged laboratory, measuring a pH of 14, contained elevated levels of chemicals such as acetone, nickel and cyanide. Also, the laboratory debris included a number of compressed gas cylinders of uncertain integrity. According to the owner, cylinders in the lab at the time of the fire contained acetylene, ammonia, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen. A number of drums containing 118 ------- tertahydrofuran were also among the laboratory debris. Subsequent inspections by Ohio EPA and US EPA documented multiple drums in a nearby shed, trailer, and warehouse that were in deteriorating condition, with some leaking. These drums included labels indicating they contained flammable, corrosive, and toxic hazardous materials. Air monitoring during the clean-up identified VOCs in the breathing zone as high as 150 ppm, and the following day at 100 ppm. Clean-Up actions included steam-cleaning the concrete pad of the former building and collecting all associated run-off water in an existing sump pit and then pumping it into an onsite frac-tank. A total of 18 leaking drums were overpacked and placed in the warehouse when response teams moved containers from the outside shed into the warehouse. Leaking liquids found in refrigerators in the warehouse were containerized and staged. Approximately 20,000 gallons of wastewater from the frac- tanks were transported and disposed of at Chemtron's treatment facility located in Avon, Ohio. Airgas was onsite to pick up and transport 35 unmarked gas cylinders to their facility for evaluation and disposal management. The cylinders were collected and staged as fire debris from the clean-up activities. In March 2017, ERRS transported and disposed of the fourth and final non-hazardous waste roll-off box to Republic Landfill in Elyria, Ohio and subsequently finished cleaning out and decontaminating the previously frozen frac tank. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile EPA identified tetrahydrofuran as a contaminant at the site. Tetrahydrofuran is defined under 40 CFR 302.4 as a CERCLA Hazardous Substance. Since a substance regulated under CERCLA was discovered at the site, the owners and operators were obligated to adhere to all regulations under CERCLA. Further, it appears that hazardous waste storage and management practices at the site contributed to the spill, indicating that RCRA regulations were applicable to the site. Site-relevant CERCLA regulations set practices and requirements for public notification of releases of hazardous substances, responses to releases, and remediation of harm caused by releases. CERCLA was passed in 1980. Because tetrahydrofuran is defined as a CERCLA hazardous substance, Karl Industries was required to comply with regulations within CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification, 40 CFR Part 302. This regulation establishes notification requirements for owners or operators of vessels or facilities that release hazardous substances above reportable quantity thresholds. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), 40 CFR Part 302 became effective in 1985. In addition, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, details standards for preparedness and response to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous wastes. Deteriorated storage facilities and drums were present on site. Tetrahydrofuran is also classified as a RCRA Toxic Waste under 40 CFR 261.33. The poor site conditions are relevant to multiple subsections within 40 CFR Part 264, which was passed in 1980. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C, established in 1980, stipulates that hazardous waste facilities must be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to minimize the possibility of an unplanned release of hazardous waste. EPA observed that almost all the drums on-site were damaged or destroyed with many leaking substances. In addition, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart D, Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures, effective in 1980, stipulates that owners and 119 ------- operators of hazardous waste facilities must have a contingency plan designed to minimize hazards to human health or the environment from fires, explosions, or the release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents. It is unclear if Karl Industries implemented any Contingency Plan in response to the fire. Effective in 1986 and defined in 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart G, Closure and Post-Closure establishes guidelines for a facility closure. These include two types of requirements: 3. 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. 4. 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 the post-closure period. Financial Requirements, 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. Therefore, the facility must have enough money to cover the cost during these two periods. 40 CFR 264, Subpart H was promulgated in 1982. Karl Industries' storage of hazardous waste (ammonia) at its facility made it subject to OSHA regulations, in addition to RCRA and CERCLA regulations. Ammonia is classified as a CERCLA Toxic Chemical, CERCLA Extremely Hazardous Substance, and a CAA Toxic Substance. The designation as an Extremely Hazardous Substance means OSHA Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standards (HAZWOPER) at 29 CFR 1910.120 and 1926.65, apply. These regulations, 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. Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemical, in 29 CFR Part 1910.119, establishes requirements for preventing or minimizing the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals that may result in toxic, fire, or explosion hazards. In addition, OSHA Emergency Action Plan (EAP) should have been adhered to during the fire and subsequent evacuation. Emergency Action Plans must include: Procedures for reporting a fire or other emergency; procedures for emergency evacuation, including type of evacuation and exit route assignments; procedures to be followed by employees who remain to operate critical plant operations before they evacuate; procedures to account for all employees after evacuation; procedures to be followed by employees performing rescue or medical duties; and the name or job title of every employee who may be contacted by employees who need more information about the plan or an explanation of their duties under the plan. 120 ------- Due to the large quantity of dangerous chemicals, including VOCs, emitted into the air during the fire, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 40 CFR Part 50 applies to the site. This regulation establishes national primary and secondary air quality standards for: sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen oxides, lead, and exceptional pollutant events. Primary standards protect the public health, and second standards protect the public welfare from any adverse effects of the pollutants. Aligned with CERCLA notification regulations, the Spill Prevention and Control Chapter, LAC33: IX, establishes requirements for contingency planning and implementation of operating procedures and best management practices to prevent and control the discharge of pollutants resulting from spill events. The chapter applies to accidental or unauthorized leaking or releasing of a substance that has the potential to be discharged or results in a discharge to the waters of the state. It required facilities in operation at the effective date to develop a plan within 180 days. The chapter calls for periodic review of the plans every five years. Following a laboratory fire and delayed clean-up, EPA intervened to stabilize the site. The presence of tetrahydrofuran, ammonia, and acetylene onsite means it stored Hazardous Substances, Extremely Hazardous Substances and Toxic Substances. The fire took place in 2016, with many major emergency response and notification, hazardous substance management, and hazardous waste management regulations in place. EPA, and not the PRP, bore the cost of the removal action. References: • Pollution Report #1, February 21, 2017 • OSC Site Profile. 121 ------- 22) Smith Ch emical Facility Name: Smith Chemical EPA Region/State: R5 - Ohio EPA ID: OHN000509086 Contamination Dates: 1976-November 2001 Operation Dates: 1976-November 2001 Response Action Lead: Mixed Lead Expenditures: Approximately $355,000 Site Background/Description: Located in the City of Canton, Stark County, Ohio the Smith Chemical Site is a four-story, brick building. The company performed work for chemical manufacturers, steel manufacturers, oil and gas producers, oil refiners, drillers and service companies, metal plating, and publicly owned treatment works. The Smith Chemical Corporation, founded by George and John Smith, began operations in January 1976. Smith Corporation performed chemical manufacturing, custom chemical blending, packaging and brokerage, and chemical distribution to customers in Ohio and five neighboring states. The company also leased space on the site to other businesses. On May 18, 1993, Smith filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Service Chem of Ohio (SCO) began facility operations around 1994, and ceased operations in November 2001. The owners and operators of SCO and Smith Chemical Corporation are one and the same. The current owner purchased the property on December 18, 2002, at the County Auditor's Action (Forfeited Land Sale) for five dollars. Reportedly the current owner planned on donating the property to a local charity for demolition and redevelopment into affordable, single-family dwellings. On December 3, 2003, U.S. EPA notified Freeman Environmental Corporation (Freeman) that the company had been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at the Smith Chemical Site. The site contains nearly 800 drums and smaller containers in the building. Building doors are inoperable or structurally unsound, and the interior is readily accessible for animals or trespassers. Large pools of spilled liquid are present on the floor in the basement and on the first floor. In addition, containers in the on-site laboratory that contain hazardous substances are small enough to be easily manipulated or transported off site. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: Following the visit from the City of Canton Fire Department and Health Department in September 2003, assistance from Ohio EPA was requested. The joint site assessment confirmed the presence of flammable and corrosive materials. Response action required the decontamination of heavily contaminated building floors and structures. More than 700 55-gallon drums and numerous smaller containers of hazardous substances were found at the site, and between 400 and 500 contain hazardous wastes. Additionally, corrosive wastes in drums and smaller containers make the storage method inadequate. Based on laboratory analyses, container labels, and the facility historical chemical inventory records, these drums and smaller containers, in varying conditions, contained hazardous substances. 122 ------- Freeman, the current owner, agreed to remove all nonhazardous and flammable drums and all small laboratory chemicals from the facility. Forty-seven RCRA empty drums transported off site for final disposal. As part of the overall site evaluation Freeman, staged drums for characterization and screened drums for pH, flammability, and other information. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile: The presence of hazardous waste storage containers at the site indicates applicability of requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) such as 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I, Use and Management of Containers, effective in 1981. Sodium Cyanide is defined as an Acute Hazardous Waste under RCRA 40 CFR 261.33. Part 264 requires that owners or operators handle and store containers in such a manner as to avoid rupture or leakage and employ containment systems for container storage areas and provides guidelines for containment system design. It also requires weekly inspections. At closure, all hazardous wastes and hazardous waste residues must be removed from the containment system and containers must be decontaminated in order to comply with this regulation. In addition to the abandoned and leaking containers, EPA also observed three to six process tanks containing residual liquids and sludge abandoned on-site, indicating the applicability of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart J, Tank Systems, effective in 1986. This regulation establishes guidelines for determining integrity of tank systems, operating requirements, and data collection and inspection requirements. It requires the removal from use of tank systems or secondary containment systems from which there has been a leak or spill. Owners and operators must then remove waste from the tank and secondary containment system, contain visible releases to the environment, notify EPA, and complete repairs of the tank or containment system. Finally, this regulation establishes closure and post-closure requirements including acquisition of financial responsibility. Because Smith Chemical is located in Ohio, the state's Corrective Action, Closure, Post-Closure, and Financial Requirements Regulation as codified in OAC 3745-55 also applied to the site. This regulation sets requirements for the same activities at the state level and has been effective since 1983. Due to the spills on the floor, the floor and other parts of the building were contaminated. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart DD, Containment Buildings, effective in 1993, requires owners and operators of facilities with containment buildings to remove or decontaminate all waste residues, containment system components, subsoils, and structures and equipment contaminated with waste or leachate, and manage them as hazardous waste. Owners and operators must generate closure plans and cost estimates, perform closure activities, and acquire financial responsibilities for containment buildings. If owners and operators cannot effectively remove or decontaminate contaminated components, subsoils, structures, and equipment, they must close the facility and perform post-closure care, including acquiring financial responsibility. CERCLA hazardous substances (as codified at 40 CFR Part 302.4) found at the site include sodium cyanide. The Superfund, Emergency Planning, and Community Right-to-Know Programs, codified in 40 CFR Parts 300-399 under the authority of CERCA and effective in 1980, sets practices and requirements for emergency planning, public notification of releases of hazardous substances, responses to releases, and remediation of harm caused by releases. 40 CFR Part 302, Designation, Reportable Quantities, and 123 ------- Notification, effective in 1985, requires notification to the National Response Center (NRC) of releases of CERCLA hazardous substances above reportable quantities. Bromine, also found on site, is both a CAA Toxic Substance under 40 CFR Part 68.130 and a CERCLA Toxic Chemical codified in 40 CFR 372.65. Bromine and Sodium Cyanide are classified as CERCLA Extremely Hazardous Substances in 40 CFR 355 Appendix A. Smith Chemical's storage of an extremely hazardous substance at its facility made it subject to OSHA regulations, in addition to CAA and CERCLA regulations. OSHA Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemical, in 29 CFR Part 1910.119, establishes requirements for preventing or minimizing the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals that may result in toxic, fire, or explosion hazards. The abandoned site contained hundreds of drums and other containers with hazardous waste such as bromine and sodium cyanide. RCRA and CERCLA Extremely Hazardous Substances apply to this site, as did OSHA regulations when the site was active. Such regulations were in place at the time of the removal and at the time of site purchase. Although prior owners had entered bankruptcy and did not contribute to the removal action, the owner of the site at the time did perform removal activities. References: • Action Memorandum, November 18, 2003 • Pollution Report #1, June 15, 2004 124 ------- 23) DeSanti Paint Company Facility Name: DeSanti Paint Company EPA Region/State: R5 - Ohio EPA ID: OHN000510594 Contamination Dates: 2007-November 23, 2011 Operation Dates: 1947-2010 Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $184,000 Site Background/Description: The former DeSanti Paint Manufacturing Company facility is located at 4101 East 116th Street in Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The now abandoned site is approximately 0.63 acres and contains one building. Destanti Paint Manufacturing Company conducted paint mixing and packaging operations at the site. In December 2010, Number One Grace Properties, LLC, purchased the site to operate as an automobile glass repair facility in part of the building. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: An initial site walk-through in June of 2011 yielded 321 55-gallon drums, 23 drums less than 55-gallons, between 280 and 350 small containers, and approximately 140 bagged solid materials. Additionally, three underground storage tanks (USTs), one 5,000-gallon UST containing 6.5 feet of liquid, and two divided 4,000-gallon USTs were located. The containers, drums and process tanks were deteriorating, some leaking onto the floor in the building and outside the building. Additional observed conditions included lack of proper labeling, 45 over-packed drums of flammable liquids, 5 drums of lead-based waste, 6 cubic yard boxes of lead powders, and 3 cubic yard boxes of small cans of flammable paint related waste. In October of 2011, emergency response crews mobilized to the site , set up an exclusion zone, and conducted a health and safety walkthrough of the site. While TCLP benzene was detected at a concentration exceeding the laboratory reporting limit but below the TCLP regulatory level, TCLP lead was detected in multiple samples at concentrations exceeding the TCLP regulatory level. The response team designated a drum staging area and characterized the waste in the drums moved to that area. During the analysis of the hazardous chemicals, a small fire occurred on site as the vapors from a container flashed back from the torch during flammability testing, igniting the container's contents. Work was stopped and the building ventilated. In November, the response team completed moving all drums and containers down from the second floor and completed bagging powdered material on second floor and lowering to ground floor. Hazardous waste powders were segregated from the nonhazardous powders. At the end of November, 125 ------- the response team secured all overpack drums and demobilized from the site, and offsite disposal began in early December. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile: The presence of hazardous waste storage containers at DeSantis Paint Company indicates applicability of requirements under 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I, Use and Management of Containers, effective in 1981. This subpart requires that owners or operators handle and store containers in such a manner as to avoid rupture or leakage and employ containment systems for container storage areas and provides guidelines for containment system design. It also requires weekly inspections. At closure, all hazardous wastes and hazardous waste residues must be removed from the containment system and containers must be decontaminated in order to comply with this regulation. In addition to the abandoned and leaking containers, EPA also observed three process tanks containing residual liquids and sludge abandoned on-site, indicating the applicability of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart J, Tank Systems, effective in 1986. This regulation establishes guidelines for determining integrity of tank systems, operating requirements, and data collection and inspection requirements. It requires the removal from use of tank systems or secondary containment systems from which there has been a leak or spill. Owners and operators must then remove waste from the tank and secondary containment system, contain visible releases to the environment, notify EPA, and complete repairs of the tank or containment system. Finally, this regulation establishes closure and post-closure requirements including acquisition of financial responsibility. Due to the leaks on the floor and outside, parts of the building were contaminated. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart DD, Containment Buildings, effective in 1993, requires owners and operators of facilities with containment buildings to remove or decontaminate all waste residues, containment system components, subsoils, and structures and equipment contaminated with waste or leachate, and manage them as hazardous waste. Owners and operators must generate closure plans and cost estimates, perform closure activities, and acquire financial responsibilities for containment buildings. If owners and operators cannot effectively remove or decontaminate contaminated components, subsoils, structures, and equipment, they must close the facility and perform post-closure care, including acquiring financial responsibility. This abandoned site consisted of containers of lead, flammable wastes, and contaminated building parts, indicating applicability of RCRA regulations. These regulations were in place when the contamination started in 2007. References: • Assessment Report, August 19, 2011 • Pollution Report #1, November 23, 2011 • Pollution Report #2, May 11, 2012 126 ------- 24) Superior Cleaning Solutions Site Facility Name: Superior Cleaning Solutions EPA Region/State: R5 - OH EPA ID: OHN00510610 Contamination Dates: Unknown start until 2007 Operation Dates: 1980s to 2008 Response Action Lead: Fund Expenditures: Approximately $161,000 Site Background/Description: The Superior Cleaning Solutions (SCS) facility operated as a chemical distribution facility from the 1980s to approximately 2008. The site, located at 1224 Keowee Street, Dayton, Ohio was abandoned at the time of EPA's removal. The site contains one building and is located in a mixed commercial and residential area. The current owner of the site is James R. Moore. He purchased the site through a sheriffs tax sale of the property in 2011. He previously owned the site and sold it in 2003 to John and Cindy Harley. John and Cindy Harley conducted business under both the names Superior Cleaning Solution, LLC and Chemical Management. The company degreased restaurant equipment and sold industrial cleaning supplies. