## An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated with

Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

Appendix 1: Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary MaterialsAppendix 1 December 201 4

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 1 Appendix 1 Contents Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

Damage Case State Damage Case
Reference*

2303 Kennedy Street Site Minnesota U.S. EPA, 2007 43rd Street Bay Drum and Steel Company Florida U.S. EPA, 2007
Aerospace Recycling (Gerald B. Stringham, Jr.) Florida U.S. EPA, 2007 Agmet Metals, Incorporated Ohio U.S. EPA, 2014 Agrifos Fertilizer Texas U.S. EPA, 2014

Air Products LLC. Texas U.S. EPA, 2014

Alco Pacific California U.S. EPA, 2007 Allied Signal Hydrofluoric Acid Plant Louisiana U.S. EPA, 2008
Alternate Energy Resources, Inc. Georgia U.S. EPA, 2007 Amacor Residential/Amacor Magnesium Fire Indiana U.S. EPA, 2007

American Brass Alabama U.S. EPA, 2007
American Iron Oxide Company (AMROX) Pennsylvania U.S. EPA, 2011 American Metals Recovery Corporation New Jersey U.S. EPA, 2014 American Recovery Corp., Inc. Maryland U.S. EPA, 2007
American Recycling Company Ohio U.S. EPA, 2007 Anzon Incorporated Texas U.S. EPA, 2014 Aqua

- Tech Environmental, Inc. (Groce Laboratories) South Carolina U.S. EPA, 2007
Arkla Terra Property Florida U.S. EPA, 2014 ASARCO Zinc Oxide Production Facility Ohio U.S. EPA, 2008 Atlantic Resources Corporation New Jersey U.S. EPA, 2007
Aztec Mercury Texas U.S. EPA, 2007

Back Waste Oil New York U.S. EPA, 2007

Baldwin Waste Oil Texas U.S. EPA, 2007

Baron Blakeslee California U.S. EPA, 2007

Baron Blakeslee Oregon U.S. EPA, 2007 Basin Oil Company Washington U.S. EPA, 2014Appendix 1 December 201 4

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 2

Damage Case State Damage Case
Reference*

Battery Tech (Duracell

- Lexington) North Carolina U.S. EPA, 2007 Bay Area Metals Recycling West Virginia U.S. EPA, 2014 Bay Zinc Company Inc. Washington U.S. EPA, 2007
Beacon Battery Company Washington U.S. EPA, 2007

Beede Waste Oil New Hampshire U.S. EPA, 2007 Bergsoe Metal Corporation Oregon U.S. EPA, 2007

Berman Steel

– Salinas California U.S. EPA, 2007

Bern Metals New York U.S. EPA, 2007 Bingham & Taylor Virginia U.S. EPA, 2007
Blue Ridge Solvents and Coatings, Inc. Virginia U.S. EPA, 2011

Boro Auto Wreckers New Jersey U.S. EPA, 2007 Boulden Incorporated Maryland U.S. EPA, 2007

Breslube

- Penn, Inc. Pennsylvania U.S. EPA, 2007

Cal West Metals New Mexico U.S. EPA, 2007 Callaway & Son Drum Service Florida U.S. EPA, 2007

Carter Industrials Inc. Michigan U.S. EPA, 2007 Century 21 Paints Ohio U.S. EPA, 2007 CFF Recycling Titanium Fire Texas U.S. EPA, 2007

Chemetco Illinois U.S. EPA, 2014 Chemical and Pigment Company California U.S. EPA, 2007 Chemical Recovery (EQ Resource Recovery/Michigan Recovery) Michigan U.S. EPA, 2008

Chem

- Solv, Inc. Delaware U.S. EPA, 2007 Chief Supply/Greenway Environmental Oklahoma U.S. EPA, 2007
Circle Smelting Corporation Illinois U.S. EPA, 2007 Clayton Chemical Company Illinois U.S. EPA, 2007

CleanCare Corporation Washington U.S. EPA, 2007

College Grove Battery Chip Tennessee U.S. EPA, 2008 U.S. EPA, 2007Appendix 1 December 201 4

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 3

Damage Case State Damage Case
Reference*

Columbus Steel Drum Company Ohio U.S. EPA, 2007 Commodity Refining Exchange California U.S. EPA, 2007

Conbraco Industries South Carolina U.S. EPA, 2007

Consolidated Iron and Metal New York U.S. EPA, 2007 Consolidated Recycling, Inc. New Hampshire U.S. EPA, 2007 Continental Steel Corp. Indiana U.S. EPA, 2007
Cooper Drum Co. California U.S. EPA, 2007 County Line Auto Parts (Imthurn Drum Site) Ohio U.S. EPA, 2007

CoZinCo Colorado U.S. EPA, 2007
Crawfordsville Scrap and Salvage Indiana U.S. EPA, 2007 Crosby Motors Florida U.S. EPA, 2007 Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc. New Jersey U.S. EPA, 2007
Cycle Chem Incorporated New Jersey U.S. EPA, 2007

Danmark Inc. Florida U.S. EPA, 2007 David John Property Indiana U.S. EPA, 2007
Davis Chemical Company California U.S. EPA, 2007 Dearborn Refining Company Michigan U.S. EPA, 2014

Delatte Metals Louisiana U.S. EPA, 2007

Dennis Residence Oregon U.S. EPA, 2007 Diamond State Salvage Delaware U.S. EPA, 2007

Dixie Barrel and Drum Tennessee U.S. EPA, 2007
Dixie Oil Processors, Inc. Texas U.S. EPA, 2007 Don's Recycling aka All Salvaged Auto Parts Florida U.S. EPA, 2007 Dyno Battery Washington U.S. EPA, 2007
East Penn Manufacturing Co, Inc. Pennsylvania U.S. EPA, 2007 Echo Valley Recycling Enterprises Missouri U.S. EPA, 2007

Efros Barrel Co. Rhode Island U.S. EPA, 2007
Emerald Recycling Washington U.S. EPA, 2007Appendix 1 December 201 4

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 4

Damage Case State Damage Case
Reference*

Encycle/ Texas Inc. Texas U.S. EPA, 2007 Energy Savings LTD, Inc. Florida U.S. EPA, 2007 ENRX, Inc. (formerly Voelker Analysis) New York U.S. EPA, 2007
Environmental Pacific Corporation Oregon U.S. EPA, 2007 Environmental Processing Services Ohio U.S. EPA, 2007
Environmental Waste Resources, Inc. Illinois U.S. EPA, 2007
Enviropur West Corporation California U.S. EPA, 2007 Exide Technologies (formerly GNB Technologies, Inc) Georgia U.S. EPA, 2007

Far Star Tennessee U.S. EPA, 2007

Federated Metals California U.S. EPA, 2007

Feldman Barrel & Drum New York U.S. EPA, 2007
Florida Petroleum Reprocessors Florida U.S. EPA, 2007

Franklin Burn New Jersey U.S. EPA, 2007 Franklin Slag Pile (MDC Industries, Inc.) Pennsylvania U.S. EPA, 2007

G2 Revolution Ohio U.S. EPA, 2014 Gettysburg Foundry Specialties Company Pennsylvania U.S. EPA, 2007

Gibson Environmental California U.S. EPA, 2007
GNB Incorporated (Exide Technologies) California U.S. EPA, 2007

Grant Warehouse Oregon U.S. EPA, 2007 Griffin Pipe Products Company New Jersey U.S. EPA, 2007

Halaco Engineering Company California U.S. EPA, 2014 U.S. EPA, 2008 Hand in Hand Recycling Washington U.S. EPA, 2007
Harding Metals, Inc. New Hampshire U.S. EPA, 2007

Hassan Barrel Company, Inc. Indiana U.S. EPA, 2011 U.S. EPA, 2007 Hayes Lemmerz International Inc. Indiana U.S. EPA, 2007

Helms Drum Service Florida U.S. EPA, 2007Appendix 1 December 201 4

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 5

Damage Case State Damage Case
Reference*

Heritage Environmental Services Indiana U.S. EPA, 2007 High

- Tech Now Oregon U.S. EPA, 2007 Holloway Oil Company Florida U.S. EPA, 2007
Horsehead Resource Development Corporation Pennsylvania U.S. EPA, 2011

Horseshoe Road New Jersey U.S. EPA, 2007 Hudson Technologies, Inc. New York U.S. EPA, 2007
Huff Battery Salvage South Carolina U.S. EPA, 2007 Hydromet Environmental USA Incorporated Illinois U.S. EPA, 2007