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: The Dayton Fire Department inspected the SCS property in June of 2011 and noted that the site contained abandoned flammable and corrosive materials stored in excess of the code for inside storage. Additionally, drums abandoned outside lacked proper characterization. Clean up response included sampling of all drums and containers. Analytical results from multiple samples documented liquid stored in drums and other containers having flash points less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit, which, according to 40 CFR Part 261.21 verifies the characteristics of a hazardous waste for ignitability. The response team categorized all drums by hazard: acid liquid, caustic liquid, flammable liquid, and neutral liquid. The acid liquid waste-stream was bulked into two 275-gallon plastic totes. The caustic liquid waste-stream was bulked into two 275-gallon plastic totes and two 55-gallon drums. The flammable liquid waste-stream was bulked into two 275-gallon totes and one 55-gallon drum. The neutral liquid waste-stream was bulked into seven 275-gallon totes and three 55-gallon drums. Waste Paint-Related Material included one-cubic yard box containing small containers of paint, aerosol cans and other containers that could not be bulked into a waste category. Finally, two five-gallon containers contained oxalic acid. The response team completed removal actions by crushing or cutting apart empty drums using saws. All nonhazardous debris was staged in a roll-off box prior to off-site disposal. Small containers were hazard categorized in the field and bulked into larger containers having similar waste characteristics. In January of 2012, one 20-cubic yard roll-off box was transported for off-site disposal. After the weeks of removal, the building was completely empty and the site demobilized. 127 ------- Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile The SCS site contained hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, and xylene. Hydrochloric acid is a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) hazardous substance as codified in 40 CFR Part 302.4, a CAA toxic substance as established in 40 CFR Part 68.130, a CAA hazardous air pollutant as designated in 42 (JSC 7412, and a toxic chemical under 40 CFR Part 372.65. Sodium hydroxide and xylene are both also hazardous substances within CERCLA and xylene is a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) toxic waste as codified in 40 CFR Part 261.33. The presence of hazardous waste storage containers at the site indicates applicability of requirements under RCRA 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I, Use and Management of Containers, effective in 1981. This subpart requires that owners or operators handle and store containers in such a manner as to avoid rupture or leakage and employ containment systems for container storage areas and provides guidelines for containment system design. It also requires weekly inspections. At closure, all hazardous wastes and hazardous waste residues must be removed from the containment system and containers must be decontaminated in order to comply with this regulation. During its inspection of the site, EPA observed drums that were outside of buildings at the site and that contained hazardous substances. CERCLA toxic chemicals (as codified at 40 CFR Part 372.65) found at the site include hydrochloric acid. CERCLA hazardous substances (as codified at 40 CFR Part 302.4) found at the site include hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, and xylene. The Superfund, Emergency Planning, and Community Right-to-Know Programs, codified in 40 CFR Parts 300-399 under the authority of CERCLA and effective in 1980, set practices and requirements for emergency planning, public notification of releases of hazardous substances, responses to releases, and remediation of harm caused by releases. 40 CFR Part 302, Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification, effective in 1985, requires notification to the National Response Center (NRC) of releases of CERCLA hazardous substances above reportable quantities. 40 CFR Part 372, Toxic Chemical Release Reporting requirements requires notification of releases of CERCLA toxic chemicals. This part requires facility owners and operators to submit reports on releases of toxic chemicals to the Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI). CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting regulations were effective as of 1988. The abandoned state of the facility and the presumed cessation of operations makes RCRA Closure and Post-Closure regulations under 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart G relevant at the site. Effective as of May 2, 1986, Closure and Post Closure Regulations impose closure standards on hazardous waste facilities. The regulations also require that facilities design and implement closure plans and, upon the completion of closure activities, submit a certification to the EPA regional office. Post-closure requirements under 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart G include the design and implementation of a post-closure plan and notification requirements with respect to hazardous waste that will remain at the site after the post-closure period. Because SCS is located in Ohio, the state's Corrective Action, Closure, Post-Closure, and Financial Requirements Regulation, as codified in OAC 3745-55, may have applied. This regulation sets requirements for the same activities at the state level and has been effective since 1983. The abandoned chemical distribution facility left many drums and containers in and around the building. Given the hazardous and toxic nature of the chemicals abandoned, the facility was likely required to comply with regulations including CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification and 128 ------- RCRA Closure and Post-Closure. These regulations were effective in 1985 and 1986, respectively, over 20 years before the clean-up action began. References: • Action Memorandum, September 16, 2011 • Pollution Report #2, February 28, 2012 129 ------- 25) Oregon City Chemical Barn Facility Name: Oregon City Chemical Barn EPA Region/State: RIO-Oregon EPA ID: ORN001001384 Contamination Dates: 1970-2015 Operation Dates: 1970-2014 Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $38,000 Site Background/Description: The Oregon City Chemical Barn is located near the southern tip of Oregon City, Oregon. The site is comprised of a barn previously used as a small chemical business. The barn is part of a small acreage residential property. A local creek (Beaver Creek) lies directly downhill. Operations at the small chemical business previously located in the barn consisted of the blending and packaging of chemicals used in boiler maintenance and boiler water treatment. Though the operational start date of the chemical business is unclear, many chemicals found onsite had been there since 1970. The owner and operator was an elderly man who died in 2014. The business was abandoned following his death, though his widow presumed ownership of the barn. At the time of the incident, the property was in civil foreclosure. On April 17, 2015, a fire occurred in the barn. The fire seems to have begun as a result of the contact of incompatible chemicals which had leaked from the containers and reacted with one another and nearby combustible materials such as cardboard and the wooden floor. Due to the fire, several of the containers were breached and damaged. Any further release of the chemicals would potentially flow uncontained onto nearby soils and downhill into Beaver Creek, threatening onsite and offsite residences. Additionally, another potential fire involving these chemicals could have produced a hazardous air plume affecting nearby residences and livestock. EPA documented several types of chemicals at the site including seven flammable liquids, one flammable solid, eight oxidizers and corrosive bases, two peroxides, 14 corrosive acids, two oxidizers and corrosive acids, 20 corrosive bases, and pesticides and miscellaneous hazardous substances. In total, 107 containers of various chemicals were documented including 55 five-gallon buckets, 29 bottles, 21 drums, and two small cans. The chemicals, many of which are incompatible with each other, were stored together in an unsafe and hazardous manner inside the barn, which was open on both north and south ends of the structure. Many of the containers were in poor condition and were either leaking onto the floor of the barn and outside the barn or were showing evidence of past leakage or release. Family members also stated that many of the chemicals had been at the site since the 1970's. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: On April 20, 2015, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) contacted EPA Region 10 requesting assistance and a removal assessment at the barn. The Clackamas Fire District and Hazmat 130 ------- Team originally responded to the fire incident in the barn as a structural fire, but after discovering multiple containers of potentially hazardous substances in the barn, treated the incident as a hazardous materials response. Clackamas Fire and ODEQ reported that there were multiple containers on the property containing acids, bases, caustics, and pesticides. Clackamas Fire pulled the containers from an enclosed room in the barn, extinguished the small fire, and conducted some minor containment activities. EPA conducted a site assessment. EPA met with and obtained site access permission from the owner, who stated that she would like the chemicals removed, though she did not have the resources to conduct the removal. EPA also contacted another family member and caretaker (grandson) who confirmed the lack of family resources to remove and dispose of the chemicals. Upon entry into the barn, EPA initially documented approximately 12 drums and 50+ containers of various chemicals in the barn, including those that were labeled as acids, oxidizers, caustics, pesticides, and microbicides. Many of the containers were not labeled at all, and several of the containers showed signs of extreme corrosion and leakage onto the barn floor and concrete entry way. After completing the initial assessment, EPA concluded that the site warranted an immediate emergency removal action using On- Scene Coordinator warrant authority due to high potential for a release of hazardous substances and/or another chemical fire and plume. EPA consulted with ODEQ and Clackamas Fire on intended EPA actions before initiating mobilization to the site for removal activities. EPA mobilized to the site and began hazard categorization, segregation, and staging of chemicals in preparation for disposal. Site removal activities were completed on in April of 2015, with all containers sampled, categorized, and overpacked for disposal. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile Documentation of the incident and site does not specify which chemicals were removed. However, the classification of removed chemicals as corrosive, flammable, hazardous, and pesticides indicates that several federal regulations may have been applicable at the time of and following operations at the site. Specifically, regulations promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) may have been applicable during later years of operations at the site, when the site was abandoned in 2014, and at the time of the incident in 2015. Hazardous waste regulations were applicable given the presence of hazardous chemicals abandoned at the site in leaking containers, mixed with other incompatible chemicals, improperly labeled, and abandoned. 40 CFR Part 261, Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes, promulgated under RCRA and effective in 1980, designates which wastes are regulated as hazardous. Subpart C of this part, Characteristics of Hazardous Waste, sets forth criteria that make wastes hazardous due to their ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and/or toxicity. EPA identified corrosive and ignitable wastes at the site, indicating the applicability of hazardous waste regulations. These hazardous waste regulations include 40 CFR Part 264, the Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C, Preparedness and Prevention, implemented under RCRA and established in 1980, stipulates that hazardous waste facilities must be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to minimize the possibility of an unplanned release of hazardous waste.. In addition, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart D, Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures, effective in 1980, stipulates that owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities have a contingency plan 131 ------- designed to minimize hazards to human health or the environment from fires, explosions, or the release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents. The condition of the site also indicates violation of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart DD, which applies to containment buildings (buildings used to store or treat hazardous waste) and was promulgated in 1993. The rule requires owners and operators of facilities with containment buildings to remove or decontaminate all waste residues, containment system components, subsoils, and structures and equipment contaminated with waste or leachate, and manage them as hazardous waste. Owners and operators must generate closure plans and cost estimates, perform closure activities, and acquire financial responsibilities for containment buildings. If owners and operators cannot effectively remove or decontaminate contaminated components, subsoils, structures, and equipment, they must close the facility and perform post-closure care, including acquiring financial responsibility. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart E, Manifest System, Recordkeeping, and Reporting, was promulgated in 1980 and in effect during the operation and abandonment of the chemical barn. The rule stipulates that owners and operators provide 1) a description and the quantity of each hazardous waste received, and the method(s) and date(s) of its treatment, storage, or disposal at the facility and 2) the location of each hazardous waste within the facility and the quantity at each location. This information must be maintained in the operating record until closure of the facility. Owner or operators must also report releases, fires, and explosions and facility closures to the Regional Administrator. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart G, Closure and Post-Closure, effective in 1986, establishes closure and post- closure requirements for hazardous waste facilities. These include imposition of closure standards, implementation of closure plan, and time allowed for closure activities. The regulation sets guidelines for disposal or decontamination of equipment, structures, and soils. Upon completion of closure of a hazardous waste disposal unit, owners and operators must submit a certification of closure to the EPA regional office. Post-closure requirements apply for 30 years after closure. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart H, Financial Requirements, effective in 1982, establishes financial responsibility standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste management facilities. Owners or operators must generate detailed written estimates of the cost of closure. Subpart I of 40 CFR Part 264 came into effect in 1981 and establishes 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. During its inspection of the site, EPA observed 107 containers holding chemical products, many of which were leaking. 40 CFR Part 270, effective 1980, requires that owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities obtain permits to conduct those activities. Owners and operators of hazardous waste management units must have permits during the active life of the unit, including during closure. 40 CFR Part 273 was promulgated in 1995 and may have been applicable at the site. The rule establishes requirements for handling and disposing of universal wastes, including pesticides. Specifically, 40 CFR Part 273.11 prohibits handlers from diluting or treating universal waste except when responding to a release. The Pollution Report indicates that some chemicals were unsafely combined, though it does not 132 ------- specify if pesticides were among these mixtures. If pesticides were combined with other substances, the operator would have violated this regulation. The rule also stipulates that universal wastes such as pesticides be properly labeled and establishes accumulation time limits prohibiting universal waste to accumulate for longer than one year. Site documentation indicates containers and drums on site leaked hazardous substances, demonstrating the facility may also have been subject to federal CERCLA release reporting requirements. If the hazardous substances leaked from drums at the site exceeded reportable quantities set forth in 40 CFR Part 302 (CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification, effective in 1985), the facility was required to report the release under this rule. Further, 40 CFR Part 372 requires facility owner to report toxic chemical releases. This regulation would have been applicable if the substances were designated toxic chemicals. CERCLA Emergency Planning and Notification, 40 CFR Part 355, effective 1986, requires disclosure of facility information to allow state and local authorities to develop and implement chemical emergency response plans if facilities handle designated extremely hazardous substances above established thresholds. If the chemical barn stored extremely hazardous substances above the threshold amount, this regulation would have been applicable. FIFRA regulations may have applied to the barn due to the pesticides found on site. Specifically, 40 CFR Part 156, effective in 1975, establishes labeling requirements for pesticides and pesticide containers. Labels are intended both to include precautionary information about pesticide use and risk to health and environment, and to provide data on pesticide contents and manufacturer. Labeling requirements include basic manufacturing, content, and registration information, as well as prominence, legibility, language, and placement requirements. Labels must also contain information and language about human hazards and physical or chemical hazards the pesticide poses, including toxicity, first aid procedures, and child hazards. Labels must also include warnings about environmental hazards, such as hazards to non-target organisms. 40 CFR Part 165, effective in 2006, further regulates pesticides, establishing standards and requirements for pesticide containers, repackaging pesticides, and pesticide containment structures. Regulations include standards for nonrefillable container design and residue removal, refillable container design, packaging pesticides, and the design for secondary pesticide containment units. Depending on the use and quantity of the pesticides found on site, these regulations may have been applicable. EPA did not review Oregon state environmental and safety regulations relevant to the chemical manufacturing industry. This review demonstrates that federal RCRA hazardous waste standards and requirements, CERCLA release reporting requirements and Emergency Planning and Response regulations, and FIFRA rules for pesticide storage and labeling were in place during operations at the site and following its abandonment in 2014. Though the facility may have begun operations prior to 1970 and before these regulations came into effect, the facility was not abandoned until 2014, well after these regulations came into effect. References: • Pollution Report #1, April 23, 2015. 133 ------- 26) Queen Avenue Property Absorbent Technology Facility Name: Queen Avenue Property Absorbent Technology EPA Region/State: RIO - Oregon EPA ID: ORN001003165 Contamination Dates: 2013 Operation Dates: 2004-2013 Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $605,500 Site Background/Description: The site comprises two facilities in close proximity to each other in Albany, Oregon, both operated by Absorbent Technologies, Inc. (Absorbent Technologies). Absorbent Technologies operated at the facilities from 2004 to 2013. The company produced an absorbent soil additive and fertilizer that improved the efficiency of crop irrigation. Absorbent Technologies used several hazardous materials in the production of the soil additive and fertilizer. Absorbent Technologies entered bankruptcy and ceased operations in 2013. Upon its bankruptcy and cessation of operations, Absorbent Technologies abandoned the site and left the hazardous materials it used in its manufacturing process at the site. Absorbent Technologies leased the site from the property owner from 2004 to 2013; both Absorbent Technologies and the property owner are PRPs at the site. Among the materials that Absorbent Technologies abandoned at the site, responsive authorities identified acrylonitrile - a flammable and corrosive chemical that is a threat to human health - as of primary concern. Absorbent Technologies left approximately 2,700 to 2,800 gallons of acrylonitrile in a tank with a secondary containment structure. EPA also observed the presence of potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, cerium ammonium nitrate, sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, and other chemicals and compressed gases at the site. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: The bulk of the removal actions at the site focused on Absorbent Technologies' manufacturing facility. The Albany Fire Department stabilized the acrylonitrile tank, secured the site, and began developing a plan to remove hazardous materials from the site immediately following Absorbent Technologies' bankruptcy and abandonment of the site in 2013. Albany city personnel contacted EPA, and EPA mobilized to the site. EPA's first action at the site was to arrange for the removal of the acrylonitrile. In October 2013, EPA transferred the acrylonitrile from its tank to a chemical tanker truck for disposal in a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility. Following the removal of the acrylonitrile, the property owner hired a contractor to remove the remaining hazardous chemicals from the site. The contractor developed a work plan that EPA approved in December 2013. The contractor began implementing the work plan immediately; EPA remained active at the site to collect and analyze samples of liquid waste. 134 ------- EPA's analysis of the samples indicated that the contractor was not following the work plan. Further, the property owner's contractor contacted EPA to notify the agency that a spill of five gallons of potassium hydroxide had occurred in February of 2014. The spill had released potassium hydroxide to snow, which had subsequently melted and washed away. In February of 2014, EPA visited the site and learned from the contractors' employees that one had received a chemical burn to the scalp while working on the site, another had suffered nausea while dismantling acrylonitrile piping, and that 15 gallons of process had been collecting during demolition. Further, in February of 2014, a contractor had released the contents of a 5,000-gallon containment tank to a raceway that ran to the Albany stormwater processing system and to the Willamette River. EPA ordered a stop work at the site due to unsafe conditions. EPA prepared a Unilateral Administrative Order that directed the property owner to develop a new work plan for the cleaning and removal of piping material at the site. During February and March of 2014, EPA continued to sample the site for remnant acrylonitrile and oversaw the contractors' work cleaning and removing piping on site. EPA used granular activated carbon vessels to capture acrylonitrile that remained on site; this effort produced a total of 47 drums of contaminated carbon media, which EPA shipped off site for disposal. EPA also completed the removal of acrylonitrile, methanol, and other hazardous materials from Absorbent Technologies' research and development facility, which followed the same granular activated carbon vessel capture process and produced 36 drums of carbon media, on April 16, 2014. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile The primary contaminant of concern at the site was acrylonitrile. Acrylonitrile is defined as a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) hazardous substance under 40 CFR Part 302.4, a CERCLA extremely hazardous substance under 40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A, a CERCLA toxic chemical under 40 CFR Part 372.65, a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) toxic waste under 40 CFR Part 261.33, and an Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) highly hazardous substance under 29 CFR Part 1910.119, Appendix A. Sulfuric acid and phosphoric acid, which were also identified at the site, have the same CERCLA hazardous substance and RCRA hazardous waste designations as acrylonitrile, and are further defined as a RCRA acute hazardous waste under 40 CFR Part 261.33. Of the other substances explicitly reported to have been present at the site, potassium hydroxide and sodium hydroxide are classified as CERCLA hazardous substances under 40 CFR Part 302.4. As a result of the releases of CERCLA hazardous substances at the site, as well as the presence of a CERCLA extremely hazardous substance and RCRA hazardous wastes, there were several CERCLA and RCRA regulations that were applicable to the facility. Additionally, the presence of OSHA highly hazardous substances and issues with hazardous waste operations overseen by the property owner's contractor at the site mean that OSHA regulations were applicable, as well. Although the site documents do not report that a spill containing of any acrylonitrile, sulfuric acid, or phosphoric acid occurred at the site during operations or as a result of abandonment, all three substances are designated as CERCLA extremely hazardous substances and are subject to CERCLA Emergency Planning and Notification regulations at 40 CFR Part 355 and effective October 17, 1986. These regulations require any facility that handles CERCLA extremely hazardous substances - like the 135 ------- Queen Avenue site - to disclosure facility information to state and local authorities and to develop chemical emergency response plans. Acrylonitrile is also designated as an OSHA highly hazardous substance under Occupational Safety and Health Standards at 29 CFR Part 1910, effective in 1974. Because the facility's manufacturing operations involved an OSHA highly hazardous substance, it was subject to a number of OSHA standards both while it was in operation and when the property owner's contractor conducted cleanup activities. During operation, Absorbent Technologies was required to comply with OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) standards for preventing or minimizing the consequences of catastrophic releases of highly hazardous chemicals. These standards required facility operators to conduct process hazardous analyses, set operating procedures, and training protocols. Absorbent Technologies was also required to develop an OSHA Emergency Action Plan (EAP) under 29 CFR Part 1910.38, Subpart E, effective December 11, 1980. EAPs include procedures for reporting a fire or other emergency, procedures for emergency evacuations, procedures for employees who perform critical facility operations in case of an evacuation, and procedures for employees who perform medical or rescue duties. OSHA regulations also cover hazardous waste operations. Under Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standards (HAZWOPER), found at 29 CFR Part 1910.120 and 29 CFR Part 1926.65, employers must develop written safety and health programs for employees involved in hazardous waste operations. HAZWOPER programs will address safety and health hazards and create preparedness procedures for hazardous waste operations. The programs are required to include organizational structures, workplans, site-specific safety and health plans, and standard safety and health procedures. Additionally, under the OSHA PSM standards discussed above, employers were required to develop and implement written safety and health programs for employees involved in hazardous waste operations. Hazardous waste programs under PSM programs should be designed to identify, evaluate, and control safety and health standards, and provide for emergency response procedures. Following Absorbent Technologies' abandonment of the site, the property owner's contractor conducted the initial phase of cleanup activities. During these cleanup activities, multiple spills and instances of worker injury occurred. It is unclear if the property owner's contractor developed the required OSHA safety and health plans and procedures for hazardous waste cleanup activities and, if so, how closely the contractor followed those procedures. During cleanup operations, the property owner's contractor spilled five gallons of potassium hydroxide, which is designated as a hazardous substance under CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification regulations at 40 CFR Part 302.4, which were effective on April 4, 1985. These regulations establish notification requirements for owners and operators of facilities that release designated hazardous substances above certain quantity thresholds. Also during the cleanup operations, the property owner's contractor released the contents of a 5,000- gallon containment tank to a raceway that carried the release to the Albany city stormwater processing system and the Willamette River. Response documents do not state whether the containment tank held hazardous substances or hazardous wastes. If it did, the property owner would have been required to notify EPA and local authorities about the release under CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification regulations at 40 CFR Part 302.4, effective April 4, 1985. Depending on the hazardous designation of the contents of the tank, the property owner may have had additional reporting requirements. For example, it is possible that the contents of the containment tank 136 ------- were liquids from the secondary containment structure that surrounded the acrylonitrile storage tank. If so, because acrylonitrile is designated as a CERCLA toxic chemical under CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting regulations at 40 CFR Part 372 and effective February 16, 1988, the property owner's contractor would have been required to report the release for EPA submission to the Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI). Response documents do not state whether the contents of the release included CERCLA toxic chemicals, and whether EPA submitted the release to TRI. When Absorbent Technologies filed for bankruptcy and abandoned its Albany facilities, it left hazardous substances at the site. This means that RCRA hazardous waste regulations likely applied to the site, though there was only a brief period between Absorbent Technologies' abandonment of the site and the initiation of cleanup activities, both of with occurred in October of 2013. As such, Absorbent Technologies and/or the property owner would have been required to comply with RCRA regulations at 40 CFR Part 264, Subparts B, C, and D, and 40 CFR Part 270, which were all effective as of November 19, 1980. The RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit Program was established under regulations at 40 CFR Part 270. The permitting program requires that generators and transporters of hazardous waste and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities notify EPA of those activities and obtain permits through EPA to conduct those activities. Owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities must have permits for the active life of the facility, including during closure. In addition to permitting requirements, the regulation also establishes monitoring and reporting requirements. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart B contains RCRA General Facility Standards, and requires hazardous waste facilities to apply for an EPA identification number, meet certain location standards, establish security programs, inspect the facility on a regular basis, and train personnel in hazardous waste management procedures. Response documents did not report that any spills had occurred at the site during Absorbent Technologies operations, although spills and worker health incidents were reported during cleanup. RCRA Preparedness and Prevention regulations at 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C require that hazardous waste facilities be designed, constructed and maintained to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or unplanned release of hazardous waste. Under this subpart, facilities must obtain emergency response equipment and make arrangements with local emergency response personnel to familiarize them with the facility. The immediate response of Albany city personnel indicates that they were aware of the substances stored at the site and their attendant health, safety, and environmental hazards. There were no releases of hazardous substances or waste reported during the Queen Avenue site's operation, though spills and worker health incidents were reported during cleanup. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart D establishes RCRA Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures regulations. These regulations require owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities to develop a contingency plan to minimize the hazards to human health from fires, explosions, or the release of hazardous waste. Plans describe the actions personnel must take in the event of fires, explosions, or hazardous waste releases. Plans must include a list of the emergency equipment at the facility, evacuation plans, and describe arrangements with local emergency response personnel. There were no releases of hazardous substances or waste reported during the Queen Avenue site's operation, though spills and worker health incidents were reported during cleanup. 137 ------- RCRA Closure and Post-Closure regulations, located at 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart G and effective October 29, 1986, impose requirements for closure preparedness and practices at hazardous waste facilities. These requirements include the development and implementation of a closure plan, guidelines for the disposal and/or decontamination of equipment, structures, and soils, submission of certification of closure to the EPA regional office, and the maintenance of closure conditions within RCRA requirements for 30 years after closure. Absorbent Technologies went bankrupt and abandoned the site, at which the property owner - at EPA's urging - initiated cleanup. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart H contains RCRA Financial Requirements regulations, effective July 6, 1982, which establish financial responsibility standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities. Owners and operators must generate detailed written estimates of the cost of closure and establish financial assurance for closure and post-closure activities at the facility. Absorbent Technologies filed for bankruptcy and abandoned the site; it does not appear that the company provided financing for the cleanup. The property owner was able to hire contractors to conduct the cleanup, but the contractors did not follow the work plan and their cleanup activities resulted in several releases and health incidents. The primary focus of the removal action at the Queen Avenue site was a tank containing 2,700 to 2,800 gallons of acrylonitrile. As a result, the site was subject to RCRA Tank Systems regulations, at 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart J and effective January 12, 1987. These regulations establish guidelines for determining the integrity of tank systems, operating requirements for storage of hazardous waste in tanks, and data collection and inspection requirements. Tank storage systems must include secondary containment systems. Additionally, when tank systems experience a leak or spill, RCRA Tank Systems regulations require that facility owners and operators remove the tank systems from use and contain any visible releases. Finally, facilities that use tanks systems to store hazardous waste must meet tank-specific closure and post-closure requirements, including the acquisition of financial assurance for tank and secondary containment system closure. Response documents noted that a secondary containment structure was in place for the tank. No spills, leaks, or other releases were reported from the tank. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart S (Special Provisions for Cleanup), effective in 2002, may have applied to the site because of the issues that arose during the property owner's contractor's cleanup activities. Regulations under this subpart relate to hazardous wastes generated, stored, managed, or treated as part of cleanup actions. It establishes Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU) regulations. These regulations apply to wastes, media, and debris that are managed for implementing cleanup and prohibit deposition of liquids in CAMUs. Tanks and container storage areas that treat or store hazardous remediation wastes during remedial activities may be designated Temporary Units (TUs), and must operate under design, operating, and closure standards specified by EPA regional offices. Additionally, because the property owner's contractor released the contents of a 5,000-gallon containment tank to waters of the United States - because the release reached the Albany city stormwater processing system and the Willamette River - the release was also likely subject to Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations. The Effluent Limitation Guidelines, which are found at 40 CFR Parts 400- 471 and were first effective as of February 4, 1974, establish water quality limit guidelines, the National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES) permitting program), and standards of technological performance for specific industry sources of discharges to public waters. Specifically, 40 CFR Part 414 addresses 138 ------- discharges from organic chemical manufacturing operations. The guidelines in this part would have governed the release of the contents of the containment tank during site cleanup at Queen Avenue. Within the Effluent Limitation Guidelines, the National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES), established under the 1972 CWA and found at 40 CFR Parts 122-125, establishes a permitting system for the discharge of pollutants to public waters from specific, or point sources. Under this permitting system, EPA issues two types of permits: individual permits tailored to a specific facility, and general permits for categories of similar dischargers. However, because of the potential hazards associated with the chemical industry, EPA only issues individual permits to chemical manufacturers. As a result, the Queen Avenue site would have been required to apply for and receive an NPDES permit prior to any discharge of pollutants from the containment tank to public waters. Permits set water quality standards for discharges, duration limits, and other conditions with which permitted dischargers must comply. The response documents do not indicate whether the property owner's contractor applied for and received an NPDES permit, but given the unexpected nature of the release, it is unlikely the contractor had an NPDES permit at the time of the release. Absorbent Technologies - a company that had rented two facilities comprising the site in Albany, Oregon - abandoned the site in October of 2013, after entering bankruptcy proceedings. Four days later, local authorities notified EPA of the presence of hazardous materials at the site and the potential need for a removal action. No spills, leaks, or other releases of hazardous substances were reported at the site. As a result of the bankruptcy, Absorbent Technologies did not contribute to the removal action. However, the property owner hired contracts and initiated cleanup activities. During the cleanup activities conducted by the contractor, there were at least two releases of potentially hazardous substances and multiple employee health and safety issues. Due to the issues with the contractors' cleanup activities, EPA issued a stop work at the site and completed the removal without further financial or operational contributions from either Absorbent Technologies or the property owner. All relevant CERCLA, RCRA, OSHA, and CWA regulations were in place at the time of site abandonment and during cleanup. References: • Final Trip Report, July 29, 2014. • Pollution Report #5, April 18, 2014. 139 ------- 27) Technic, Inc. Facility Name: Technic, Inc. EPA Region/State: Rl- Rhode Island EPA ID: RID001200252 Contamination Dates: 2003 Operation Dates: 1944-Present Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: No Fund Expenditure Site Background/Description: The Technic, Inc. facility formulates chemicals, including silver cyanide and silver nitrate, which are used in jewelry manufacturing. The facility is located at One Spectacle Street, in Cranston, Rhode Island. The parent company and responsible party (RP) Technic, Inc. began operations in 1944, though the Cranston facility may have opened after that time. On February 7, 2003 an explosion and fire occurred within the Technic, Inc facility. At the time of EPA's assessment, the exact cause of the explosion was still under investigation, but the source of the explosion appeared to be a chemical reaction between residual chemicals in a duct system. Chemicals present in the area indicated that the explosion and fire may have resulted in the release of hydrogen cyanide gas. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: The facility, businesses in the surrounding area, and the adjacent residential neighborhood were promptly evacuated. Local, state and federal agencies were notified of the situation. Cranston Fire Department responded and initiated firefighting operations. EPA received notification of the incident and dispatched to the scene. Upon arrival at the scene, EPA assessed the situation. The fire was under control, with only a few smoldering areas remaining. Air monitoring indicated that cyanide was not present in harmful quantities. Technic, Inc. had hired an environmental contractor to conduct cleanup operations. EPA met with representatives of Technic, Inc., and other responding agencies including the Cranston Fire Department, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM), the Rhode Island State Fire Marshal, and the Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) and integrated into a Unified Command. At the direction of the Unified Command, Technic, Inc. conducted cleanup operations including removal of chemicals from the damaged portion of the facility and removal and disposal of contaminated firefighting water (found to contain 10 parts per million silver). Technic, Inc. collected contaminated firefighting water and treated it in its wastewater treatment system. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile This facility manufactured silver nitrate and silver cyanide, and the explosion involved the release of the hazardous substances hydrogen cyanide and silver. 40 CFR Part 261.33 of the Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes regulation lists hydrogen cyanide and silver cyanide as Resource Conservation and 140 ------- Recovery Act (RCRA) Acute Hazardous Wastes. If Technic, Inc. stored wastes containing these hazardous substances, the Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (40 CFR Part 264) applied to the company. Promulgated under RCRA, this part regulates numerous aspects of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility operations. Subpart B (General Facility Standards) establishes general facility standards for hazardous waste facilities. Specifically, the regulation requires that facility owners and operators take precautions to prevent accidental ignition or reaction of ignitable or reactive waste. Subpart C (Preparedness and Prevention) requires that facilities be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated in a way that minimizes the possibility of a fire, explosion, or unplanned release of hazardous waste. The source of the explosion at the site appeared to be a chemical reaction between residual chemicals in a duct system; this duct system may not have been built or maintained in compliance with 40 CFR Part 264, Subparts B and C, both effective in 1980. To comply with 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart D (Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures, effective in 1980), owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities must have a contingency plan designed to minimize hazards to human health or the environment from fires, explosions, or the release of hazardous waste. The contingency plans establish the actions personnel must take in response to fires, explosions, or the release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents. The plan must list emergency equipment at the facility, include evacuation plans, and describe arrangements with local emergency response personnel. While available documentation does not indicate whether Technic, Inc. had plans in place in accordance with these rules, the response appears to have been prompt and correctly executed, suggesting it did have contingency plan and emergency procedures in place. Local, state and federal agencies were notified of the situation and responded, and the facility, businesses in the surrounding area, and the adjacent residential neighborhood were promptly evacuated. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart S (Special Provisions for Cleanup), effective in 2002, may have applied to the silver-contaminated firefighting water the RP removed. Regulations under this subpart relate to hazardous wastes generated, stored, managed, or treated as part of cleanup actions. It establishes Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU) regulations. These regulations apply to wastes, media, and debris that are managed for implementing cleanup and prohibit deposition of liquids in CAMUs. Tanks and container storage areas that treat or store hazardous remediation wastes during remedial activities may be designated Temporary Units (TUs), and must operate under design, operating, and closure standards specified by EPA regional offices. If the silver-contaminated water reached waters of the United States, regulations under the Clean Water Act may also have been relevant. Effective in 1982, 40 CFR Parts 400-471, the federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines, prescribe effluent limitations guidelines. Point sources of discharges of pollutants are required to comply with these regulations, where applicable, and permits issued by Rhode Island or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). 40 CFR Part 415.532 specifically limits pollutant discharges of silver from silver nitrate manufacturing facilities. It prohibits discharges of 0.009 pounds of silver per 1,000 pounds of discharged liquid. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) designates both substances released in the explosion and cleanup, silver and hydrogen sulfide, as toxic chemicals (at 40 CFR Part 372.65) and hazardous substances (at 40 CFR Part 302.4). The Superfund, Emergency Planning, 141 ------- and Community Right-to-Know Programs, codified in 40 CFR Parts 300-399 under the authority of CERCLA and effective in 1980, set practices and requirements for emergency planning, public notification of releases of hazardous substances, responses to releases, and remediation of harm caused by releases. 40 CFR Part 302, Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification, effective in 1985, requires notification to the National Response Center (NRC) of releases of CERCLA hazardous substances above reportable quantities. 40 CFR Part 372, Toxic Chemical Release Reporting requires notification of releases of CERCLA toxic chemicals. This part requires facility owners and operators to submit reports on releases of toxic chemicals to the Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI). CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting regulations were effective as of 1988. Air monitoring at the site indicated that cyanide was not present in harmful quantities. 40 CFR Part 355, the CERCLA Emergency Planning and Notification Requirements, effective in 1986, requires disclosure of facility information to allow state and local authorities to develop and implement chemical emergency response plans if facilities handle designated extremely hazardous substances above established thresholds. None of the substances mentioned in the Superfund documents for this site are listed as CERCLA extremely hazardous substances. However, the facility handles many substances not involved in the explosion. If the facility handled any of the substances above the thresholds specified in 40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A, it was required to disclose facility information under this part. As an active workplace, regulations promulgated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) also applied to the facility at the time of the incident. For example, the OSHA Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standards (HAZWOPER) at 29 CFR Part 1910.120 and 1926.65 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 for emergency response for hazardous waste operations. The OSHA Emergency Action Plan rule at 29 CFR Part 1910.38, Subpart E, further requires employers to have Emergency Action Plans (EAPs). EAPs must include: procedures for reporting a fire or other emergency; procedures for emergency evacuation, including type of evacuation and exit route assignments; procedures to be followed by employees who remain to operate critical plant operations before they evacuate; procedures to account for all employees after evacuation; procedures to be followed by employees performing rescue or medical duties; and other requirements. 29 CFR Part 1910.119, Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, further regulates operations at facilities that handle substances designated as highly hazardous under 29 CFR Part 1910.119, Appendix A. This part does not designate any of the substances mentioned in the Superfund documents for this site as OSHA highly hazardous substances. However, the facility handles many substances not involved in the explosion. If 29 CFR Part 1910.119 lists any of these substances as highly hazardous, the regulation required Technic, Inc. to develop a plan of employee implementation, complete a compilation of written process safety information, perform process hazard analyses, establish written operating procedures, conduct trainings, conduct incident investigations, establish emergency action plans, and conduct compliance audits for processes involving hazardous chemicals. The HAZWOPER, EAPs, Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, became effective in 1990, 1980, 1992 respectively, and thus applied to the facility at the time of the explosion in 2003. EPA did not review Rhode Island state environmental and safety regulations relevant to the chemical manufacturing industry. 142 ------- This review demonstrates that emergency prevention and response regulations were in effect at the time of the explosion and fire in 2003. These regulations include those promulgated under RCRA, CERCLA, and OSHA. The responsible party, Technic, Inc., payed for and worked with EPA to coordinate the cleanup. References: • Pollution Report #1, September 30, 2003. • Thomasnet.com, Technic Inc. Accessed July 15, 2019 at: https://www.thomasnet.com/profile/10025890/technic-inc-.html 143 ------- 28) Champion Technologies Anhydrous Ammonia Release Facility Name: Champion Technologies EPA Region/State: R6 - Texas EPA ID:TXD000356816 Contamination Dates: August 30, 2011 Operation Dates: Unknown-Present Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $19,600 Site Background/Description: Champion Technologies is an active manufacturer of chemical additives and downhole fluids used in the oil production (well drilling and reworking) industry. At the time of the incident, Champion Technologies had a research and development facility in a mixed industrial and residential area in Fresno, Fort Bend County, Texas. Ecolab, Inc. currently owns the facility. On August 30, 2011 the pressure safety valve on the top of the anhydrous ammonia tank at the site was discovered to be damaged and leaking. Approximately 20 to 30 homes were located downwind (north to northwest) of facility at the time of the release, and anhydrous ammonia posed a threat to the respiratory health of employees and nearby residents. In addition, suppression of ammonia vapors for removal caused runoff to drainage ditches along Kentucky Street. This anhydrous ammonia vapor suppression runoff water is caustic and can cause skin burns and fish kills. Concentrations of ammonia in water can cause fish kills. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: On August 30, 2011 the pressure safety valve on the top of the anhydrous ammonia tank was discovered to be damaged and leaking. Shortly after, Champion Technologies evacuated its 250 employees from the facility and established a shelter-in-place. The Fresno Fire Department and Fort Bend Hazardous Materials Team set up perimeter monitoring at approximately. The responsible party (RP) Champion Technologies notified the National Response Center (NRC) of the release the same day. EPA conducted perimeter air monitoring. The RP and temporarily plugged the leak the same day it discovered the leak. EPA departed the site and stopped perimeter air monitoring approximately two hours after the leak was plugged. A perimeter was established and local residences inside this perimeter were evacuated. The temporary plug on the leaking storage tank held through the night. Perimeter air monitoring did not detect ammonia above levels of concern on or off the facility. The RP collected approximately 100,000 gallons of vapor suppression water in vacuum trucks and frac tanks, began the process of offsite disposal at an approved facility, and brought in a specialized hydrogen/ammonia tanker truck to offload the remaining product in the storage tank. The RP completed the operations two days after discovering the leak. Air monitoring continued for approximately two hours after the completion of the transfer, and all clear was sounded on the same day. The RP notified the temporarily relocated residents of the all clear and initiated the re-inhabitation process with the residents. 144 ------- The RP began soil remediation of the unlined drainage ditches along that were impacted by the vapor suppression water runoff. EPA Superfund documents indicate that the RP planned to complete remediation of the affected unlined drainage ditches under the guidance of Texas Committee on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). TCEQ indicated that they would perform an inspection and audit of the facility to determine if it had the proper contingency plans in place. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), designates ammonia as a hazardous substance (at 40 CFR Part 302.4), an extremely hazardous substance (at 40 CFR Part 355 Appendix A), and a toxic chemical (at 40 CFR 372.65). As a result, Champion Technologies was subject to a suite of reporting and emergency preparedness and prevention requirements under CERCLA. Regulations promulgated under CERCLA set practices and requirements for preventing releases, public notification of releases of hazardous substances, responses to releases, and remediation of harm caused by releases. For example, the CERCLA Emergency Planning and Notification regulations (40 CFR Part 355, effective in 1986) requires information disclosure for facilities that handle hazardous substances to allow state and local authorities to develop and implement chemical emergency response plans. Additionally, CERCLA Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Community Right to Know, 40 CFR Part 370 Subpart C, requires Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and inventory reporting for hazardous and extremely hazardous materials over certain thresholds present at a facility. CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification regulations are set out in 40 CFR Part 302, effective in 1985. They require owners or operators of facilities that release hazardous substances above reportable quantity thresholds to report such releases to the NRC. Finally, as a CERCLA toxic chemical, the release of anhydrous ammonia was also reportable under 40 CFR Part 372. EPA retains reports on releases submitted under this regulation in the Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI). These CERCA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting requirements were implemented in 1988 and therefore effective at the time of the incident. The facility was also likely subject to the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions regulations (40 CFR Part 68), promulgated under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1996. These regulations require and/or set guidance for the prevention and detection of accidental releases of certain hazardous substances, including anhydrous ammonia, from stationary sources of over certain threshold amounts. The rules address the use, operation, repair, and maintenance of equipment to monitor, detect, inspect, and control releases, including the training of personnel. The rules also include the requirement for regulated facilities to submit Risk Management Plans (RMPs), comprising hazard assessments, prevention programs, and emergency response programs. According to 40 CFR Part 68.10, if the facility had more than the threshold quantity of 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process, it was required to comply with the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions by June 21, 1999. The New Source Performance Standards (40 CFR Part 60), promulgated in 1971 also under CAA, establish standards of performance for pollutant emissions at newly constructed stationary source facilities or features at facilities, as well as compliance timelines, reporting, recordkeeping, and monitoring practices for the facilities. As an active workplace, the facility was also subject to regulations promulgated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). For example, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response 145 ------- Standards (HAZWOPER) at 29 CFR 1910.120 and 1926.65, effective in 1990, requires 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. OSHA also requires employers to have Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) at 29 CFR Part 1910.38 (Subpart E). EAPs must include procedures for reporting emergencies, procedures for emergency evacuation, and other procedures. The Champion Technologies facilities was also subject to OSHA Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals standards (29 CFR Part 1910.119), which designates anhydrous ammonia as a highly hazardous chemical at Appendix A of 29 CFR Part 1910.119. These standards require employers to develop a plan of employee implementation, complete a compilation of written process safety information, perform process hazard analyses, establish written operating procedures, conduct trainings, conduct incident investigations, establish emergency action plans, and conduct compliance audits for processes involving hazardous chemicals. HAZWOPER, EAP, and Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals requirements were implemented in 1990, 1980, and 1992, respectively, and were therefore in place at the time of the 2011 release. In addition to these general employer standards, OSHA specifically regulates the design, construction, location, installation, and operation of anhydrous ammonia systems at 29 CFR Part 1910.111, effective in 1974. Further, because hazardous wastes were generated in the cleanup process when the anhydrous ammonia vapors were suppressed into waste liquid, 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart S, Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities: Special Provisions for Cleanup may have applied. Effective in 2002 under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), these regulations apply to wastes, media, and debris that are managed for implementing cleanup. They establish Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU) regulations and specifically prohibit deposition of liquids in CAMUs. In addition to the federal regulations, the facility was also subject to TCEQ regulations. For example, the General Air Quality Rules at 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) 101, effective in 1976, set forth general air quality rules relating to circumvention; nuisance; emissions fees; reporting requirements for emissions events; maintenance, startup, and shutdown standards; and a voluntary supplemental leak detection program for volatile organic compound facilities. The General Permits for Waste Dischargers regulation at 30 TAC 205, effective in 1998, empowers the TCEQ to issue general permits to authorize the discharge of waste into or adjacent to water. The Texas Surface Water Quality Standards at 30 TAC 21, effective in 2002, establishes surface water quality standards including general criteria applicable to all surface waters of the state, criteria and control procedures for specific toxic substances and total toxicity, appropriate water uses, and site-specific standards. Finally, 30 TAC 315, the Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution, effective in 1990, adopts by reference the federal General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution (40 CFR Part 403), which are included in the federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines. This review demonstrates that modern emergency prevention, preparedness, and response regulations were in place at the time of the ammonia release at Champion Technologies in 2011. Champion Technologies worked with local emergency response personal to respond to the incident. References: 146 ------- • Ecolab, "Nalco Champion Fresno Texas Technology Center/' 2019. Accessed July 10, 2019, at: https://www.ecolab.com/nalco-champion/locations/nalco-champion-fresno-texas-technologV" center • Pollution Report #2, September 1, 2011. • University of Houston, "Champion Technologies Pledges $150k for New UHSSL Science Lab: CTI Gift Will Help Expand UHSSL's Science Programming, Research Efforts," June 27, 2006. Accessed July 10, 2019, at: http://www.uh.edu/news- events/archive/nr/2006/06iune/062706champtech uhssllab.html 147 ------- 29) Thunder Products Facility Name: Thunder Products EPA Region/State: R6 - Texas EPA ID:TXN000606768 Contamination Dates: Unknown-1991 Operation Dates: Unknown-1991 Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $131,000 Site Background/Description: The site is an inactive and abandoned chemical mixing and repackaging facility in the City of El Paso, El Paso County, Texas. According to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) records, the site has been out of operation since approximately 1991. Upon EPA inspection in 2007, there were approximately 140 55-gallon drums located outside of site buildings and exposed to the elements. Some of these drums were empty while others appeared full, bloated, and/or improperly sealed, and some had recently leaked part or all of their contents. In addition to these outside drums, the site included a laboratory containing approximately 200 containers of various chemicals, including solvents and poisons. Based on a site inspection and review of Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) files, EPA believed some of the drums and smaller containers contained hazardous substances, pollutants and/or contaminants. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: TCEQ referred the site to the EPA. In April of 2007, EPA mobilized to the site to start the removal action. The initial phase consisted of stabilizing the site, performing hazard categorization field chemistry tests of the drum contents, and collecting laboratory samples for disposal profiling. The removal action phase involved the removal and off-site disposal of all drums and small containers. EPA continued the removal action in May of 2007. Approximately 2,600 gallons of flammable liquids were pumped from 75 55-gallon drums into a vacuum truck for disposal. After the drums were pumped out, they were opened, cleaned out, and crushed for disposal. The small chemical containers in the laboratory were then segregated by waste stream for lab packing. Drums were over-packed and one drum was transferred into another drum for transportation and disposal. The small chemical containers were lab packed into eight 55-gallon drums, three 30-gallon drums, and seven five-gallon buckets by waste stream for transportation and disposal. Final cleanup activities included cleaning of stained areas, solid waste consolidation, packaging site-investigation derived waste, and securing the site. EPA also discovered two small sample containers (250ml) of pentachlorophenol in the laboratory at this time. In June of 2007, EPA remobilized to the site to package and transport these two containers to Dow Chemical Company, the manufacturer of the material, for final disposal. These were the last known hazardous materials that remained at the site. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile Despite the presence of hazardous waste at the facility, EPA site documents indicate that Thunder Products was not permitted to receive, store, or dispose of hazardous substances. 40 CFR Part 270 148 ------- (Hazardous Waste Permit Program) requires that generators and transporters of hazardous waste and owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities file notifications and obtain permits for those activities. The regulation requires these permits both during the active life of the unit and during closure. Promulgated under the Solid Waste Disposal Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in November of 1980, this regulation applied to the Thunder Products facility for eleven years before its closure in 1991. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C, also implemented under RCRA and established in 1980, stipulates that hazardous waste facilities must be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to minimize the possibility of an unplanned release of hazardous waste. Subpart I of 40 CFR Part 264 establishes 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. During its inspection of the site, EPA observed drums that were outside of buildings at the site and that contained hazardous substances. EPA also noted that some of these drums were bloated and improperly sealed. EPA implemented RCRA regulations addressing the use and management of containers 1981. In addition to the Hazardous Waste Permit Program, other RCRA rules such as those under the Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (40 CFR Part 264) applied to the facility. Subpart G of this Part, Closure and Post-Closures, sets guidelines for disposal or decontamination of RCRA equipment, structures, and soils and requires owners and operators to submit a certification of closure to the EPA regional office upon completion of closure. Post-closure requirements under this subpart apply for 30 years after closure. Site documents indicate drums on site leaked hazardous substances, indicating the facility may also have been subject to federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) release reporting requirements. If the hazardous substances leaked from drums at the site exceeded reportable quantities set forth in 40 CFR Part 302 (CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification, effective in 1985), the facility was required to report the release under this rule. In addition to federal RCRA and CERCLA regulations, this facility was also subject to regulations promulgated by the State of Texas in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Part 335, Industrial Solid Waste and Municipal Hazardous Waste. Subchapter A of this Part, effective in 1986, sets rules for notification, closure and remediation, and financial assurance, among other categories. Subchapter B, effective in 1986, requires a Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission permit for storing, processing, or disposing of hazardous waste. Subchapter C sets forth operational standards applicable to generators of hazardous waste but became effective in 1996, after site operations ceased. Subchapters E-F, effective in 1987, set operating standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, including some closure and post closure requirements. Subchapter V establishes minimum standards for the management of hazardous secondary materials excluded under the federal Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR Part 261) requirements. However, Subchapter V did not become effective until 2016, after EPA's removal action at the site. This review demonstrates that modern environmental regulations were in place at the time of site abandonment in approximately 1991. In particular, regulations under CERCLA and RCRA applied to the 149 ------- site and governed hazardous waste management and disposal, release reporting, and hazardous waste site closure. References: • Pollution Report #1, April 10, 2007 • Pollution Report #2, May 10, 2007 • Pollution Report #3, June 11, 2007 150 ------- 30) CES PACES - Port Arthur Facility Name: CES PACES - Port Arthur EPA Region/State: R6 - Texas EPA ID:TXP490351276 Contamination Dates: 2008-2012 Operation Dates: 2008-2011 Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $1,447,700 Site Background/Description: The CES and Port Arthur Chemical and Environmental Services (PACES) site is in a mostly petrochemical industrial area at 2420 Gulfway Drive, Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas. Prior to bankruptcy and abandonment in September 2011, the site facility supplied chemicals, including bleaching agents, to the paper manufacturing industry. The facility was jointly owned by CES and PACES. As of September 2011, another company, CRT, was leasing and operating certain portions of the facility to receive spent caustic solutions from refining operations overseas to be stored and transferred into tank trucks for delivery to paper mills. The site includes a partially open-sided 100,000 square foot warehouse with a dock extending into the Port Arthur Canal and a barge dock to the east where, while operating, caustic solutions were offloaded. Fifteen process vessels and storage tanks varying in capacity up to 30,000 gallons and approximately 181 drums and totes in various states of degradation remained in the warehouse after site abandonment. The warehouse also housed a lab area. Thirteen tanker trucks still loaded with spent chemicals were parked in a pad to the west. One of the tanker trucks leaked onto a slab, potentially threatening to flow offsite into marsh area. Although the property was secured with intact fencing, the primary threat from this site was the potential for a hurricane with a strong storm surge to destroy the warehouse structure and release the hazardous materials out into the environment. Based on available analytical data from TCEQ and the site trustee's contractor, an array of hazardous substances, pollutants and/or contaminants were stored inside the open sided warehouse in containers and tanks. These included materials and solutions exhibiting one or more Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste characteristics, specifically a substantial amount of spent acids and caustics. Waste materials in the containers had pH levels ranging from 2 to 14, making these wastes characteristically hazardous due to their corrosivity. EPA also found about 150 cubic yards (CY) of asbestos contaminated soil. Included in the waste inventory at the site were 47 drums (55 gallons each) of sodium hydrosulfide (NaHS). NaHS is corrosive (pH of 11 to 12) and therefore presents a hazard to unprotected skin (pain, irritation, redness or full thickness burns) and eyes (can produce severe conjunctival irritation, chemosis, corneal, epithelial defects, limbal ischemia, and may result in permanent tissue damage). However, its most serious hazard is its propensity to produce toxic hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas when mixed with an acid or exposed to high heat sources such as a fire. Two deaths at the site in 2008 and 2009 were attributed to the H2S exposure inside the warehouse. Other hazardous wastes removed from the site are listed in the following section. 