Hydromex Mississippi U.S. EPA, 2008 U.S. EPA, 2007

Industrial Pollution Control Mississippi U.S. EPA, 2007

Industrial Solvents and Chemical Co. Pennsylvania U.S. EPA, 2007
Intermountain Waste Oil Refinery Utah U.S. EPA, 2007 International Processing Specialists (IPS) Florida U.S. EPA, 2007
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO) Alabama U.S. EPA, 2007
Island Recycling Washington U.S. EPA, 2007 J Pitt Melt Shop Illinois U.S. EPA, 2007

J. C. Pennco Waste Oil Service Texas U.S. EPA, 2007

Jack Goins Waste Oil Tennessee U.S. EPA, 2007
JG Grant & Sons, Inc. Massachusetts U.S. EPA, 2007
Joe Sikes Oil Service, Inc. Georgia U.S. EPA, 2007

Joel C. Patterson and AC Florida U.S. EPA, 2007

John Alexander Research California U.S. EPA, 2007 K&D Salvage California U.S. EPA, 2007
Kempton Brothers, Inc. Florida U.S. EPA, 2007

Leeds Metal Maine U.S. EPA, 2014 Lighting Recyclers, Inc. Oregon U.S. EPA, 2007
Lightman Drum Company New Jersey U.S. EPA, 2007 Liquid Chemical Corp. California U.S. EPA, 2007Appendix 1 December 201 4

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 6

Damage Case State Damage Case
Reference*

Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co. California U.S. EPA, 2007
Lubrx Products, Inc. Massachusetts U.S. EPA, 2007 Lyon Property Texas U.S. EPA, 2007
Malone Services Company

- Swan Lake Plant Texas U.S. EPA, 2007

Many Diversified Interests (Can

- Am) Texas U.S. EPA, 2008 U.S. EPA, 2007

Maralco Washington U.S. EPA, 2007

Marine Shale Processors Louisiana U.S. EPA, 2007
Martin Aaron, Inc. New Jersey U.S. EPA, 2007

Master Metals Inc. Ohio U.S. EPA, 2007

Matteo Iron and Metal New Jersey U.S. EPA, 2007 McBay Oil and Gas Texas U.S. EPA, 2007
Melton Kelly Property Texas U.S. EPA, 2007 Mercury Refining, Inc. New York U.S. EPA, 2007 Metals Recycling, LLC Rhode Island U.S. EPA, 2007
Metro Container Corporation Pennsylvania U.S. EPA, 2014 Miami Battery Florida U.S. EPA, 2007

Midwest Guardian Ohio U.S. EPA, 2007

Missouri Electric Works Missouri U.S. EPA, 2007 Mobile Smelting California U.S. EPA, 2007
Moreco Energy, Inc. Illinois U.S. EPA, 2007
Myers Drum California U.S. EPA, 2007

National Oil Services Connecticut U.S. EPA, 2007 New England Container Co. Rhode Island U.S. EPA, 2007
Newark Processing Ohio U.S. EPA, 2008 Nooksack Valley Disposal Washington U.S. EPA, 2007
Northwest Transformer (Mission/Pole) Washington U.S. EPA, 2007
Nucor Corporation, Inc. North Carolina U.S. EPA, 2007 Old Bridge Chemicals, Inc. / Madison Industries New Jersey U.S. EPA, 2007Appendix 1 December 201 4

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 7

Damage Case State Damage Case
Reference*

Old ESCO Manufacturing Texas U.S. EPA, 2014

Old Salem Tannery II Virginia U.S. EPA, 2007 Omega Chemical Corporation California U.S. EPA, 2007

OMG Air Emissions Utah U.S. EPA, 2007 ONARP Inc. (Mel's Battery) Ohio U.S. EPA, 2007

P4 Production LLC

- Monsanto Idaho U.S. EPA, 2007
Pagano Salvage New Mexico U.S. EPA, 2007 Parawax Reclaiming, Inc. Oklahoma U.S. EPA, 2007

Peck Iron and Metal Virginia U.S. EPA, 2014
PECO Energy Company (Exelon) Pennsylvania U.S. EPA, 2007

Pellestar Limited Michigan U.S. EPA, 2007 Petrochem Recycling Corp./Ekotek Plant Utah U.S. EPA, 2007
Phelps Dodge New Cornelia Branch Facility Arizona U.S. EPA, 2008

Pick

- Your

- Part Auto Recyclers California U.S. EPA, 2014 Pittsburgh Metal & Equipment New Jersey U.S. EPA, 2007
Poly

- Cycle Industries, Tecula Texas U.S. EPA, 2007 Progressive Marketing Group, Inc. Florida U.S. EPA, 2007 Queen City Barrel Co. Ohio U.S. EPA, 2007
Quicksilver Products, Inc. California U.S. EPA, 2007
R. Lavin & Sons, Inc. Illinois U.S. EPA, 2007 Raleigh Street Dump Florida U.S. EPA, 2014
Recyclights West California U.S. EPA, 2008 Red Jacket Salvage Yard West Virginia U.S. EPA, 2007

Red River Aluminum Arkansas U.S. EPA, 2007

Refined Metals Tennessee U.S. EPA, 2007 Reflex Recycling Washington U.S. EPA, 2007

Re

- Gen Incorporated Ohio U.S. EPA, 2014
Revere Smelting and Refining Corporation of NJ New York U.S. EPA, 2007Appendix 1 December 201 4

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 8

Damage Case State Damage Case
Reference*

Rho Chem Corp California U.S. EPA, 2007

Rineco Chemical Arkansas U.S. EPA, 2014 River Recycling Industries, Inc. Ohio U.S. EPA, 2007

Rockwool Industries, Inc. Texas U.S. EPA, 2007 Rogene French Alcohol Missouri U.S. EPA, 2007
Romarc Industries (Ron Roberts) Florida U.S. EPA, 2007
Romic Environmental Technologies Arizona U.S. EPA, 2011 Romic Environmental Technologies California U.S. EPA, 2011
Ross Metals, Inc. Tennessee U.S. EPA, 2007

Rouse Steel Drum Florida U.S. EPA, 2007

Rowe Paint and Plas

- Chem Coatings (Wilmer Rowe) Florida U.S. EPA, 2007 SA Recycling California U.S. EPA, 2014

SafCo Environmental Washington U.S. EPA, 2007 Safety Kleen Corporation Maryland U.S. EPA, 2007 Safety

- Kleen (Hebron) Ohio U.S. EPA, 2007
Safety

- Kleen (San Jose Facility) California U.S. EPA, 2007 Safety

- Kleen Corporation, Reedley Recycling Center California U.S. EPA, 2007 Safety

- Kleen Corporation, Rohnert Park California U.S. EPA, 2007
Safety

- Kleen Envirosystems Company New Jersey U.S. EPA, 2007 Safety

- Kleen Systems, Inc. Virginia U.S. EPA, 2007 Safety

- Kleen, Inc., El Monte California U.S. EPA, 2007
Sandoval Zinc Company Illinois U.S. EPA, 2014 Saran Protective Coatings Michigan U.S. EPA, 2007 Schuylkill Metals Corp. Florida U.S. EPA, 2007
Scorpio Recycling, Inc. Puerto Rico U.S. EPA, 2007

Sentco Paints Ohio U.S. EPA, 2007 Sierra Battery Sales California U.S. EPA, 2007
Singleton Battery Florida U.S. EPA, 2007Appendix 1 December 201 4

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 9

Damage Case State Damage Case
Reference*

Singleton Battery/TPA Florida U.S. EPA, 2007

Smith Chemical Ohio U.S. EPA, 2007 Smokey Mountain Smelters Tennessee U.S. EPA, 2014
SoGreen, Parramore Fertilizer, Barren Area Georgia U.S. EPA, 2007 South Brunswick Asphalt New Jersey U.S. EPA, 2007 Spectron, Inc. Maryland U.S. EPA, 2007

Standard Chlorine of Delaware Delaware U.S. EPA, 2007 Supreme Asset Management and Recovery New Jersey U.S. EPA, 2014 Sybill Oil Michigan U.S. EPA, 2014

Tetra Micronutrients (formerly American Microtrace) Nebraska U.S. EPA, 2007 The Battery Recycling Company Puerto Rico U.S. EPA, 2014

Thermo Fluids Oregon U.S. EPA, 2007

Thermochem Inc. Michigan U.S. EPA, 2007 Tonolli Corporation Pennsylvania U.S. EPA, 2007