151 ------- Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: In September of 2011, EPA met with the Port Arthur United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Beaumont Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to tour the CES PACES Port Arthur facility in response to several incidents of potential H2S exposure by USCG personnel during site inspections. During the site tour, EPA noted that many containers and totes with caustic, acids solutions, and other spent chemicals had been left behind at the site by either CES or PACES, many corroding, degrading and leaking. EPA also noted several tanker trucks storing chemicals parked outside, potentially leaking. EPA identified several PRPs, mainly CES, PACES, and CRT. Due to bankruptcy, the courts appointed two trustees to coordinate removal activities. Over the following months the trustees addressed the drums and totes by moving them into a containment area, cleaning the releases and building containment around the inactive larger storage tanks not currently operated by CRT. In May of 2012, TCEQ notified EPA of a leak and a threat of a full release from one of the tanker trucks parked outside. The tanker was leaking onto a slab and potentially threatening to flow offsite into marsh area. In addition, the structural capabilities of the vessel were compromised due to corrosion at the valves, seams, and foundation. Over a period of three and a half months and 63 site days between August and November 2012, EPA completed the removal action at the CES PACES Port Arthur site. This involved the removal of the contents of 22 above ground storage tanks, 181 drums, totes and other containers, and disposal of more than 100 responsible party (RP) Quality Assurance samples and previously generated investigation derived waste (IDW). The removal action also involved dismantling storage tank feed lines and valves to inhibit future use and sizing and crushing onsite containers and decontamination of RP contractor bulk containers that had been left onsite. Waste disposed from the site containers amounted to approximately 194,387 gallons of liquid hazardous and non-hazardous liquid waste and approximately 268 tons of solid waste, including the following: • 29,400 gallons of hazardous waste liquid • 110 tons of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contaminated soil and 750 gallons of PCB contaminated water • 80 tons of sized and/or crushed RCRA empty containers and 40 tons of personal protective equipment (PPE) and debris • 1,400 gallons of corrosive solid waste (acidic) • 51,544 gallons of waste flammable liquids • 500 gallons of waste hydrogen peroxide • 4,300 gallons of waste corrosive liquids • 80 tons of petroleum contaminated sand and debris • 54,370 gallons of grease/animal fat (including the tallow) • 52,183 gallons of waste corrosive liquid (basic) In addition, during an initial cleanup, about 150 CY of asbestos contaminated soil was generated and placed in roll-off boxes. The loaded tanker trucks located outside the warehouse with different chemicals and other hazardous substances were to be addressed by TCEQ after the conclusion of this EPA removal action. 152 ------- Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile EPA removed waste exhibiting one or more RCRA hazardous waste characteristics, specifically a substantial amount of corrosive spent acids and caustics. 40 CFR Part 261, Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, effective in 1980, identifies wastes and characteristics of wastes which are subject to regulation and notification requirements as hazardous wastes under RCRA, Subtitle C. The presence of abandoned hazardous wastes onsite indicates rules promulgated under RCRA applied. For example, 40 CFR Part 270, the Hazardous Waste Permit Program, effective in 1980, required the CES PACES facility to have a permit and file notifications for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal. Further, RCRA Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (40 CFR Part 264) regulates numerous aspects of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility operations and closure. Subpart B of 40 Part 264, General Facility General Facility Standards, effective in 1980, requires owners and operators to obtain detailed chemical and physical analysis of a representative sample of waste prior to treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes; establish sufficient security programs to prevent unknowing and unauthorized entry of persons or livestock into the active portion of the facility; and carry out general inspection requirements to check for malfunctions, deterioration, operator error, and discharges, among other requirements. The state of the facility at the time of EPA's removal suggest the facility did not comply with these regulations. Furthermore, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C, Preparedness and Prevention, effective in 1980, stipulates that hazardous waste facilities must be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or unplanned release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents. 40 CFR Part 264, Subparts G and H outline closure, post-closure, and financial responsibility requirements. Subpart G, Closure and Post-Closure, effective in 1986, requires imposition of closure standards, implementation of closure plan, and time allowed for closure activities. The regulation sets guidelines for disposal or decontamination of equipment, structures, and soils. Upon completion of closure of a hazardous waste disposal unit, owners and operators must submit a certification of closure to the EPA regional office. Post-closure requirements apply for 30 years after closure. Subpart H, Financial Requirements, effective in 1982, establishes financial responsibility standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste management facilities and requires them to generate detailed written estimates of the cost of closure. RCRA also specifically regulates the disposal of liquid wastes containing PCBs, 750 gallons of which EPA removed from the site. 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. These PCB RCRA regulations became effective in 1987 and thus were in place at the time of site closure in 2011. The presence of hazardous waste storage containers at the site indicates applicability of requirements under 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I, Use and Management of Containers, effective in 1981. This subpart requires that owners or operators handle and store containers in such a manner as to avoid rupture or leakage, employ containment systems for container storage areas, and provides guidelines for containment system design. It also requires weekly inspections. At closure, all hazardous wastes and hazardous waste residues must be removed from the containment system and containers must be decontaminated in order to comply with this regulation. EPA discovered 181 drums and totes in various states of degradation in the warehouse after site abandonment; CES PACES therefore did not comply 153 ------- with this regulation. In addition to these containers, EPA also observed several large tanker trucks abandoned onsite, indicating the applicability of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart J, Tank Systems, effective in 1986. This regulation establishes guidelines for determining integrity of tank systems, operating requirements, and data collection and inspection requirements. It requires the removal from use of tank systems or secondary containment systems from which there has been a leak or spill. Owners and operators must then remove waste from the tank and secondary containment system, contain visible releases to the environment, notify EPA, and complete repairs of the tank or containment system. Finally, this regulation establishes closure and post-closure requirements including acquisition of financial responsibility. CES PACES's bankruptcy and abandonment of tank systems lead to releases of spent chemicals. In addition, during an initial cleanup, about 150 CY of asbestos contaminated soil was generated and placed in roll-off boxes. Removal of this additional wastes suggests that 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart S, Special Provisions for Cleanup, may have applied to the site. Effective in 2002, regulations under this subpart relate to hazardous wastes generated, stored, managed, or treated as part of cleanup actions. It establishes Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU) regulations. These regulations apply to wastes, media, and debris that are managed for implementing cleanup. Tanks and container storage areas that treat or store hazardous remediation wastes during remedial activities may be designated Temporary Units (TUs), and must operate under design, operating, and closure standards specified by EPA regional offices. 40 CFR Part 268, Land Disposal Restrictions, became effective in 1986 and designates and regulates certain wastes as prohibited. 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart C, Prohibitions on Land Disposal, prohibits land disposal of specific wastes including wood preserving wastes, dioxin-containing wastes, soils with toxicity characteristics of metals and PCBs, toxicity characteristic metal wastes, inorganic chemical wastes, and ignitable and corrosive wastes, among others. EPA discovered corrosive wastes and PCB- contaminated soil onsite, which likely qualified as prohibited wastes under the Land Disposal Restrictions. 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart E, Prohibitions on Storage, requires that prohibited wastes be stored in tanks, containers, or containment buildings at disposal facilities, and stipulates that wastes may only be stored to facilitate their proper recovery, treatment, and disposal. It further prohibits storage of prohibited wastes for more than one year. In addition to these federal hazardous waste regulations, this facility was also subject to hazardous waste regulations promulgated by the State of Texas in the Texas Administrative Code (TAC). 30 TAC Part 335 regulates industrial solid waste and municipal hazardous waste. Subchapter A of this Part, effective in 1986, sets rules for notification, closure and remediation, and financial assurance, among other categories. Subchapter B, effective in 1986, requires a Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission permit for storing, processing, or disposing of hazardous waste. Subchapters E-F, effective in 1987, set operating standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, including some closure and post closure requirements. Subchapter V establishes minimum standards for the management of hazardous secondary materials excluded under the federal Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR Part 261) requirements. However, Subchapter V did not become effective until 2016, after EPA's removal action at the site. Site documents also indicate applicability of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which regulates both PCBs and asbestos. 40 CFR Part 761 (PCBs Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, 154 ------- and Use Prohibitions), governs 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 761.79, promulgated on June 29, 1998, which sets forth 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 TSCA also addresses asbestos disposal; Appendix D to Subpart E of 40 CFR Part 763: Transport and Disposal of Asbestos Waste, which went into effect in 1987, outlines asbestos disposal requirements and applied to the 150 CY of asbestos contaminated soil left on site by the facility owner. The May 2012 leak and threat of release of hazardous substances at this site may have required notification under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 40 CFR Part 302.4 of the Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification rules, effective in 1985, lists sodium hydrosulfide, the principal chemical of concern at the site, as a hazardous substance. This part requires notification to the National Response Center (NRC) of releases of CERCLA hazardous substances above reportable quantities. If the tanker truck released sodium hydrosulfide or other CERCLA hazardous substances above reportable quantities, the facility owner or operated was required to report this release. In addition, 40 CFR Part 372, Toxic Chemical Release Reporting requires facility owners and operators to submit reports on releases of toxic chemicals to the Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI). 40 CFR Part 372.65 lists CERCLA toxic chemicals. CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting regulations were effective as of 1988. Finally, 40 CFR Part 355 Subpart B (Emergency Planning and Response, effective in 1986) requires disclosure of facility information to allow state and local authorities to develop and implement chemical emergency response plans and applies to facilities that handle the extremely hazardous substance listed at 40 CFR Part 355 Appendix A. Furthermore, when TCEQ contacted EPA about the May 6 leak, TCEQ expressed concern about contaminants spreading to the nearby marsh area. If the leaked hazardous pollutants reached the marsh area, the Clean Water Act (CWA) may also have applied. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), promulgated under the authority of this Act in 1972, requires permits for the discharge of pollutants from any point source into waters of the United States (40 CFR Part 122.1). If this facility did not have such a permit, or if this release exceeded the limits set forth in its permit, the release violated the NPDES. Further, the federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines (40 CFR Parts 400-471), effective pursuant to the CWA in 1974, prescribe effluent limitations guidelines for sources that discharge or may discharge pollutants to waters of the United States. CFR Part 415 specifically sets guidelines for the inorganic chemicals manufacturing point source category. Finally, the presences of abandoned asbestos at this site (discussed above with reference to TSCA regulations) indicates the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) may also have applied to the site. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), which EPA promulgated under the authority of the CAA beginning in 1973, includes standards for asbestos. 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M establishes air emissions standards for asbestos that proscribe asbestos storage and disposal practices at manufacturing operations, at 40 CFR Part 61.150, and active waste disposal sites, at 40 CFR Part 61.155. The standards for both manufacturing and disposal sites went into effect in 1990. OSHA has regulated the occupational exposure to asbestos since 1986 in 29 CFR Part 1910.1001 and 1926.1101. 155 ------- While actions and regulatory violations associated with closure and abandonment, rather than site operations, were the primary cause for EPA's removal action and the focus of EPA's documents for the site, the Department of Justice's Office of Public Affairs and local news media note the facility's owner violated OSHA numerous times during its operations, resulting in the death of two employees due to improper protections from hazardous gases. These sources also note other operational regulatory violations, including transporting hazardous waste with false documents and without placards, which violates the RCRA Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste, codified in 40 CFR Part 263 in 1980. This review demonstrates that modern environmental regulations were in effect throughout the contamination and cleanup period at this site. Federal rules promulgated under RCRA, CERCLA, TSCA, OSHA, CWA, and CAA and state rules set forth in the TAC applied to this site. Federal regulations were in effect throughout the facilities operations from 2008 to 2011. All potentially relevant Texas regulations were also in effect during this time except for 30 TAC Part 335, Subchapter V, which establishes minimum standards for the management of hazardous secondary materials excluded under the federal Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR Part 261) requirements. References: • Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs, "Former President of Port Arthur, Texas, Chemical Company Sentenced for Federal Crimes Related to Employee Deaths. Accessed June 24, 2019," Justice News, October 28, 2013. Accessed June 24, 2019 at: https://www.iustice.gov/opa/pr/former-president-port-arthur-texas-chemical-companV" sentenced-federal-crimes-related-emplovee • Molly Ryan, "Former CES Environmental CEO charged in toxic transportation case," Houston Business Journal, July 19, 2012. Accessed June 24, 2019 at: https://www.biziournals.com/houston/news/2012/Q7/19/former-ces-environmental-services- ceo.html • Pollution Report #1, May 10, 2012. • Pollution Report #11, November 12, 2012. 156 ------- 31) Reilley Coal Tar Facility Name: Reilly Coal Tar EPA Region/State: R8 - Utah EPA ID: UTD009087644 Contamination Dates: 1924-2018 Operation Dates: 1995-2002 Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $33,000 Site Background/Description: The Reilly Tar and Chemical Site is a former coal tar processing facility located on a 31.84-acre lot at 2555 South Industrial Parkway in Provo, Utah County, Utah (See Attachment 1 for site location). The facility was in operation from 1924 through 2002 and produced several oil and tar products, including creosote oil, electrode binder pitch, and various light-end and heavy-end oils. Wastes generated at the site included polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phenols, benzene, cyanides and sulfides. At the time of EPA's removal action, all buildings and structures had been removed from the site except for some concrete foundations. The site is bounded to the north by Ironton Canal, which drains into Spring Creek, and Utah Lake's Provo Bay west of the site. The former owner/operator of the site filed for bankruptcy in 2016. Drainage at the site was originally designed to dewater the facility into the northwest comer of the property and discharge through an outfall directly into Ironton Canal. In the 1970s, this drainage network was plugged at its outfall and a secondary containment wall was constructed at the site along the canal. At the time of the EPA site inspection, subsurface contamination consisting of semi-volatile organic compounds (specifically, PAHs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs, primarily benzene) were observed throughout the site, with some areas having contaminated deposits in excess of 13 feet. The contamination in the eastern portion of the site was dominated by solidified coal tar byproducts, while in the western portion of the site, the contamination was more aqueous and mobile, readily entering exploratory trenches dug by ERRS. The footings of the containment wall in the northern portion of the site along Ironton Canal were shallow, and there was a large source of contaminated aqueous and mobile waste beneath the wall at the location of the historic outfall. Waste from the site had discharged into the canal and could have continued to enter the canal and flow into Utah Lake during stormwater flooding events. In addition, during the inspection, EPA observed numerous asbestos-containing tiles scattered around the site. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: In 1996, the owner/operator of the site entered into a Corrective Action Agreement (CAA) with the State of Utah for the investigation and remediation of the contamination at the site. In 2016, the owner/operator entered bankruptcy and no remedial actions had been initiated. Title to the property was transferred to an environmental response trust as part of a bankruptcy settlement. 157 ------- In June 2017, EPA conducted a removal site inspection at the site in conjunction with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ). EPA observed subsurface contamination consisting of semi-volatile organic compounds (specifically, PAHs) and volatile organic compounds (primarily benzene) throughout the site. In the northwest corner of the site, EPA excavated approximately 2,000 cubic yards (CY) of contaminated material from along the Ironton Canal at the northwest corner of the site where the historic outfall was located. EPA next installed a flood resistant liner between the site and the Ironton Canal, backfilled the area with soil harvested onsite, and armored the banks of the canal. EPA removed vegetation and graded the area to ensure that surface water run-off would drain to the south away from the canal. Once completed, the disturbed soil was reseeded and erosion control features including earthen berms were installed. In the eastern portion of the site, EPA graded an area along the perimeter and established run-off control berms. Soil excavated from the northern portion of the site was transported to this area, spread evenly, supplemented with amendments, and will be periodically tilled. In addition to these actions, EPA collected and transported approximately 1,780 pounds of asbestos- containing tiles off-site for appropriate disposal. This removal action was intended to temporarily provide run-off control and erosion protection at the site while the State of Utah developed a comprehensive plan to fully remediate the site. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile The primary contaminants of concern at the site were benzenes and some PAHs. Some chemicals containing benzene and some PAH chemicals are listed as Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) toxic chemicals (at 40 CFR 372.65), CERCLA hazardous substances (at 40 CFR Part 302.4), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) toxic wastes (at 40 CFR Part 261.33), or RCRA acute hazardous waste (at 40 CFR Part 261.33). Further, site documents indicated the site generated several other RCRA hazardous wastes during its coal tar operations from 1924-2002, including phenols, cyanides and sulfides. These wastes are listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste. As an RCRA waste generator, this site was required to have permits to operate beginning in 1980 when the Hazardous Waste Permit Program (40 CFR Part 270) came into effect. The Hazardous Waste Permit Program requires that generators and transporters of hazardous waste and owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities file notifications and obtain permits for those activities. The regulation requires these permits both during the active life of the unit and during closure. Furthermore, the presence of RCRA hazardous-waste contaminated water and soil at the site after its 2002 closure means the RCRA Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities applied. RCRA Closure and Post-Closure requirements are outlined in 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart G and apply for 30 years after closure. This subpart sets guidelines for disposal or decontamination of RCRA equipment, structures, and soils and requires owners and operators to submit a certification of closure to the EPA regional office upon completion of closure. In addition, 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart H (Financial Requirements) establishes financial responsibility standards for owners and 158 ------- operators of hazardous waste management facilities and requires them to generate detailed written estimates of the cost of closure establishes financial responsibility standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste management facilities. These RCRA Closure and Post-Closure and Financial Requirements, effective in and 1986 and 1982, respectively, applied to the site after these dates, including at the time of its 1996 CAA for site remediation and investigation, its 2002 closure, and 2016 bankruptcy. Superfund documents indicate the footings of a containment wall in the northern portion of the site along Ironton Canal were shallow. This containment wall may have qualified as a hazardous waste management unit and therefore have been regulated by both 40 CFR Part 264, Subparts F and K. Hazardous waste management units as defined at 40 CFR Part 260.10 include surface impoundments, which are natural topographic depressions, man-made excavations, or diked areas formed primarily of earthen materials (although they may be lined with man-made materials), which are designed to hold an accumulation of liquid wastes. Subpart F, Releases from Solid Waste Management Units, effective in 1983, establishes requirements for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities with surface impoundments, land treatment units, or landfills. The regulation imposes groundwater protection standards for specific hazardous constituents that facilities must meet and requires those facilities to detect, characterize, and respond to releases from those units into the uppermost groundwater aquifer during the active life of unit and during closure. Subpart K, Surface Impoundments, effective in 1983, establishes design and operating requirements for owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities that use surface impoundments to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. Owners and operators must install a leak detection system; EPA regional offices must approve the leak detection system and set the maximum design flow rate the leak detection system can remove without the fluid head exceeding one foot. The owner and operator must calculate average daily flow rate to leak detection system on a weekly basis. The regulation also establishes requirements for approved response action plans, monitoring and inspection programs, emergency repair and contingency plans, and closure and post-closure plans and activities. During the removal, EPA noted the footings of the containment wall in the northern portion of the site along Ironton Canal were shallow, and there was a large source of contaminated aqueous and mobile waste beneath the wall at the location of the historic outfall. In addition to these federal RCRA hazardous waste management rules, Reilly Tar and Chemical Corp. was also required to comply with the State of Utah's hazardous waste management rules. The online Utah administrative code does not publish regulation effective dates; this review therefore does not report effective dates for Utah regulations. Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste at R315-261 of Utah's administrative code identifies wastes which are subject to regulation as hazardous wastes in Utah. Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities at R315-264 establish minimum State of Utah standards which define the acceptable management of hazardous waste. The standards in Rule R315-264 apply to owners and operators of all facilities which treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. Rules for Liquid Waste Operations (R317-550) require permits for the collection, storage, transportation, and disposal of all liquid wastes. This includes, but is not limited to, the cleaning out of wastewater holding tanks. The Hazardous Waste Permit Program at R315-270 requires a hazardous waste permit for any person intending to own, construct, modify, or operate any facility for the purpose of treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste. It also sets forth the requirements for and administration of hazardous waste permits. 159 ------- Both the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) (40 CFR Parts 122-125) and the Effluent Limitation Guidelines (40 CFR Parts 400-471) regulate point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. Effective pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972 (NPDES) and 1974 (Effluent Limitation Guidelines), these regulations were not in effect during the early years of site's operations when the site discharged wastewater directly into the canal through an outfall. However, even after the outfall was plugged in the 1970s, site documents indicate that pollution continued to enter the canal during heavy rainfall events due to the low walls of the secondary containment structure and to the buildup of soil and sediment contamination from the historic outfall. These sources likely qualified as point sources of pollution, which the CWA defines as "any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance... from which pollutants are or may be discharged," and are therefore regulated by both the NPDES and the Effluent Limitation Guidelines. The list of toxic pollutants at section 307(a) of the CWA and 40 CFR Part 401.15 includes benzenes and PAHs, the primary contaminants of concern at the site. The NPDES required the facility to have a permit for discharges to water of the United States and sets forth standards, duration limits, and permit conditions. In addition to permit limitations, the federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines (40 CFR Parts 400-471) prescribe effluent limitations guidelines for existing sources, standards of performance for new sources and pretreatment standards for new and existing sources of point source water pollution. The Superfund, Emergency Planning, and Community Right-to-Know Programs, codified in 40 CFR Parts 300-399 under the authority of CERCA and effective in 1980, sets practices and requirements for emergency planning, public notification of releases of hazardous substances, responses to releases, and remediation of harm caused by releases. 40 CFR Part 302, Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification, effective in 1985, requires notification to the National Response Center (NRC) of releases of CERCLA Hazardous Substances above reportable quantities. 40 CFR Part 372, Toxic Chemical Release Reporting requirements requires notification of releases of CERCLA toxic chemicals. This part requires facility owners and operators to submit reports on releases of Toxic Chemicals to the Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI). CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting regulations were effective as of 1988. The release of hazardous substances to the canal may therefore have been reportable under these CERCLA regulations. In addition to the contaminated groundwater, soils, and sediments, the site contained 1,780 pounds of abandoned asbestos containing tiles. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), which EPA promulgated under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA) beginning in 1973, include standards for asbestos. 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M establishes air emissions standards for asbestos that prohibit the discharge of visible asbestos emissions and proscribe asbestos storage and disposal practices at manufacturing operations, at 40 CFR Part 61.150, and active waste disposal sites, at 40 CFR Part 61.155. The standards for both manufacturing and disposal sites went into effect in 1990, well before site closure in 2002. The TSCA addresses asbestos disposal, as well. Appendix D to Subpart E of 40 CFR Part 763: Transport and Disposal of Asbestos Waste, which went into effect on December 14, 1987 (52 FR 41897), outlines additional asbestos disposal requirements. Finally, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has regulated the occupational exposure to asbestos since 1986 in 29 CFR Part 1910.1001 and 1926.1101. The Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) (R317-8) requires permits for the discharge of pollutants from any point source into waters of the State and sets forth the conditions, procedures, criteria and standards of this program. Definitions and General Requirements (R317-1) establishes Total 160 ------- Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and rules governing use of industrial wastewaters, disposal of domestic wastewater treatment works sludge, and requirements for waste dischargers. Onsite Wastewater Systems (R317-4) sets forth rules applicable to onsite wastewater systems. It establishes general standards and prohibitions and requirements for plan review and permitting, design, construction and installation, final inspections, and operation and maintenance of systems. Ground Water Quality Protection (R317-6) establishes general ground water quality standards and creates criteria for ground water classification, ground water class protection levels, and provides for implementation of these classification and standards through a permitting system. In addition, Utah's Cleanup Action and Risk- Based Closure Standards (R315-101) provides for continued management of sites for which minimal risk- based standards cannot be met. It is applicable to any responsible party involved in management of a site contaminated with hazardous waste or hazardous constituents. While the site began operation in 1924, before the implementation of modern RCRA, CERCLA, and CWA regulations, it continued to operate until 2002. Thus, the modern environmental regulations discussed in this review and promulgated under the authority of these acts applied to the site prior to and at the time of its abandonment in 2002. The 1996 CAA between the State of Utah and the site owner for the investigation and remediation of the contamination at the site demonstrate the site owner violated some environmental regulations prior to site abandonment. References: • Action Memorandum, November 3, 2017 • Pollution Report #2, January 23, 2018 161 ------- 32) Indmar Coatings Facility Name: Indmar Coatings EPA Region/State: R3 - Virginia EPA ID: VAN000306552 Contamination Dates: 2006 - 2017 Operation Dates: 1993-Present Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $79,300 Site Background/Description: Indmar Coatings, Inc. (Indmar Coatings) is a paint manufacturing and blending facility located at 317 West Main St. in Wakefield, Sussex County, VA. Indmar Coatings was founded in 1993 and continues to operate today. The Wakefield facility generates waste paint which is hazardous due to its ignitability and toxicity. EPA site documents indicate a 2006 sample from a pond at the rear of and directly downstream from the facility contained toluene, one of the hazardous substances Indmar Coating uses in its operation. Further, a 2017 Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) order between Indmar Coatings and EPA documents the presence of pallets of rusting paint containers located outside of the facility; rusting, leaking, and unlabeled containers located inside a shipping container at the facility; aerosol cans disposed in the regular trash at the facility; six 55-gallon containers located outside of the facility; and rusted, leaking, and unlabeled containers located in the facility warehouse. According to the CAFO, from at least September 30, 2014 through April 20, 2016, hazardous wastes were in storage containers at the site. The CAFO also states that, at the time of a 2016 Compliance Inspection (CEI), Indmar Coatings had accumulated more than 6,000 kilograms of hazardous paint waste at the facility. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: In January of 2007, EPA and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) visited the Indmar facility to perform sampling to determine if hazardous substances were migrating offsite. Site documents indicate EPA had visited the site on several prior occasions as follow-ups to complaints made by local officials. The purposes of the January 2007 visit were to investigate a pond that had been constructed at the rear of the facility since EPA's last site visit. The pond was directly downstream from the active paint blending area, and overflights performed by Virginia State Police and VDEQ in October of 2006 indicated that containers might be stored around the edge of the pond. A sample of the pond collected in December 2006 contained toluene. In January of 2007, EPA received permission from the owner of the facility to sample in and around the pond. EPA walked around a portion of the pond and determined the containers identified in the overflight photos were large empty tanks which had been turned upside down. The site owner explained that he had purchased the tanks to blend paint; however, the tanks were square and not suitable for the blender. EPA collected surface soil samples from the pond and soil. The samplers were sent for volatile 162 ------- organic compound (VOC), semi volatile organic compound (SVOC), metals, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) analyses. EPA site documents do not indicate the results of these analyses. In September of 2014 and April of 2016, EPA and VADEQ conducted EPA CEIs at the site. In June of 2017, EPA and Indmar Coatings entered into a Consent Agreement over four counts of alleged RCRA and Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Program violations noted during the 2014 and 2016 CEIs. This CAFO required Indmar Coatings to carry out the following compliance tasks: • Ship all hazardous waste material being stored at the facility offsite for treatment or disposal within 90 days and forward EPA copies of the manifests showing such shipments have taken place; • Forward EPA the Facility Standards of Procedure (SOP) for compliance with the violated RCRA and Virginia hazardous waste regulations; • Make hazardous waste determinations on all inventory at the facility and submit the written inventory and accompanying determinations to EPA every ninety days for two years; • Provide RCRA training to employees responsible for the management of hazardous wastes from a third-party provider and provide EPA documentation that his has taken place. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile The Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) largely incorporates the relevant federal regulations and are thus introduced concurrently with the federal CFR. A number of regulations promulgated under the authority of RCRA have been applicable to the site throughout its operations from 1993 to the present. The Hazardous Waste Permit Program (40 CFR Part 270, effective in 1980, which 9 VAC 20-60-270.A largely incorporates by reference, effective in 1998), provides that a person may not own or operate a facility for the treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous waste unless such person has first obtained a permit for such facility or has qualified for interim status for the facility. The 2017 CAFO asserts that Indmar Coatings did not have, and never had, a hazardous waste treatment or storage permit or interim status pursuant to 40 CFR Part 270 and 9 V AC 20-60-270.A. In addition, the Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR Part 262, effective in 1980, which 9 V AC 20-60-262.A largely incorporates by reference, effective in 1999) provides that a facility that generates a solid waste (as defined in 40 CFR Part 261.2), must determine if that waste is hazardous. In the 2017 CAFO, EPA alleges that Indmar Coatings violated this rule by failing to conduct hazardous waste determinations on the rusting containers, aerosol cans, and 55-gallon containers it found at the site during the 2014 and 2016 CEIs. Other requirements included in the Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste relate to the site manifest, pre-transport, recordkeeping and reporting, and more, and were applicable to the site. Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (40 CFR Part 264, effective in 1980) outline additional standards applicable to the site's operations. This part applies to owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste and regulates general facility standards, preparedness and prevention, use and management of containers, contingency plan and emergency procedures, and more. The 2017 CAFO specifically alleges that the site violated the following parts of 40 CFR Part 264 (which 9 VAC 20-60-264.A largely incorporates, effective 163 ------- in 1999): 264.15 (a) and (c), which requires owners and operators to inspect the facility for malfunctions and deterioration and to remedy any deterioration or malfunction of equipment or structures; 264.16 (a)(1), which requires facility personnel to successfully complete a program of classroom instruction or on-the job training that teaches them to perform their duties in a way that ensures the facility's compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 264; 264.31, which requires facilities to be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or any unplanned sudden or non-sudden release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents to air, soil, or surface water which could threaten human health or the environment; 264.171, which provides that if a container holding hazardous waste is not in good condition (e.g., severe rusting, apparent structural defects) or if it begins to leak, the owner or operator must transfer the hazardous waste from this container to a container that is in good condition or manage the waste in some other way that complies with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 264; and 264.174, which requires the owner or operator to inspect areas where containers of hazardous waste are stored, at least weekly, looking for leaks and for deterioration of containers and the containment system. In addition to RCRA regulations, the hazardous waste releases at the facility may also have been regulated by the Clean Water Act (CWA). Effective pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972 and 1974, respectively, both the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) (40 CFR Parts 122- 125) and the Effluent Limitation Guidelines (40 CFR Parts 400-471) regulate point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. The CWA, as codified at 40 CFR Part 401.11, includes ponds in its definition of waters of the United States. Further, toluene, the hazardous substance found in a 2006 sample from the pond, is a toxic pollutant under the CWA (as codified in 40 CFR 401.15). The NPDES requires the facility to have a permit for point source discharges to water of the United States and sets forth standards, duration limits, and permit conditions. 