Tri

- City Oil Conservationist, Inc. Florida U.S. EPA, 2007
U.S. Antimony Corporation Mine and Smelter Montana U.S. EPA, 2008 U.S. Oil Recovery Texas U.S. EPA, 2014 U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Incorporated Indiana U.S. EPA, 2014

UNC Recovery Corp. Florida U.S. EPA, 2007 Union Foundry Alabama U.S. EPA, 2008 United Metal Recovery California U.S. EPA, 2007
United Metals, Inc. Florida U.S. EPA, 2007 V&M/Albaladejo Puerto Rico U.S. EPA, 2007 Victor Industrial Battery California U.S. EPA, 2007

Voda Petroleum Inc. Texas U.S. EPA, 2007

W aste Research & Reclamation Co. Wisconsin U.S. EPA, 2008 U.S. EPA, 2007 Webb Mineral/TNT General Contracting Site Missouri U.S. EPA, 2014 Yellow Water Road Dump Florida U.S. EPA, 2007Appendix 1 December 201 4

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 10

Damage Case State Damage Case
Reference*

Zimble Drum Massachusetts U.S. EPA, 2007 Zollo Drum Company Connecticut U.S. EPA, 2007 Zschiegner Refining Co. New Jersey U.S. EPA, 2007 * Damage Case References:

U.S. EPA, 2014

, An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated with Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials , Draft , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Reso urce Conservation and Recovery, December 10 , 20 14 . ( Current report )

U.S. EPA, 2011, 2011Addendu m: An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated with Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, June 30, 2011.

U.S. EPA, 2008, Addendum: An Assessment of Environmen tal Problems Associated with Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, June 14, 2008.

U.S. EPA, 2007, An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated with Recycling of Hazardous Secondary M

aterials , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, January 11, 2007.Appendix 1 December 201 4

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 11 Site Information:
Site Name: 2303 Kennedy Street Site
EPA ID No.: MND985743616
Address: 2303 Kennedy St., Minneapolis, MN County: Hennepin
NPL Site: No

In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Kennedy Building Site was the location of a warehouse, manufacturing, and electrical apparatus repair shop operated by Westinghouse Corporation from 1925 to 1980. It is believed that Westinghouse used a piping system to distribute polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)

- containing fluids to various work areas throughout the building. Further, at least two underground storage tanks were on the site at one
time

. One tank, located in a vaunt inside the building, is currently used for fuel storage; a second tank was located outside the building and was removed in 1987.

More recently a known repeat scam recycler was taking electronics waste from schools and non

profits, saying that he would recycle it for free

. Instead, the man sold components and parts, and abandoned the rest in the building on

- site

. Investigative work has been coordinated by the building owner and focused on determining the extent of PCB contamination in soil and

gro undwater

. The landlord sought cleanup costs and lost rent from people who had recycled the equipment.

Description of Contamination : Damage at this site was caused by the sham electronics recycler, not from Westinghouse Corporation which was not involved i n recycling

. Soil samples from soil borings at the site contain elevated levels of PCBs and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and lead. PCBs were also detected in wipe samples taken from interior surfaces of the building. Ground water samples at the site h ave high levels of chlorobenzenes and PCBs. Chlorobenzenes were typically used as carriers or solvents for PCBs. Offsite migration of the contaminants is suspected and two commercial wells are located within one

- tenth mile downgradient of the site. Even th ough PCBs were detected in the upper two feet of soil at the site, the soil pathway cannot be scored under USEPA’s Hazard Ranking System because the soil is covered by asphalt.

PCB

- laden oils were widely used as coolants and lubricants in electrical trans formers and capacitors until the manufacture of them was banned in the United States in 1997 because they are persistent, accumulate in the environment and are toxic to exposed humans and otherAppendix 1 December 201 4

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 12 animals. The former on

- site manufacturing and maintenance of e lectrical equipment by the Westinghouse Corporation is thought to be the source of the contamination.

Sources of Information: Minnesota Department of Health Consultation Report. September 2001. 25 January 2006. http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/sites/hennepin/kndyst0900.pdf

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. "2001 Superfund List: Permanent List of Priorities." June 2001. 17 January 2006. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/programs/pubs/plp

- 2001.pdf

Additional Contacts:
Mike Risse 612

- 348

- 57Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 13 Site Information

Site Name: 43 rd St. Bay Drum and Steel Company
EPA ID No.: FLR000033514
Address: 1608 North 43 rd St, Tampa, FL 33605

- 5938 County: Hillsborough
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0407014

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: This drum recycling site operated from
mid

- 1996 to June 1999

. The Bay Drum and Steel Company specialized in the washing and reconditioning of drums and containers

. Although the company was limited by per mit to the types of containers that could be processed at the facility, the company in reality took any kind of container without questions

. This included drums that had contained pesticides and solvents

. The company also was only allowed to accept empty d rums for washing

. They washed used metal and plastic drums that had contained a variety of products including pesticides, solvents, acids,
and caustics

. The process included spraying a methylene chloride solution on the labels to aid in their removal, soak ing the drums in a caustic solution, pressure washing the drums, drying the drums, and painting them if necessary

. It is known that the company accepted and washed drums
that contained various amounts of chemicals

.

Bay Drum and Steel Company was under in vestigation for almost eight years for suspected violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and RCRA

. The owner of the company, Mr. Benkovitz, pleaded guilty to violations of CWA and RCRA in 1997 and 1999

. He ordered his employees to illegally discharge waste water into a storm sewer that empties into Tampa's McKay Bay. Benkovitz also admitted that he directed employees of Bay Drum, to dump polluted wastewater on property adjacent to Bay Drum's 43 rd Street facility from April until June 1998. During these perio ds, the company generated thousands of gallons of wastewater each week containing several pollutants, including spent pesticides and methyl chloride, a highly toxic solvent. While awaiting sentencing he was under a RCRA Order but failed to comply (and

comm itted additional violations)

. He was sentenced and the site became a CERCLA Emergency Removal Action (Oct. 1999)

.

Description of Contamination : About 20,000 empty drums and 60,000 gallons of liquid
hazardous wastes have been removed from the site

. The cleanup costs were $3,285,094.17

. The site was transferred to the Florida Brownfields Program

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 14 The site is contaminated with multiple hazardous substances including lead, chromium, and methylene chloride.

Sources of Information: Black, Trevor. (Associa te Regional Counsel, Office of Environmental Accountability, EPA Region 4). Email Correspondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste). 31 October
2005.

EPA Region 4

. “Administrative Record Index for the Forty

- Third Street Bay Drum Removal
Site.” 25 Oc tober 2000

. 19 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/Region4/waste/errb/43bayst.pdf

EPA Region 4. “Enforcement & Compliance Assurance Accom plishments Report.” Fiscal Year
1999. 19 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region4/ead/attachments/1999_accomplishments_report.pdf

US Department of Justice. “Bay Drum and Steel Owner Pleads Guilty to Po lluting Florida Bay Company Discharged Toxics Into Tampa’s Sewer System for Years.” 22 March 1999

. 19 January 2006

. http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1999/March/107enr.htm

.

USEPA. “43 rd St. Bay Drum and Steel Company.” CERCLIS 27 October 2005

. 19 January 2006

. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0407014

USEPA. “43 rd St. Bay Drum and Steel Company .” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.) 19 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110005643090

Additional Contacts: Carmen (Julie) Santiago (RPM) (404) 562

- 894Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 15 Site Information

Site Name: Aerospace Recycling (Gerald B. Stringham, Jr.)
EPA ID No.: FLD984258707
Address: 9689 and 9745 James Creek Road, Christmas, FL County: Orange
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Aerospace Recycling was a scrap metal recycling site abandoned in 1995 with several tanks and drums of circuit boards, capacitors, transformers, electronic equipment, metal shavings, sludge, oily liquids, pro pane tanks, crucibles for lead smelting, junk vehicles, and other solid waste left lying outside.

Description of Contamination : Soil is contaminated with arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and
lead.

Sources of Information : Posner, Augusta. (State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection)

. Email Correspondence to Dave Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 17 March 2005

.

USEPA. “Aerospace Recycling.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.)

. 19 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110007466081

Additional Contacts : Augusta Posner (FDEP) (850) 245

- 2282, augusta.posner@dep.state.fl.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 16 Site Name: Agmet Metals, Incorporated

. EPA ID No.: OHD986976348
Address: 7800 Medusa Road, Oakwood Village, OH County: Cuyhoga
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: OHD986976348

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Incorporated in September 1981, Agmet Metals Inc. (Agmet) operates a metal hydroxide recycling and metal oxide concentrate production facility in Oakwood Village, Ohio. Agmet accepts un

- reclaimed electroplating sludge s (F006), and performs partial reclam ation through its kiln processing of the F006 waste

. The waste F006 is then sent to a smelter elsewhere for the final reclamation process

. Under RCRA, the partially

- reclaimed F006 waste produced by Agmet is still a listed F006 waste until it
smelted into a usable product. According to a State of West Virginia contact, Agmet does not manifest the partially

- reclaimed waste when shipping it to the smelter (Gable, 2012)

.

In addition to un

- reclamed electroplating sludges, Agmet receives wastes from circuit boar d printers, copper metal finishers, and the fats and oils industries. T he facility receives spent catalysts, grindings, solutions, and dusts, all of which are recycled by concentrating the levels of nickel, cobalt, copper, tin, and/or zinc from the wastes. The main process used by Agmet is calcination, which converts the metal hydroxide into metal oxides suitable for resale to smelters. Further processing, packaging, and shipping of the concentrates occurs at Agmet’s facility in Maple Heights, Ohio.

In 200 1, the Ohio EPA granted the facility a variance on the classification of the filtercakes used in its recycling process, changing their designation as a hazardous waste to ease the permit and management requirements. In 2005, the Ohio EPA conducted a compli ance inspection, and cited the facility for a number of violations for improper labeling and management of hazardous wastes on the site. In 2007, a second inspection found the facility again guilty on a number of counts of improper management of hazardous wastes. Most violations were in response to improper management of the metal hydroxide bearing filtercake, as well as lack of spill response plans and documentation for a number of spills that had occurred. As a result of the violations, the Ohio EPA assig

ned a penalty of $23,000. Following the inspection in 2007, Agmet removed all visible contamination resulting from releases at the facility and made attempts to improve its operation and reduce the risk of future releases.

Description of Contamination: Th e primary contamination at the Agmet facility is related to the improper management of wastes received for recycling as well as the recycled products,Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 17 mainly metal concentrates. Inspections of the facility found evidence of waste mismanagement
and evidence of spills and unauthorized releases of metal hydroxide and metal concentrate at the facility. The result of the violations, including spills, discovered by the Ohio EPA is that Agmet was issued a penalty of $23,000. Following the inspection the Ohio EPA n oted that Agmet had removed all visible contamination resulting from releases and corrected most of the unlawful management practices. Agmet also indicated that as of 2010 they had spent approximately $475,000 making various improvements to the facility de signed to reduce the risk of unintended
releases.

Sources of Information:

1. Gable, Dale. State of West Virginia

. Personal communication (email) with Amanda Kohler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 8, 2012.

2. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Agmet LLC. Directors Final Findings and
Orders. 2010. Accessed Online. November 2011 : http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/32/pdf/Signed%20Orders.web.Agmet.3.24 .10.pdf

3. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Agmet Metals Inc. Variance from
Classification as a Waste. 2005. Accessed Online. November 2011 : http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/32/pdf/Signed%20Orders.web.Agmet.3.24.10.pdf

4. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Public Notice. Ohio EPA Issues Notice of
Tentative Decision to Issue a Variance from Classification as a Waste.

5. Ohio Environmental Protecti on Agency. News Release: Ohio EPA Settles with Cuyahoga County Company for Hazardous Waste Violations. April 2010. Accessed
Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.state. oh.us/portals/47/nr/2011/august/HukillChemical.pdf

6. USEPA. Facility Registry Systems. Facility Detail Report. Agmet Metals Inc. Accessed
Online. November 2011 : http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=OHD 986976348&pgm_sys_acrnm_in=RCRAINFOAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 18 Site Name: Agrifos Fertilizer
EPA ID No.: TXD099387474 and TXN000606820
Address: 2001 Jackson Road, Pasadena, TX County: Harris
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: TXN000606820

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Agrifos Fertilizer (Agrifos) facility located in Pasadena, Texas on the south bank of the Houston ship Channel was built during World War II as a munitions facility. Olin Chemical sold the site to Mobil Mining in the 1970s and Agrifos purchased the site in 1998. Mobil Oil merged with Exxon and became known as ExxonMobil. Under the Asset Purchase Agreement ExxonMobi l retained responsibility for closing all the existing gypsum stacks and dispose of the wastewater at the Agrifos Site once Agrifos ceased use of the stacks. The facility consists of a chemical plant, wastewater treatment plant, and a gypsum disposal field . Agrifos filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2001, subsequently reorganized, and emerged from bankruptcy in June 2003

. Agrifos purchased
another 323 acres from the Port of Houston in 2007.

Agrifos manufactures sulfuric acid and various grades of phosphate fertilizers, which involved the production of phosphoric acid by reacting sulfuric acid with Phosphate/mineral ores. Since 1972, Agrifos and its predecessor, ExxonMobil obtained majority of its sulfuric acid used in the fertilizer production from Air Produ cts LLC, a neighboring/adjacent facility. Agrifos and its predecessor ExxonMobil manufactured sulfuric acid, which was sold to Air Products. Air Products used the acid in its manufacturing operation and then returned a stream of spent acid laden with 2,4 d initrotoluene (2,4

- DNT) to Agrifos. Agrifos used this recycled spent acid to digest phosphate ore and throughout its fertilizer manufacturing process

. Neither Air Products nor Agrifos managed the spent acid properly as a RCRA hazardous waste. Agrifos did n ot have a permit or interim status to own or operate a hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facility (TSD). Agrifos/Exxonmobil alleged that its operation was subject to the mineral processing Bevill exemption. For ExxonMobil contribution to manag ement and illegal disposal of hazardous waste at the Agrifos Fertilizer, Inc. site during its tenure of ownership from the 1970’s to 1998 lead to an Administrative Penalty Order for $100,000 penalty.

In 2004 and 2006, EPA conducted case development inspec tion at the Agrifos facility as part of the Mining and Mineral Processing Initiative. EPA had concern about the “recyclable material” being used in the phosphoric acid production, the commingling of the wastewater from the Phosphogypsum stacks, and nonhaza rdous permitted Underground Injection Control wells.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 19 The main waste product from the Agrifos mineral processing operations was phosphogypsum, which was stored on site in large piles, or gypsum stacks, along with process wastewater that was placed in impou

ndments located on top of the gypsum stacks. The wastewater that leached through the gypsum stacks was also collected in moats surrounding the stacks. As a result of using the spent acid stream from Air Products, the sulfuric acid used in mineral processin g and the resulting waste stream contained contaminants such as heavy metals, radium, and 2,4 dinitrotoluene (2,4

- DNT).

Description of Contamination: In late August and early September 2007, an unpermitted and
unintended waste release to surface water occu rred from the Agrifos facility. The incident occurred when heavy rain caused a retaining wall to fail, releasing waste process water from a large gypsum mound into the Cotton Patch Bayou and then into the Houston Ship Channel. The discharge was reported to contain sulfuric and phosphoric acid, assorted metals, and to exhibit a pH of 2 .0 and below. More than 16 million gallons of wastewater were released during the incident, and noticeable fish kill occurred in the area of the release. The release was report ed to U.S. EPA’s Emergency Response Team on September 6 th

. Six million gallons of this discharge were pumped by Agrifos in an effort to reduce the pressure on an impoundment retaining wall and allow additional capacity for future rain events. The Agrifos facility resumed normal operation and c a me into compliance with its Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) discharge permits, and requested an emergency permit for the accidental release. Reports estimate that about 30 million gallons of process water remain ed behind the retaining wall, as well as another 175 million gallons in impoundments located on the gypsum mound.

Cleanup of the discharge was mostly undertaken by Agrifos (and predecessor ExxonMobil) as the responsible party, however TCEQ, U.S. EPA, and local agencies all assisted in the monitoring and treatment of affected areas. By the end of September 2007, emergency operations at the site ha d generally ceased and the responsible party continued cleanup measures though they indicated the re was concern about further potential releases from the impoundments.

The primary contamination at the site occurred in 2007 when an impoundment retaining wa ll failed, releasing waste process water from the large gypsum mound. Over 16 million gallons of wastewater were released into the Cotton Patch Bayou and then further into the Houston Ship
Channel. The U.S. Coast Guard confirmed that the released caused a considerable fish kill and a noticeable “dead zone” was observed in the area of the release. Sampling of the discharged wastewater indicated a highly acidic pH of less than 2 .0 , as well as the presence of assorted metals, and 2,4

- DNT.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 20 For Agrifos the rele ase resulted in an order of consent from the state in conjunction with an administrative order for Agrifos and ExxonMobil mismanagement of hazardous waste and
violation of Clean Air Act

- MACT standard for a penalty of nearly $2 million dollars. In July of 2009, TCEQ noted in its monitoring a low pH at the outfall from the gypsum pile and requested U.S. EPA assistance in investigating Agrifos’ attempts to stop acidic discharges.