9 VAC 25-31-25 (effective in 2012) and 9 VAC 5- 120-15 (effective in 2013) largely incorporate these regulations by reference. In addition to permit limitations, the federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines (40 CFR Parts 400-471) prescribe effluent limitations guidelines for existing sources, standards of performance for new sources and pretreatment standards for new and existing sources. Furthermore, the VADEQ sets forth numerical water quality criteria, including for toluene, for instream waters at 9 VAC 25-260-140, effective in 1992. Toluene is also listed as a hazardous substance (40 CFR Part 302.4) and a toxic chemical (40 CFR Part 372.65) pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLA Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification (40 CFR Part 302) became effective in 1985. If toluene or other substances listed as hazardous in 40 CFR Part 302.4 were released in excess of the reportable quantities set forth in 40 CFR Part 302.4, the facility was required to report the release to the National Response Center under 40 CFR Part 302.6. The Virginia Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, Title III generally adopts CERCLA. Further, 40 CFR Part 372, Toxic Chemical Release Reporting requirements requires notification of releases of CERCLA toxic chemicals. This part requires facility owners and operators to submit reports on releases of Toxic Chemicals to the Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI). CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting regulations were effective as of 1988. The release of toluene to the pond may therefore have been reportable under this CERCLA regulation. Finally, as an active workplace, regulations pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) apply to the site. The site owner and operator's failure to implement a training program to instruct facility personnel how to comply with 40 CFR Part 264, as required by 264.16 (a)(1) (discussed above), 164 ------- suggests the facility could also have been in violation of OSHA regulations which require other training programs. For example, the OSHA Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standards (HAZWOPER) (29 CFR 1910.120 and 29 CFR 1926.65) requires employers to develop a written safety and health program for their employees involved in hazardous waste operations. The program will identify, evaluate, and control safety and health hazards, and provide for emergency response for hazardous waste operations. Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals (40 CFR Part 1910.119), effective pursuant to OSHA in 1992, establishes requirements for preventing or minimizing the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals that may result in toxic, fire, or explosion hazards. It requires employers to develop a plan of employee implementation, perform process hazard analyses, conduct trainings, conduct incident investigations, establish emergency action plans, conduct compliance audits for processes involving hazardous chemicals, and more. Virginia adopted all general industry standard set forth in 40 CFR Part 1910 in 1977, as noted in 16 VAC 25-90-1910. This review demonstrates that hazardous waste management regulations were in effect throughout the documented period of contamination, from 2006 to 2017. The 2017 CAFO between Indmar coatings and EPA documents four counts of alleged RCRA and Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Program violations. In addition to these RCRA violations, as an active facility, Indmar Coatings may also have violated OSHA standards regulating hazardous substance operations. Finally, the toluene-contaminated pond water may represent a CERCLA release requiring reporting. EPA did not conduct a removal action at this site. Superfund documents do not indicate if Indmar Coatings cleaned up the hazardous wastes as required by the 2017 CAFO. References: • Consent Agreement and Final Order, June 14, 2017. • Bloomberg, "Indmar Coatings Corp." Accessed on June 28, 2019 at: https://www.bloomberg.eom/profile/companv/0074461D:LIS • Pollution Report #1, January 9, 2007. 165 ------- 33) NanoChemonics Facility Name: NanoChemonics EPA Region/State: R3 - Virginia EPA ID: VAN000306716 Contamination Dates: Unknown-August 25, 2016 Operation Dates: Unknown-2010 Response Action Lead: Mixed Lead Expenditures: Approximately $819,000 Site Background/Description: The site is in the Town of Pulaski, Pulaski County, Virginia. The site included a manufacturing facility (which includes numerous buildings), several laboratories, an onsite drainage system which conveys wastewater, an on-site wastewater pre-treatment plant, four lagoons, several active and inactive sludge drying areas, and many tanks, processing vessels, equipment items, and pipelines which were used in or are related to the manufacturing processes. The site drains through a network of interior and exterior trenches and drains to the onsite wastewater pre-treatment plant and then to a series of lagoons. The lagoons ultimately discharge to Peak Creek, which passes through the site. The site was mostly fenced, but persons broke into facility buildings on at least two occasions reportedly to obtain electrical wiring or equipment. NanoChemonics formerly manufactured nanoparticle iron oxides for various industries. The company ceased operations in July 2010. NanoChemonics sold the property to STNP, LLC, after site operations ceased. The site contained a variety of potential threats of release of hazardous substances stemming from acid and caustic chemicals remaining within the manufacturing facility along with drums, totes, bags, and other containers of chemical substances, including several laboratories. EPA observed an unknown amount of residual chemical substances in tanks, containers, lagoons, trenches, drains, equipment, piping systems and other places that posed a threat of release. EPA observed areas where unknown acid (e.g., pH less than approximately two) and caustic (e.g., pH above approximately 11 or 12) chemicals were located in containers, tubs, totes, cans, and spilled areas upon the floors near to the onsite drainage system. Other chemical materials, including large amounts of iron oxide materials and other chemicals (e.g., zinc sulfate, copper sulfate, cobalt sulfate), were also present in drums, small containers, bags, open containers, totes, water treatment vessels, fuel vessels, lagoon sludges, trenches, drains, and other places. In addition, hundreds of small laboratory containers containing numerous acidic, caustic, oxidizing, or flammable chemicals (e.g., sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, potassium hydroxide, hydrazine, acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, methanol) were observed. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also present at the site within old electrical equipment. The onsite drainage system contained unknown chemical substances in most places. Several areas of ponded water were observed within the onsite drainage system. The electricity was shut off to the vast majority of the site and the site's security lighting was also minimized. Chemicals at the site included or had included sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, hydrazine, acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, methanol and many other 166 ------- compounds. The owner removed the laboratory containers of solvents, hydrazine and acids. However, residual chemicals related to the laboratories may have remained. Process and bulk chemicals at the site included or had included ferrous sulfate, sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, cobalt sulfate, copper sulfate, and zinc sulfate. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: In August of 2010, the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VADEM) notified EPA that the NanoChemonics facility was no longer operating and that laboratory and other chemicals remained at the site posing a potential threat to the nearby community and environment. Local law enforcement personnel were providing security and NanoChemonics personnel were working to consolidate and re- organize laboratory chemicals. At the request of VADEM, EPA met with VADEM, the Town of Pulaski, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), and Pulaski County officials (collectively, "Responders") at Pulaski County Offices. NanoChemonics provided access to the site for the Town of Pulaski and Agencies assisting the Town, and the Responders visited the site after the meeting. EPA initiated a removal site evaluation at the end of August of 2010. At the end of September of 2010, VADEQ requested that EPA take the lead on oversight or implementation of environmental cleanup actions at the site. The Town of Pulaski conducted certain initial sampling activities and provided security during initial activities at the site. VADEM provided initial expertise and assistance with the stabilization of some of the laboratory chemicals at the site. VADEQ provided assistance to EPA relating to site history, regulatory compliance, and oversight of the limited NanoChemonics activities. NanoChemonics worked to address the threats with its limited remaining resources by removing laboratory chemicals and conducting surveillance at the site. EPA issued an order to NanoChemonics at the end of September 2010, which generally required NanoChemonics to mitigate the threats at the site. In November of 2010, EPA conducted sampling of the four wastewater lagoons and water flowing through the drainage system. It was raining during the sampling, and EPA observed that a low volume discharge was occurring from the lagoons into Peak Creek.. Although three of the four lagoons had pH between six and nine (per VPDES permit), the pH of one of the lagoons was found to be approximately 9.3 (above VPDES permit). EPA requested NanoChemonics immediately stop this discharge. NanoChemonics stopped the discharge by plugging the leaky boards. EPA also observed evidence of continued unauthorized entry to the site and requested NanoChemonics immediately increase the surveillance activity at the site. NanoChemonics agreed to increase its presence at the site. In January of 2011, EPA approved the Response Action Plan under which NanoChemonics intended to mitigate the threats posed at the site. Subsequently, NanoChemonics sold the property to STNP, LLC and EPA negotiated a Consent Order with STNP in April of 2011. The response action was initiated the same month. In brief, the response action involved 1) the removal of hazardous substances from the site, including the removal of such substances found in the debris created during demolition of the buildings comprising the former manufacturing facility at the site 2) the management and treatment of wash waters and storm waters at the site that were directed into four lagoons during the response action and then discharged into nearby Peak Creek and 3) the removal of the sludge from within the four lagoons and the consolidation and covering of the sludge in a drying bed located at the site. STNP completed the work in August of 2016. EPA inspected site conditions and deemed all work completed. 167 ------- Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile The Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) largely adopts the relevant federal regulations and are thus introduced concurrently with the federal CFR in the following review. Due to the presence of numerous hazardous substances at the site, regulations promulgated under several major environmental acts applied to the site during its operations prior to 2010 and during its closure and post-closure proceedings after 2010. Superfund documents indicate that the following chemicals were present at the site during its operations: sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, hydrazine, acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, methanol and many other compounds. Process and bulk chemicals at the site included ferrous sulfate, sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, cobalt sulfate, copper sulfate, and zinc sulfate. Many of these chemicals were left on site after operations ceased in July 2010. 40 CFR Part 261, Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, effective in 1980, identifies solid wastes which are subject to regulation and notification requirements as hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Subtitle C. It also establishes emergency preparedness and response management standards for identified hazardous wastes. Sulfuric acid, nitric acid, acetone, hydrazine, methyl ethyl ketone, and methanol are all RCRA toxic wastes under 40 CFR Part 261.33. Sulfuric acid is also designated as a RCRA acute hazardous waste under the same part. These substances were found abandoned onsite, waking them wastes under 40 CFR Part 216. As such, rules promulgated under RCRA regulated this facility. For example, 40 CFR Part 270, effective in 1980, required the NanoChemonics facility to have a permit in order to dispose hazardous substances. This regulation establishes provisions for the Hazardous Waste Permit Program under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (amended by RCRA). 9 VAC 20-60-270.A, effective in 1998, largely incorporates this regulation by reference. It requires that generators and transporters of hazardous waste and owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities file notifications for those activities. Owners and operators of hazardous waste management units must have permits during the active life of the unit, including during closure. The Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (40 CFR Part 264) were promulgated under RCRA and regulate numerous aspects of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility operations and closure. 9 VAC 20-60-264 and 9 VAC 20-60-265, the Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations, effective in 1999, largely incorporate these federal regulations by reference. Subpart B of 40 Part 264, General Facility General Facility Standards, effective in 1980, requires owners and operators to obtain detailed chemical and physical analysis of a representative sample of waste prior to treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes; establish sufficient security programs to prevent unknowing and unauthorized entry of persons or livestock into the active portion of the facility; and carry out general inspection requirements to check for malfunctions, deterioration, operator error, and discharges, among other requirements. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C, Preparedness and Prevention, effective in 1980, stipulates that hazardous waste facilities must be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or unplanned release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents. In addition, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart D, Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures, effective in 1980, stipulates 168 ------- that owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities must have a contingency plan designed to minimize hazards to human health or the environment from fires, explosions, or the release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart G, Closure and Post-Closure, effective in 1986, establishes closure and post- closure requirements for hazardous waste facilities. These include imposition of closure standards, implementation of closure plan, and time allowed for closure activities. The regulation sets guidelines for disposal or decontamination of equipment, structures, and soils. Upon completion of closure of a hazardous waste disposal unit, owners and operators must submit a certification of closure to the EPA regional office. Post-closure requirements apply for 30 years after closure. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart H, Financial Requirements, effective in 1982, establishes financial responsibility standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste management facilities. Owners or operators must generate detailed written estimates of the cost of closure. If the facility has a disposal surface impoundment, disposal miscellaneous unit, land treatment unit, or landfill unit, or a surface impoundment or waste pile, as NanoChemonics did, the owner or operator must prepare contingent closure and post-closure plans and cost estimates. EPA observed an unknown amount of residual chemical substances in tanks, containers, lagoons, trenches, drains, equipment, piping systems and other places that posed a threat of release. The presence of hazardous waste storage containers at the site indicates it was also subject to requirements under 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I, Use and Management of Containers, effective in 1981. This subpart requires that owners or operators handle and store containers in such a manner as to avoid rupture or leakage and employ containment systems for container storage areas and provides guidelines for containment system design. It also requires weekly inspections. At closure, all hazardous wastes and hazardous waste residues must be removed from the containment system and containers must be decontaminated in order to comply with this regulation. EPA also observed storage tanks abandoned onsite, indicating the applicability of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart J, Tank Systems, effective in 1986. This regulation establishes guidelines for determining integrity of tank systems, operating requirements, and data collection and inspection requirements. It requires the removal from use of tank systems or secondary containment systems from which there has been a leak or spill. Owners and operators must then remove waste from the tank and secondary containment system, contain visible releases to the environment, notify EPA, and complete repairs of the tank or containment system. Finally, this regulation establishes closure and post-closure requirements including acquisition of financial responsibility. Superfund documents indicate the initial removal and demolition of buildings created additional debris requiring removal. Removal of this additional wastes suggests that 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart S, Special Provisions for Cleanup, may have applied to the site. Effective in 2002, regulations under this subpart relate to hazardous wastes generated, stored, managed, or treated as part of cleanup actions. It establishes Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU) regulations. These regulations apply to wastes, media, and debris that are managed for implementing cleanup and prohibit deposition of liquids in CAMUs. Tanks and container storage areas that treat or store hazardous remediation wastes during remedial activities may be designated Temporary Units (TUs), and must operate under design, operating, and closure standards specified by EPA regional offices. NanoChemonics was required to comply with these regulations during its clean up. 169 ------- According to 40 CFR Part 260.10, the term "impoundments" includes lagoons designed to hold an accumulation of liquid wastes or wastes. Superfund documents indicate NanoChemonics had four such lagoons. As a result, the facility was likely subject to both 40 CRR Part 264, Subparts F and K. Subpart F, Releases from Solid Waste Management Units, effective in 1983, establishes requirements for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities with surface impoundments, land treatment units, or landfills. The regulation imposes groundwater protection standards for specific hazardous constituents that facilities must meet and requires those facilities to detect, characterize, and respond to releases from those units into the uppermost groundwater aquifer during the active life of unit and during closure. Subpart K, Surface Impoundments, effective in 1983, establishes design and operating requirements for owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities that use surface impoundments to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. Owners and operators must install a leak detection system; EPA regional offices must approve the leak detection system and set the maximum design flow rate the leak detection system can remove without the fluid head exceeding one foot. The owner and operator must calculate average daily flow rate to leak detection system on a weekly basis. The regulation also establishes requirements for approved response action plans, monitoring and inspection programs, emergency repair and contingency plans, and closure and post-closure plans and activities. During a NanoChemonics site inspection in 2010, EPA identified overflow of NanoChemonics' lagoons. 40 CFR Part 268, Land Disposal Restrictions, became effective in 1986 and designates and regulates certain wastes as prohibited. 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart C, Prohibitions on Land Disposal, prohibits land disposal of specific wastes including wood preserving wastes, dioxin-containing wastes, soils with toxicity characteristics of metals and PCBs, toxicity characteristic metal wastes, inorganic chemical wastes, and ignitable and corrosive wastes, among others. 40 CFR Part 268.2 defines land disposal as placement in or on the land, except in a corrective action management unit or staging pile, including but not limited to, placement in a landfill, surface impoundment, waste pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt dome formation, salt bed formation, underground mine or cave, or placement in a concrete vault, or bunker intended for disposal purposes. EPA discovered ignitable and corrosive wastes onsite. These wastes likely qualified as prohibited ignitable and corrosive wastes under the Land Disposal Restrictions. 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart E, Prohibitions on Storage, requires that prohibited wastes be stored in tanks, containers, or containment buildings at disposal facilities, and stipulates that wastes may only be stored to facilitate their proper recovery, treatment, and disposal. It further prohibits storage of prohibited wastes for more than one year. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also designates many of the chemicals used at the site as hazardous substances, extremely hazardous substances, and/or toxic chemicals. CERCLA hazardous substances (listed at 40 CFR Part 302.4) used at the facility include hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, hydrazine, acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, ferrous sulfate, and zinc sulfate. CERCLA extremely hazardous substances (listed at 40 CFR Part 355 Appendix A) include sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and hydrazine. CERCLA toxic chemicals (listed at 40 CFR Part 372.65) found at the site include sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid (acid aerosols including mists, vapors, gas, fog, and other airborne forms of any particle size), nitric acid, and hydrazine. The Superfund, Emergency Planning, and Community Right-to-Know Programs, codified in 40 CFR Parts 300-399 under the authority of CERCA and effective in 1980, sets practices and requirements for emergency planning, public notification of releases of hazardous substances, responses to releases, 170 ------- and remediation of harm caused by releases. Because NanoChemonics stored CERCLA extremely hazardous substances onsite, it was potentially subject to 40 CFR Part 355, Emergency Planning and Notification requirements, effective in 1986. Superfund document indicate that the CERCLA extremely hazardous substance sulfuric acid was a bulk or process chemical at the facility, suggesting the facility handled it at levels above the 1,000-pound reportable and threshold planning quantity for that substance. If this was the case, 40 CFR Part 355 required NanoChemonics to disclose facility information to allow state and local authorities to develop and implement chemical emergency response plans. On November of 2010, EPA observed and documented an overflow of one of the onsite wastewater treatment lagoons. The September 30, 2010 Action Memorandum for the site notes that such an overflow would constitute a "release" as defined in Section 101(22) of CERCLA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(22). 40 CFR Part 302, Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification, effective in 1985, requires notification to the National Response Center (NRC) of releases of CERCLA hazardous substances above reportable quantities. 40 CFR Part 372, Toxic Chemical Release Reporting requirements requires notification of releases of CERCLA toxic chemicals. This part requires facility owners and operators to submit reports on releases of toxic chemicals to the Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI). CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting regulations were effective as of 1988. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) also existed at the site within old electrical equipment. In addition to its regulation as a CERCLA toxic chemical (40 CFR Part 372.65), PCB cleanup is specifically regulated under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). 40 CFR Part 761 (PCBs Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions), governs 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 761.79, promulgated on June 29, 1998, which sets forth 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 Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals (29 CFR Part 1910.119, effective in 1992) further regulates anhydrous hydrochloric acid and nitric acid (94.5% by weight or greater) as highly hazardous substances. Under this regulation, during its life as an active workplace prior to 2010, NanoChemonics was required to develop a plan of employee implementation, complete a compilation of written process safety information, perform process hazard analyses, establish written operating procedures, conduct trainings, conduct incident investigations, establish emergency action plans, and conduct compliance audits for processes involving hazardous chemicals. In addition, the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standards (HAZWOPER) at 29 CFR Parts 1910.120 and 1926.65, effective in 1990, requires 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. OSHA also requires employers to have Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) at 29 CFR Part 1910.38 (Subpart E) as of 1980. EAPs must include procedures for reporting emergencies, procedures for emergency evacuation, and other procedures. Virginia adopted all OSHA general industry standard set forth in 40 CFR Part 1910 in 1977, as noted in 16 VAC 25-90-1910. NanoChemonics also had an onsite wastewater treatment system that discharged water to a nearby creek and was subject to regulations under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Under the 40 CFR Parts 122-125, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), promulgated under the CWA and effective 171 ------- in 1972, the facility was required to have a permit to discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. In Virginia, the NPDES is administered by VPDES through 9 VAC 25-31-25, effective 2012, and 9 VAC 5-120-15, effective 2013. These Virginia regulations are largely consistent with the federal NPDES program. EPA recorded a pH of approximately 9.3 in one of NanoChemonics' lagoons and noted that this represented an exceedance of the facility's VPDES permit. In addition to the NPDES and VAC permit requirements, NanoChemonics was also required to comply with the federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines, codified pursuant to the CWA at 40 CFR Parts 400-471 and effective in 1974. These regulations prescribe effluent limitations guidelines for existing sources of water pollution, standards of performance for new sources and pretreatment standards for new and existing sources. 40 CFR Part 415 specifically establishes effluent guidelines for a suite of inorganic chemical manufacturing processes. Due to the presence of sludge at the facility, 40 CFR Part 501 (State Sludge Management Programs, effective in 1989), which specifies EPA procedures in overseeing state sludge managements programs and covers sewage sludge and disposal of sludge into landfills, and water, is also relevant. 9 VAC 25-790- 660 codifies Virginia's Sludge Management Program, effective in 2002. This regulation states that sludge management activities not specifically provided for through approval of design plans and specifications shall be described in a sludge management plan submitted by the owner to the VADEQ for review and approval. Further, the use or disposal of treated sewage sludge shall be addressed through either the sludge management plan required by the VPDES permit, or a permit issued through the Virginia Pollution Abatement Permit Regulation (9 VAC 25-32) or Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation (9 VAC 25-31). Finally, 9 VAC 25-260-140, Criteria for Surface Water, effective in 1992, states that instream water quality conditions shall not be toxic. This review demonstrates that modern hazardous waste, emergency planning and release reporting, and water pollution regulations were in place at the time of NanoChemonics' site abandonment in 2010. It appears that NanoChemonics, the owner of the facility at the time of its abandonment, was not financially able to clean up the site. However, NanoChemonics sold the facility and the new owner carried out most of the removal action. References: • Action Memorandum, September 30, 2010. • On-scene Coordinator (OSC) Site Profile. Accessed July 11, 2019 at: https://response.epa.gov/site/site profile.aspx?site id=6372. • Pollution Report #3, November 10, 2010. • Pollution Report #71, August 25, 2016. 172 ------- 34) McMurray Road Chemical Removal Facility Name: McMurray Road Chemical Removal EPA Region/State: RIO-Washington EPA ID: WAN001001501 Contamination Dates: Unknown-January 29, 2016 Operation Dates: Unknown Response Action Lead: Government Lead Expenditures: Approximately $216,700 Site Background/Description: The site is located on a residential property in the northern portion of the City of Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington. EPA found the home and buildings at the site abandoned, unsecured, and the recent target of burglary and vandalism. Chemicals were stored on the property inside and outside of the four buildings that make up the residence: a house, a separated garage, and two additional storage buildings. A former resident is believed to have stored chemicals for a variety of activities including the making of fireworks, a chemical recycling business, and various hobbies. The chemicals left behind by the former resident included thousands of containers of chemicals, many of which were marked with factory labels or other markings indicating they were hazardous substances. From an initial assessment, chemicals in each of the following categories were identified in the first building inspected: flammable liquids, oxidizing substances, toxic substances, corrosive materials, and other miscellaneous hazardous materials. Hazardous substances observed included paradicllloro benzene, potassium hydroxide, ferrous sulfate, P-dichlorobenzenei sodium fluoride, ferric sulfate, cupric sulfate, potassium chromate, and nitric acid. The chemicals were not being actively managed or properly stored. Some chemicals had already been released through spills or container failure and improper storage and condition of other chemicals posed a high risk of future releases. Of the chemicals that could be observed directly, many were stored in deteriorating containers, stored next to incompatible chemicals, stored in dilapidated and unsecured buildings, and/or were improperly labeled. Many more chemicals appeared to be in improper containers of various types either on the floor or mixed together in piles of miscellaneous debris on the ground. EPA observed a total of 9,513 containers of chemicals at the site. The former resident and owner of the chemicals was previously identified as the potentially responsible party at the East 11th Street Chemical Fire Site and the University Place Chemical Response where EPA conducted emergency responses in March 2012 and January 2016, respectively. At the time of the removal action for the McMurray Road site, the former resident and owner of the chemicals was deceased. One individual was reportedly attempting to acquire the property was not aware of the danger involved with the chemicals left behind by the former resident. Regulatory Compliance/Action/Response: In January of 2016, the Washington Department of Ecology (WDE) requested assistance from the EPA to remove hazardous chemicals from the site. Local law enforcement investigating the origin of chemicals 173 ------- left behind at a separate residence in a neighboring municipality identified the site. EPA acquired site access and emergency response contractors began mobilizing to the site to set up operations and begin assessing and securing abandoned hazardous chemicals left in four separate buildings on the property. After reviewing all safety plans and protocols, contractors began the emergency removal action. EPA began carefully gathering abandoned containers from one of the buildings and sorting them into hazard categories to be overpacked into drums for safe transport and disposal. EPA directed contractors to characterize, segregate, and secure compatible materials and arrange for transportation and disposal of all chemicals. Material that was factory sealed and clearly labeled as a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) hazardous substance was segregated, while all other known or suspected hazardous substances were analyzed using field testing techniques and categorized into appropriate hazard classifications. EPA categorized a total of 509 unknown chemicals. EPA place a total of 9,513 chemical containers into 200 overpack drums and removed and transported the last of these to a disposal facility in January of 2016. EPA then referred the site to WDE for further evaluation. Discussion - Applicable Federal Regulations and Ongoing Risk Profile Improper storage and abandonment of hazardous chemicals at the site lead to release of these substances and required EPA's emergency removal action. EPA removed over 500 unknown chemicals from the site and identified chemicals in each of the following categories: flammable liquids, oxidizing substances, toxic substances, corrosive materials, and other miscellaneous hazardous materials. 40 CFR Part 261, Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, identifies substances which are hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Subpart C, Characteristics of Hazardous Waste, outlines characteristics that make wastes hazardous due to their ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. Many of the chemical wastes EPA removed from the site were likely RCRA hazardous wastes as designated by this subpart. In addition, of the chemicals EPA identified, nitric acid is specifically listed as a RCRA toxic waste in 40 CFR Part 261.33. Given the presence of RCRA wastes abandoned onsite, 40 CFR Part 270, the Hazardous Waste Permit Program, effective in 1980, applied to the site. This regulation requires that generators and transporters of hazardous waste and owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities file notifications for those activities. Owners and operators of hazardous waste management units must have permits during the active life of the unit, including during closure. The Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (40 CFR Part 264) were also promulgated under RCRA and regulate numerous aspects of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility operations. Subpart B of 40 Part 264, General Facility Standards, effective in 1980, requires owners and operators to obtain detailed chemical and physical analysis of a representative sample of waste prior to treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes; establish sufficient security programs to prevent unknowing and unauthorized entry of persons or livestock into the active portion of the facility; and carry out general inspection requirements to check for malfunctions, deterioration, operator error, and discharges, among other requirements. EPA found buildings at the site abandoned, unsecured, and the recent target of burglary and vandalism. Furthermore, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart C, Preparedness and Prevention, effective in 1980, stipulates that hazardous waste facilities must be designed, constructed, maintained, and operated to minimize 174 ------- the possibility of a fire, explosion, or unplanned release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents. In addition, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart D, Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures, effective in 1980, stipulates that owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities have a contingency plan designed to minimize hazards to human health or the environment from fires, explosions, or the release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart G, Closure and Post-Closure, effective in 1986, establishes closure and post- closure requirements for hazardous waste facilities. These include imposition of closure standards, implementation of a closure plan, and time allowed for closure activities. The regulation sets guidelines for disposal or decontamination of equipment, structures, and soils. Upon completion of closure of a hazardous waste disposal unit, owners and operators must submit a certification of closure to the EPA regional office. Post-closure requirements apply for 30 years after closure. Responsible parties at this site did not follow these closure and post-closure rules. Subpart H, Financial Requirements, effective in 1982, establishes financial responsibility standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste management facilities and requires them to generate detailed written estimates of the cost of closure. The presence of hazardous waste storage containers at the site indicates it was also subject to requirements under 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart I, Use and Management of Containers, effective in 1981. This subpart requires that owners or operators handle and store containers so as to avoid rupture or leakage and employ containment systems for container storage areas and provides guidelines for containment system design. It also requires weekly inspections. At closure, all hazardous wastes and hazardous waste residues must be removed from the containment system and containers must be decontaminated in order to comply with this regulation. Despite these regulations, EPA observed some chemicals that had been released through container failure and that the improper storage and condition of other chemicals posed a high risk of future releases. 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart DD, Containment Buildings, effective in 1993, requires owners and operators of facilities with containment buildings to remove or decontaminate all waste residues, containment system components, subsoils, and structures and equipment contaminated with waste or leachate, and manage them as hazardous waste. Owners and operators must generate closure plans and cost estimates, perform closure activities, and acquire financial responsibilities for containment buildings. If owners and operators cannot effectively remove or decontaminate contaminated components, subsoils, structures, and equipment, they must close the facility and perform post-closure care, including acquiring financial responsibility. 40 CFR Part 268, Land Disposal Restrictions, became effective in 1986 and designates and regulates certain wastes as prohibited under RCRA. 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart C, Prohibitions on Land Disposal, prohibits land disposal of specific wastes including wood preserving wastes, dioxin-containing wastes, soils with toxicity characteristics of metals and PCBs, toxicity characteristic metal wastes, inorganic chemical wastes, and ignitable and corrosive wastes, among others. 40 CFR Part 268.2 defines land disposal as placement in or on the land, except in a corrective action management unit or staging pile, including but not limited to, placement in a landfill, surface impoundment, waste pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt dome formation, salt bed formation, underground mine or cave, or placement in a concrete vault, or bunker intended for disposal purposes. EPA disposed of RCRA hazardous waste which included toxic, corrosive, and ignitable wastes. These wastes likely qualified as prohibited wastes. 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart E, Prohibitions on Storage, requires such prohibited wastes be stored in tanks, containers, or containment buildings at disposal facilities, and stipulates that wastes 175 ------- may only be stored to facilitate their proper recovery, treatment, and disposal. It further prohibits storage of prohibited wastes for more than one year. The State of Washington regulates hazardous waste in Chapter 173-303 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Dangerous Waste Regulations. Effective in 1984, this regulation applies to dangerous wastes, which includes any material that is accumulated, used, reused, or handled in a manner that poses a threat to public health or the environment. The characteristics of ignitibility, toxicity, and corrosivity of the wastes at the site likely qualified these wastes as dangerous under WAC 173-303. The chapter 1) provides for surveillance and monitoring of dangerous and extremely hazardous wastes until they are detoxified, reclaimed, neutralized, or disposed of safely; (2) establishes a system for manifesting, tracking, reporting, monitoring, recordkeeping, sampling, and labeling dangerous and extremely hazardous wastes; (3) establishes the siting, design, operation, closure, post-closure, financial, and monitoring requirements for dangerous and extremely hazardous waste transfer, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; (4) establishes design, operation, and monitoring requirements for managing the state's extremely hazardous waste disposal facility; (5) establishes a program for permitting dangerous and extremely hazardous waste management facilities; and (7) sets forth recycling, reuse, reclamation, and recovery standards for dangerous waste. In addition to RCRA hazardous and toxic waste, chemicals found at the site are also designated as CERCLA hazardous substances. 40 CFR Part 302.4 lists potassium hydroxide, ferric sulfate, ferrous sulfate, cupric sulfate, cupric sulfate, and chromate as hazardous substances. 40 CFR Part 302, Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification, effective in 1985, requires notification to the National Response Center (NRC) of releases of CERCLA hazardous substances above reportable quantities. Nitric acid is not only a hazardous substance requiring release reporting under 40 CFR Part 302, but also a CERCLA toxic under 40 CFR Part 372.65 and a CERCLA extremely hazardous substance under 40 CFR Part 355 Appendix A. 40 CFR Part 372, Toxic Chemical Release Reporting, requires notification of releases of CERCLA toxic chemicals. This part requires facility owners and operators to submit reports on releases of toxic chemicals to the Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI). CERCLA Toxic Chemical Release Reporting regulations were effective as of 1988. 40 CFR Part 355, Emergency Planning and Notification requirements, effective in 1986, requires facilities that handle CERCLA extremely hazardous substances above certain thresholds to disclose information to allow state and local authorities to develop and implement chemical emergency response plans. It is unlikely that this residential facility handled nitric acid above the threshold quantity of 1,000 pounds listed in 40 CFR Part 355 Appendix A; however, if this were the case, the site owner was required to disclose information about its operations. Finally, nitric acid is also a highly hazardous substance under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), as codified in 29 CFR Part 1910.119 Appendix A. Effective in 1992, 29 CFR Part 1910.11, Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, requires employers to develop a plan of employee implementation, complete a compilation of written process safety information, perform process hazard analyses, establish written operating procedures, conduct trainings, conduct incident investigations, establish emergency action plans, and conduct compliance audits for processes involving hazardous chemicals. In addition, the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standards (HAZWOPER) at 29 CFR Parts 1910.120 and 1926.65, 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 176 ------- response guidelines for hazardous waste operations. If the site owner's chemical recycling business had employees, it was required to comply with OSHA regulations. The State of Washington also regulates workplaces and hazardous substances in workplaces. For example, Chapter 296-67 WAC, Safety Standards for Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, effective in 1992, sets forth process safety management standards for facilities handling highly hazardous chemicals. These standards relate to process hazard information and analysis, operating procedures manual development, training, contractors, prestart up safety reviews, mechanical integrity, management of change processes, incident investigation, emergency planning and response, hot work permits, and compliance audits. Chapter 296-901 WAC, Globally Harmonized System for Hazard Communication, effective in 2013, establishes rules to ensure that the hazards of all chemicals produced or imported to a workplace are classified, and that information concerning the classified hazards is transmitted to employers and employees. The transmittal of information is to be accomplished by means of comprehensive hazard communication programs, which are to include container labeling and other forms of warning, safety data sheets and employee training. The site had many unlabeled and unknown chemicals and was thus likely in violation of this regulation. Furthermore, WAC 296-843, Hazardous Waste Operations, establishes rules to protect the health and safety of employees working in hazardous waste facilities. Rules relate to record keeping, training, safety and protective equipment, site-specific health and safety plans, and more. These rules went into effect in 2004. Due to the numerous hazardous substances found spilled and in deteriorating containers throughout the site, a suite of modern environmental regulations potentially applied to this site. However, while EPA discovered and cleaned up the site in 2016, it is not clear when this site was abandoned. Further, the site owner was deceased at the time of EPA's removal. Site abandonment may therefore have occurred due to the site owner's death rather than intentional abandonment. References: • Action Memorandum, March 3, 2016. • On-Scene Coordinate (OSC) Site Profile. Accessed July 12, 2019 at: https://response.epa.gov/site/site profile.aspx?site id=11378 • Pollution Report #4, January 29, 2016. 177 ------- |