Agrifos ceased its phosphate rock processing in April 2011 and turned the phosp hogypsum stacks over to ExxonMobil for final closure. On September 27, 2010, ExxonMobil entered into a consent agreement final order (CAFO) with EPA Region 6 in which it agreed to pay a $100,000.00 penalty and continue the final stack closure operations at this facility. Corrective actions at the phosphogypsum stacks are still underway.

Agrifos entered into a CAFO with EPA Region 6 on December 7, 2011. Agrifos agreed to pay a $1.8 million penalty and fund a $600,000.00 Supplemental Environmental Project ( SEP).

Sources of Information:

1. Agrifos Fertilizer. History. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://www.agrifos.com/history.htm

2. Barnes, Chuck. US Environmental Protection Agency

– Region 6. Personal communication (email) with Amanda Kohler , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 12, 2011.

3. Benjamin, Agatha. US Environmental Protection Agency

– Region 6. Personal
communicatio n (email) with Amanda Kohler , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August, 2011.

4. US District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Consent Decree

– Air Products
LLC. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/decrees/civil/rcra/airproducts

- cd.pdf

5. The United States Department of Justice. Texas Chemical Plant to Pay Nearly $1.5 Million to Resolve Violations in the Transferring of Ac id Waste. August 26 2010.

6. USEPA. Facility Registry Systems. Facility Detail Report. Agrifos Fertilizer Pasadena.
Accessed Online. November 2011 : http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=48201 00029&pgm_sys_acrnm_in=AIRS/AFSAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 21 7. USEPA. On Scene Coordinator. Agrifos Acid Spill, Polrep #7

– Completion of Emergency Response Activities and Final PO LREP. September 24 2007. Accessed
Online. November 2011: http://www.epaosc.org/site/polrep_profile.aspx?site_id=3445&counter=6663

8. USEPA. On Scene Coordinator. Agrifos Acid Spill 2

– Profile. Accessed Online.
November 2011: http://www.epaosc.org/site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=5409

9. USEPA. RCRA 7003 Administrativ e Order on Consent. Agrifos Fertilizer Inc and ExxonMobil Corporation. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/region6/6en/h/public

- notice/08

- 0328aocagrifos.pdf

10. USEPA. Superfund (Cerclis). Query Results. Agrifos Phosphoric Acid Release. Accessed
Online. November 2011: http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/cerclisquery.get_report? pgm_sys_id=TXN000606820Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 22 Site Name: Air Products, LLC.
EPA ID No.: TXD990757486
Address: 1425 Hwy 225 Pasadena, TX County: Harris
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: TXN000606820

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Air Products LP Pasadena Plant (Air Products) facility consists of an approximate 105

- acre tract located in an industrial, commercial and residential area on the north side of State Highway 225 within the city limits of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas

. Air Prod ucts began site operations in 1970s and produces chemical intermediates used in the manufacturing of polyurethane and hydrogen gas

. Intermediate products include dinitrotoluene (DNT), toluenediamine (TDA) and nitric acid

. Air Products is notified as a larg e quantity generator. The Air Products is divided into four major process units: (1) DNT Plant, (2) Sulfuric Acid Concentration Plant, (3) TDA Plant, and (4)
Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Air Products began recycling/disposing its spent sulfuric hazardous waste at its neighboring Agifro facility in the 1970s, when ExxonMobil (Mobil Mining) purchased the Agrifos site from
Olin Chemical

. A contractual relationship existed between ExxonMobil and Air Products regarding the recycling of the sulfuric spent acid g enerated from the Air Products DNT production plant

. When Agrifos purchased the site in 1998, Agrifos maintained the contractual relationship with Air Products

. Agrifos manufactured and sold sulfuric acid to Air Products, Air
Products used the acid in its manufacturing operation

. When Air Products could no longer utilize the sulfuric acid in the DNT production, Air Products stored a portion of the acid in tanks on its
site and re

- concentrated it in its acid purification plant, now known as the Sulfuric Acid Concentration Plant (SAC)

. The remainder of the spent acid was piped to Agrifos, an adjacent fertilizer facility to be used in its manufacture of fertilizer and phosphoric acid production plant

. This sulfuric acid contained concentrations of 2, 4

- Dinitrot oluene (2, 4

- DNT; hazardous waste code D030) that exceeded the regulatory limit of 0.13 mg/l

. The spent acid also exhibited the hazardous characteristic of corrosivity, with pH below 2.0.

In April 2006, EPA conducted a case development inspection at the s ite and substantiated the sham recycling and illegal disposal of the hazardous waste (spent sulfuric acid) generated from
Air Products DNT Plant

. The inspection was performed as part of the Mineral Processing National Initiative, because of Air Products bu siness association with Agrifos Fertilizers and its predecessor, ExxonMobil

. EPA had concern that the spent acid “product” did not meet theAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 23 criteria for recyclable material pursuant to the Used in a Manner Constituting Disposal regulation.

Description of Contamination : For over 30 years Air Products has disposed over 3 billion pounds of spent acid/hazardous waste a year as a “product” at the Agrifos site

. Agrifos and its predecessor used the spent sulfuric acid as an “ingredient” in its fertilizers that was ultimately applied to the land and throughout its operation and the wastewater from those operations and the phosphoric acid process was disposed of in the phosphogypsum stacks (waste piles with unlined surface impoundment on top)

. Air Products caused Agifros to dispose of billions pounds of corrosive and toxic hazardous a year, through releases and evaporation into the environment

. Because of the mineral processing bevill exclusion, Agrifos was classified as a bevill exempt, conditional exempt small qu antity generator and did not have a permit or interim status to treat, store or dispose of hazardous waste.

Air Products illegal disposal and mismanagement of hazardous waste result in a penalty of $1,485,000 plus $15,000 attorney fees, to manage the spen t acid on site and not ship it to Agrifos Fertilizer or any other facility not authorized to accept it

. Also, Air Products has agreed to notify EPA and TCEQ in the event that the spent acid is either disposed of or sent off site for recycling.
Air Products came into compliance by recycling and reusing its hazardous waste via expanding its operations to include a $60 Million Regeneration Plant (SAC), which ceased the disposal of over 3billion gallons of hazardous waste a year at Agrifos.

Sources of Informat ion:

1. Agrifos Fertilizer. History. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://www.agrifos.com/history.htm

2. Benjamin, Agatha. US Environmental Protection Agency

– Region 6. Personal communication (email) with Am anda Kohler , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August, 2011.

3. US District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Consent Decree

– Air Products
LLC. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/decrees/civil/rcra/airproducts

- cd.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 24 Site Information

Site Name: Alco Pacific
EPA ID No.: CAD008387250
Address: 16914 South Broadway, Carson, CA 90248 County: Los Angeles

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Alco Pacific has operated as a lead recycling facility since 1954

. The primary sources of lead were automobile batteries. The batteries were cracked open, drained of acid and the lead recovered. The rubber debris from seals and plate separators were the only part of the battery that was not recyclable. This waste was stored in a pile on

- site. A second pile was comprised of foundry sands used to make molds. When the facility cea sed operations in 1990, 1,248 cubic yards of rubber debris (lead content 43,000 parts per million (ppm)) and 126 cubic yards of sand (lead content 1,300 ppm) were left
abandoned on

- site. These piles were located on pavement; however, there was not any othe r contaminant to prevent wind dispersal of wastes or to prevent rain leachate from running off of the property. Ninety

- eight drums of assorted wastes were also found on the site. Forty

- six of these drums were found scattered throughout the site and were bu ried in the waste piles which contained resins, catalysts, slag recyclable lead, rainwater/ rinseate, and debris. Fifty

- two of the
drums contained "mixed waste."

Facilities Management Branch, who was handling the issues of illegal operation as a treatment

, storage, and disposal (TSD_ facility, referred the Alco Pacific site to the Site Mitigation Branch after it was apparent that there were no funds available to conduct a RCRA closure. Removal of all known wastes (except the 52 drums of mixed waste) was co nducted with state funds to eliminate an immediate risk to the public from lead exposure. The waste piles of rubber and sand were disposed in November 1993 and the drummed wastes in April 1994. The drums came to be at Alco when in August of 1988, a load of slag being disposed by Alco Pacific tripped a radiation alarm at the Casmalia facility. A subsequent inspection by Los Angeles County had determined the source of radiation to have come into Alco Pacific via a shipment of lead gauge holders (radiation shi

elds). Evidently, one gauge (radiation source) was left in the gauge holder. When this shipment went through the furnace, it contaminated the air pollution control system (bag house), slag, and refractory brick (thermal insulation) within the furnace itsel f. The bag house dust is normally considered to be a "toxic" waste because of the levels of lead and cadmium. By adding the additional radioactive constituent of Cesium 137, the waste stream became what is
known as a "mixed waste"

. The disposal options for mixed wastes are additionally restrictedAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 25 since the disposal facility must comply with engineering specifications for not only radioactive wastes, but toxic wastes as well. Alco Pacific received a Radioactive License from the Department of Health Services, Radiological Health Branch, to store this material on a long term basis. After failing four stabilization tests, the Environ Facility in Utah, accepted the mixed waste. The mixed waste was removed, under order to J.C. Shepard in June 1997. The USEPA

emerg ency response removed all residual surface contamination, equipment and buildings in September 1998.

Description of Contamination: When operations ceased at this site there were piles located on pavement, however, there was not any other contaminant to p revent wind dispersal of wastes or to prevent rain leachate from running off of the property. Groundwater contamination is not
available at this time

.

As of September 2004 expense costs at this site totaled $236,844.33.

Sources of Information:
Califor nia Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Alco Pacific.” Site Cleanup

– Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database. (n.d.). 16 January 2006. http://www.d tsc.ca.gov/database/Calsites/CALP001.CFM?IDNUM=19340753

USEPA. “Alco Pacific.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.)

. 24 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/mu ltisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000913370

USEPA. “Alco Pacific, Inc.” Archived Sites

. 27 October 2005

. 21 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/arcsites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0904453

USEPA. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). 30 September 2004. 13 January 2006.

Additional Contacts: Lori Parnass (PM) (818) 551

- 2856, lparnass@dtsc.ca.gov Jere Johnson (SAM) 415

- 972

- 3094 Matt Mitguard (SAM) 415

- 972

- 3096Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 26 Site Information

Site Name: Allied

- Signal Hydrofluoric Acid Plant
EPA ID No.: LAD041519067
Address: 5525 Highway 3115 at State Route 30, Geismar, LA 70734 County: Ascension
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Fluorogypsum generated from the production of hydrofluoric acid was slurried with process water as it was removed from the furnace. The resulting slurry was transferred through a conduit system to an impoundment on the top of a fluorogypsum stack. Seepage and runoff from the fluorogypsum stack was collected in clay

- lined ditches and flowed into an impoundment referred to as the clearwell. Some water from the clearwell was recycled into various plant operations, while excess water was discharged as
needed in to the Mississippi River via a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitted outfall after passing through a wastewater treatment plant.

Within the time period from 1986 to 1987, in an effort to find a profitable use for the large quantities of gypsum waste accumulating at Allied Signal's facility, an on

- site contractor Louisiana Synthetic Aggregates, Inc. (LASYNAG) began marketing the gypsum as a road base material. The gypsum was reportedly processed by milling (excavating and screening) the material from the fluorogypsum stockpile located at the Allied

- Signal hydrofluoric acid plant in Geismar, Louisiana. Once processed, the fluorogypsum was marketed and shipped as "Florolite." In 1989, a damage case was reported that was associated with the use of fluorogypsum without neutralization from Allied Signal’s facility as an embankment material.

Description of Contamination: In 1987, LASYNAG had the milled fluorogypsum used as road construction material analyzed by several laboratories. One labora tory reported that, with a resistivity of 500 ohms

- cm and a pH of 5.2, the material was considered very corrosive for most iron and steel products. The laboratory also stated that the high sulfate content and the low pH would likely make the material corro sive to concrete as well.

During 1987, after several rounds of requests and data submittals, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LADEQ) Office of
Solid and Hazardous Waste authorized the use o f Florolite on various road shoulders, embankments, and base courses. At least some of these approved projects were completed, including road work at a mobile home park.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 27 In July 1988, the City of New Orleans Department of Streets concluded that the mater ial would be acidic and corrosive for iron, steel, and concrete products and deemed inadvisable the use of Florolite as a road base material in the City.

On June 7, 1989, LASYNAG began construction of a test embankment for the "U.S. Highway 90
relocation construction project" through a stretch of wetlands in southern Louisiana near Amelia. After three weeks, LADEQ responded to complaints of dying biota and found "extremely acidic pH and high conductivity in water adjacent to the roadbed." Construction was ceased immediately.

Ambient surface water samples collected adjacent to the embankment exhibited elevated levels of pH, sulfates, salinity, and specific conductivity, as well as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and
lead. The elevated concentrations in comparison to the more remote ambient surface water sampling locations were attributed by LASYNAG to leaching and/or runoff from the “Florolite” embankment. Under a LADEQ Compliance Order, LASYNAG undertook remedial measures to
remove the environmental haz ard posted by Florolite at the Amelia test site.

Sources of Information: USEPA. “Human Health and Environmental Damage from Mining and Mineral Processing Wastes.” December 1995. 29 January 2008. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/mining/minedock/damage/index.htm

USEPA. “Report to Congress on Special Wastes from Mineral Processing, Chapter 9: Hydrofluoric Acid Product ion.” July 1990. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/mineral/chapter9.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 28 Site Information

Site Name: Alternate Energy Resources, Inc.
EPA ID No.: GAD033582461
Address: 2936 Walden Drive, Augusta, GA 30904 County: Richmond

NPL Site: Proposed: 9/14/2005
In CERCLIS Database: 0401411

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Alternate Energy Resources (AER) property is a 2.64

- acre abandoned property

. From 1975 to 2000, AER operated as a commercial hazardous waste storage and treatment facility until it declared bankruptcy and shut down

. It formerly recycled oil and solvents. AER began operations in early 1975, when AER purchased the Nimmons Oil Company property. AE R's waste treatment processes included: blending high

BTU hazardous waste to be used as fuel in off

- site industrial boilers and furnaces; recycling hazardous waste solvents by distillation; and treating used oils, hazardous and non

- hazardous
wastewater, an

d non

- hazardous coolants. AER filed for bankruptcy on December 13, 2000. The site was in RCRA’s corrective action program, but was recently (within the past year) transferred
to CERCLA

. The State conducted a preliminary assessment/site investigation (PA/SI )

. USEPA is hoping that a potentially responsible party (PRP) group will form to conduct the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS)

. Units on the site received RCRA Part B permits in September 1987, December 1989, and September 1997

.

Descriptio n of Contamination : Contamination is the result of sloppy operation and spills that occurred over a number of years

. Improper management of residuals specifically led to environmental damage

. The sources of site contamination include: soil contamination th at is present at significantly elevated concentrations; a 3,000

- gallon toluene and heptane spill; a 500

- gallon release from a rainwater collection basin; a 13,191

- gallon waste oil, inks, and oil processing residues spill; and a 70,000

- gallon former unlined surface impoundment. Contaminants of concern associated with activities at the AER facility include trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE). TCE and PCE were detected in ground water samples and soil samples at concentrations significantly above background concentrations

. The soil
contamination is on

- site and groundwater contamination is off

- site

.

Cleanup costs are currently being developed by EPA Region 4.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 29 Sources of Information:

EPA Region 4. Email Correspondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste)

. 31 October
2005.

Michuda, Colleen E. (EPA Region 4) Interview, 21 November 2005.

USEPA

. “

Alternative Energy Resources .” CERCLIS

. 27 October 2005

. 19 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0401411

.

USEPA. “

Alternate Energy Resources Inc .” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 20 January
2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000611687

USEPA. “Alternate Energy Resources Inc.” RCRAInfo

. 20 January 2006.

USEPA

. “Site Description Prior to Clean up: Alternate Energy Resources.” 14 September 2005

. 20 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0401411.pdf

.

Additional Contacts: Carolyn Callihan (EPA Region 4), Superfund Remedial Project Manager, (404) 562

- 8913 Brian Farrier (EPA Region 4), Superfund Remedial Project Manager (404) 562

- 8952 Colleen E. Michuda (EPA Region 4) Associate Regional Counsel (404)562

- 9685, michuda.colleen@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 30 Site Information

Site Name: Amacor Residential/Amacor Magnesium Fire
EPA ID No.: INN000509963/INN000509962
Address: 1820 E 32 nd Street, Anderson, IN 46013 County: Madison
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0509962/0509963

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : AMACOR (Advanced Magnesium Alloy Corporation) is a magnesium recycling facility occupying approximately five acres, enclosed within a six foot chain link fence topped with barbed wire

. The site contains three buildings (A, B, and C) where separa te steps of the recycling process occur.

Description of Contamination : A fire of approximately 300,000 pounds of magnesium occurred at the facility on January 14, 2005 and continued to burn for approximately 48 hours

. The fire and smoke acted as a propel lant for encapsulated asbestos insulation located atop a rubber membrane roofing material used in the facility buildings, built around 1969

. As a precaution, a one

- mile radius around the AMACOR facility was evacuated, involving 5,000 to 8,000 residents. As bestos removal activities on affected residential areas in Anderson, Indiana have been taking place since the fire; asbestos has been detected in some debris that fell in the neighborhood south and southwest of the facility.

Sources of Information:
EPA R egion 5. “Cleanup Work after Amacor Fire.” March 2005. 16 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/Region5/sites/amacor/amacor

- 200503.pdf

EPA Region 5

– Cleanup Sites. “Amacor Magnesium Fire.” 11 January 2006. 16 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/Region5/sites/amacor/index.htm

USEPA. “Amacor Magnesium Fire.” CERCLIS

. 27 Octob er 2005

. 25 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0509962

USEPA. “Amacor Magnesium Fire.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 25 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110022533070

USEPA. “Amacor Residential.” CERCLIS

. 27 October 2005

. 25 Jan uary 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0509963Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 31 USEPA. “Amacor Residential.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.)

. 25 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110022533089

USEPA. “Amacor Residential.” On

- Scene Coordinator Profile. (n.d.). 25 January 2006. www.epaosc.net/AMACORRESIDENTIAL

Additional Contacts: Joe Muñoz (CIC) 312

- 886

- 7935 or 800

- 621

- 8431, ext. 67935 munoz.joe@epa.gov Ken Rhame (OSC) 312

- 353

- 6720 rhame.kenneth@epa.gov Tim Johnson (State Project Manager

- IDEM) 317

- 232

- 3220 tjohnson@idem.in.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 32 Site Information

Site Name: American Brass
EPA ID No.: ALD981868466
Address: State Highway 134 West, Headland, AL 36345 County: Henry
NPL Site: Final: 5/10/99
In CERCLIS Database: 0406299

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The American Brass Inc., (ABI) site is a former secondary brass smelter/foundry facility

. The ABI site area is approximately 148 acres, 24 acres of which are occupied by the former foundry buildings (the developed portion of the site) in a predominantly rural agricultural area. Industrial operations were conducted at the ABI
site from the 1960' s until December 1992

. The process at American Brass, Inc. was as follows:
brass

- and copper

- bearing scrap material were charged into the rotary furnaces and melted. Alloying and fluxing agents were added to obtain a spec alloy. The metal was cast into in got form and the remaining slag was taken for further processing. The ingots were allowed to cool. The slag was processed through the crusher and then into the ball mill. Brass particles were recovered from the crushed slag and reprocessed in the furnace. The slag was then sent to storage bins. Fume from the furnaces and particulate emissions from the crusher and ballmill were controlled by two baghouses. The baghouse dust was collected and sold as a finished product. Approximately 150,000 tons of heavy met al

- contaminated furnace waste, ball mill residues, and furnace slag were stockpiled in the facility at various areas on the ground and in a large uncontrolled stockpile approximately one

- third mile southeast of the facility

. Residuals from the
brass smelti ng process, which contained high levels of lead, were ground and recycled as peanut
fertilizer

. From approximately the mid

- 1980's until the facility closed, ABI found itself the subject of several RCRA enforcement actions, both state and federal

. RCRA viol ations included
the on

- site disposal of hazardous waste

.

Description of Contamination: On February 22, 1996, the ADEM conducted a site Investigation at American Brass, Inc. and collected aqueous samples and sediment samples from Dunham Creek, Cedar Creek , and the breach in the berm around the ball mill stockpile, which drains into a tributary to Cedar Creek. Aqueous samples collected in Dunham Creek showed a release of barium; the sediment samples indicated a release of barium, chromium, copper, nickel,
l ead, and zinc. Aqueous samples collected from Cedar Creek indicated a release of barium; the sediment samples indicated a release of barium, chromium, and zinc. Aqueous samples collected below the breach in the berm showed a release of barium, copper, lead , and zinc; the sediment samples showed a release of barium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc

. The RemedialAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 33 Investigation revealed impacts to onsite soils and sediments primarily from heavy metals, boron
and PCBs

.

At the request of the Alabama De partment of Environmental Management (ADEM), USEPA conducted an emergency removal at the ABI site in 1996

- 1997. During this removal, excavated
lead

- contaminated soils and heavy metal

- laden furnace bricks, as well as heavy metal

- laden process waste material

s (ball mill residue) found inside the buildings, were consolidated into a
liner

- covered waste pile at the southeast corner of the site. A second USEPA removal action to remove the waste pile and dispose of the materials off

- site was completed in March 199 9

. More sampling was scheduled for February 2002 to determine the extent of contamination offsite in these creeks. The groundwater at the site has been impacted with boron, nitrate and ammonia. The residential drinking water wells adjacent to the eastern b oundary of the site have not been impacted by the site and will continue to be monitored.

Total cleanup expenditure at this site as of September 2004 was $7,325,902.41.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 4. Email Correspondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office o f Solid Waste).
31 October 2005.

USEPA. “American Brass.” CERCLIS

. 27 October 2005. 16 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0406299

USEPA. “American Brass.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.). 16 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110001146778

USEPA. Int egrated Financial Management System (IFMS)

. 30 September 2004

. 15 January
2006

.

USEPA. “NPL Fact Sheet: American Brass.” 12 December 2005. 16 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/nplal/albrasal.htm

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for American Brass.” 7 October 2004. 16 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1538.ht m

Additional Contacts: Brian Farrier (Project Manager) farrier.brian@epa.gov Anna Lesichar (Senior Enforcement Specialist USEPA Region 4) (404) 562

- 8608Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 34Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 35 Site Name: American Iron Oxide Company (AMROX)
EPA ID No: PAR000008367
Address: 2 Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Drive, Allenport, PA 15412 County: Washington
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The AMROX facility in Allenport, Pennsylvania, began recycling spent pickle liquor from steel manufacturing in 1995 and the facility currently continues this operation. Pickle liquor contains hydrochloric acid and is used in steelmaking to remove iron sca le buildup from the surface of the steel. AMROX recycles spent pickle liquor into hydrochloric acid and iron oxide.

AMROX uses a pyrohydrolysis to generate an 18% by weight hydrochloric acid solution.
AMROX also uses an IROX process to remove silica and m etals from the spent pickle liquor in order to produce a higher purity iron oxide.

From 1995 until 1999, AMROX accepted spent pickle liquor under two regulatory mechanisms: Spent pickle liquor from designated generators that met certain chemical paramete rs was deemed
a 'co

- product' and was exempt from Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (PADEP) requirements pertaining to solid and hazardous waste

. Spent pickle liquor that was not
deemed a co

- product, either because it did not meet the de signated chemical parameters or was not produced by a designated generator, was accepted by AMROX as a hazardous waste pursuant to a 'hazardous waste storage permit

- by

- rule.'

PADEP adopted most of the EPA RCRA regulations in 1999, eliminating the regulat ions under which AMROX had been operating. At that point, PADEP allowed AMROX to continue recycling spent pickle liquor under a variance authorized under 40 CFR 260.31(b).

Although the PADEP believes that the facility would qualify as a recycler of hazar dous secondary materials, AMROX has not submitted a notification for this designation. However, the variance only allows AMROX to accept spent pickle liquor from specific generators, rather than any "hazardous secondary materials." The variance requires th at to qualify as legitimate recycler AMROX must demonstrate that it sells the produced iron oxide and returns the regenerated acid back to the steel plants.

Description of Contamination : In September 1997, AMROX allowed hazardous waste sludge
from their IROX process to spill onto the ground. Instead of properly containing and collectingAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 36 this release, a contractor employed by AMROX washed the waste into an adjacent railroad bed. AMROX reports that the contractor subsequently returned at their request with a vacuum truck to clean the runoff and remove and replace the affected gravel and soil. PADEP fined AMROX $55,000 for this violation. In 2004, AMROX's two storage tanks failed and spilled the spent pickle liquor into the surrounding asphalt

- paved area an d into the storm drain , which AMROX reports as being maintained in the closed position, allowing the spilled material to be recaptured

. AMROX has reported that the company has since implemented an enhanced repair program, including removal of previous repa ir patches, repair of any identified defects, restoration of the tank components and the installation of an external “belly band” for additional support.

The storage tanks are located within 200 feet of a playground , separated by a splash containment
barr ier, paved parking lot, spill prevention curbing, fencing and railroad tracks. (see Figure 1)

. DEP was also concerned about air pollution from metals in the spent pickle liquor which is why the variance contains limits on metal concentration in the spent pickle liquor. PADEP entered into a consent order and agreement with AMROX in August 2005 under which AMROX agreed to resolve various tank and waste issues, including establishing an inspection/repair schedule the remaining acid tanks. In 2006, PADEP fined AMROX $150,000 for outstanding air, waste, and water violations involving the release of acid and iron oxide into the environment , including $100, 000 paid in a negotiated settlement to resolve several citations in 2004 and 2005 including timely submissio n of progress reports, submission of pre

- test protocols and delays associated with demonstration of completion, with the remaining fine due to failure to comply with a DEP Administrative Order and lack of an appropriate storm water discharge permit

.

On Aug. 11, 2009, when PADEP arrived for a routine site visit, the AMROX plan manager was preparing to deal with a 32,000

- gallon discharge of pickle liquor

. The discharge mixed with process water and stormwater to flood the containment unit beneath the tan ks. The release was confined to the containment unit and the collection sump. Tests taken on the concrete pedestal
within the containment unit that holds the tanks indicated pH levels ranging from zero to one.
The AMROX plant manager identified the liqui d as water from hosing down the containment

area.

PADEP reviewed the company’s inspection records and learned of multiple and persistent leaks from five of the ten tanks in operation from May 23 to August 6, 2009. All leaks were required
to be noted and f

ixed. These issues were in addition to defects that have required repair over the previous four years, including interior and exterior cracks and patch failures.

A March 10, 2010 Report by a consultant retained by PADEP with AMROX’s cooperation states as follows: “Based on the review of the information provided by the PADEP Southwest RegionalAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 37 Office and the site inspections made at the AMROX Allenport facility there was a distinct change in the manner in which the tank maintenance, inspection and repair has been handled during 2004.” “Beginning in 2004 the facility chose to remove the previous lap patches, remove the defect, restore the tank component to original condition and for additional support install an external “belly band” at the repair elevati on on the outside of the tank. This approach was from an engineering standpoint much better as the defect was removed and the tank wall reinforced which essentially strengthened the tank wall in an area that had been overstressed.” “Based on the inspectio n findings it is apparent that the storage tanks are not deteriorating as a result of exposure to the stored product but are cracking due to mechanical loading.” “All documented repairs were made to areas that have cracked due to mechanical loadings. As th ere had been no degradation of the tank material the tanks have the potential to remain “in service” for many years under the present operating conditions without replacement provided no
deterioration of the tank material occurs.”

On or about April 18, 20 11, an aboveground storage tank at the facility split open, releasing approximately 27,300 gallons of regenerated hydrochloric acid solution, with a pH of less than 1.0. At the time of the release, the emergency containment area at the facility contained

a ccumulated water and was not able to contain the released volume of hydrochloric acid, and hydrochloric acid overflowed from the emergency containment area.

AMROX, in a letter to DEP dated May 2, 2011, stated that “the incident resulted in a release of product hydrochloric acid and nearly all of this material was captured by the primary containment system. A small amount of hydrochloric acid product made its way to a paved area
where it was contained.” In a follow up letter dated May 2, 2011, AMROX rep orted “During the release some splashing occurred allowing minimal amounts of HCl to land on the asphalted areas of the facility adjacent to the containment area. Some minimal amounts of HCl moved across the asphalted areas and impacted soil in an area bor dering the parking lot. The total amount of HCl escaping the primary containment area is estimated at less than 100 gallons with less than 20 gallons of HCl impacting soil along the train tracks that run through the middle of AMROX’s property.” “AMROX empl oyees reacted quickly to prevent additional HCl from leaving the asphalted areas and to manage the liquid volumes in the containment area to mitigate environmental impacts and to ensure the safety of the employees. The north and west areas of the parking l ot were washed and vacuumed scrubbed prior to 10:00 AM. Any soil that was impacted was removed and lime used as precaution.”Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 38 Figure 1

. Ruptured Tank at the AMROX Facility and Nearby Community Playground

PADEP issued an Administrative Order on April 27, 2011, requiring AMROX to evaluate several acid tanks at the facility. Among other things, the April 27, 2011 Administrative Order required AMROX to reduce the volume by half within eight remaining tanks, and demonstrate
that it would be safe to allow t he tanks to continue in operation. AMROX did reduce the contents of the tanks to 50% of their capacity. On May 11, 2011, PADEP and a retained expert inspected the failed tank and could not identify an obvious cause for the failure. On May 5 and May 11,
201 1, the PADEP observed acid continuing to leak from various tanks, as well as deteriorated concrete supports beneath one or more of these tanks. On May 12, 2011 PADEP ordered AMROX to empty several older acid tanks , “until and unless the Department determin es, in writing, that AMROX has demonstrated that the remaining Older Tanks have sufficient integrity and fitness for continued operation

. ” AMROX subsequently provided an engineering analysis
that wit h the installation of previously installed reinforcing ba nds around each tank that the tanks would remain structurally sound at 50% capacity. PADEP issued a third order on May 18, 2011

, suspending the requirement to empty the tanks but retaining a schedule of tank inspections and a failure analysis of the damage d tank.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 39 On July 7, 2011 AMROX delivered to PA DEP the July 7, 2011 preliminary Failure Analysis Report prepared by a consultant which states, “The failure was caused by an improper repair using the incorrect resin and not applying the repair thick enough to replace the original strength in the vessel. This is a local anomaly and not likely to be systemic for this Tank #3 or the other tanks fabricated by Belding in the tank farm. I do not expect the results of the burn out or scanning electron microscopy test s to substantially change my conclusions as to the cause of the
failure. ”

Sources of Information:

1. AMROX Commonwealth Court Decision

. Excerpt provided by EPA.

2. AMROX EHB decision

. Excerpt provided by EPA.

3. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

. “American Iron Oxide to Pay $150,000 to Settle Outstanding Violations.” 24 October 2006. http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal /server.pt/community/newsroom/14287?id=1040&typ
eid=1

4. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

. “DEP Orders AMROX to Allow Independent Above Ground Tanks Inspections.” 31 August 2009. http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/newsroom/14287?id=2348&typ
eid=1

5. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

. Order in the
matter of American Iron Oxide Company, Allenport Borough, Washington County, Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Act, Enf. Id No. 270438

. 12 May 2011.

6. Leadbetter, Honorable Bonnie Brigance

. Opinion in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Wheeling

- Pittsburgh Steel Corporation and American Iron Oxide Company, Petitioners v. Department of Environmental Protection. 6 August 2009. http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1297CD08_8

- 6

- 09.pdf

7. Spadaro, Carl

. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

. Personal communication (email) with Amanda Kohler , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 12, 2010.

8. American Iron Oxide Company and International Steel Services Comment to 2011 EPA Proposed Rule

—

Definition of Solid Waste , October 19, 2011, comment # EPA

- HQ

RCRA

- 2010

- 0742

- 0121

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 40 Site Name: American Metals Recovery Corporation
EPA ID No.: NJR000022442
Address: 1 Jasper Street, Paterson, NJ County: Passaic
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : In 1998, KBF Pollution Management relocated to Paterson, New Jersey from its former location in North Lindenhurst, New York. At that time the company also began operating under the name A merican Metals Recovery Corp (AMRC). In later years, the company would change names again, to Veridium Corp.

At the Paterson, New Jersey facility, metals were partially reclaimed from both liquid and solid secondary materials. Concentrates of reclaimed metals were shipped offsite for further reclamation. The secondary materials accepted at AMRC included character istic and listed hazardous wastes. However, when the facility began operations in 1998, it operated under the assumption that it was exempt from RCRA. In 1999, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP) sought U.S. EPA assistance in det ermining the status of the facility. Issues of concern about AMRC included potentially unauthorized thermal treatment, disagreements about which regulations apply to the recycling operation, and allegations of sham recycling with releases of wastes into a nearby sewer. As a result of inspections in 1999 and in 2000, NJ DEP issued a complaint to AMRC for improper management of materials and unauthorized treatment practices. These complaints by the NJ DEP were consistent with an often contentious relationship between the predecessor company, KBF Pollution Management, and New York State regulators. While operating in New York, state regulators had determined that the facility required a RCRA Subtitle C permitting to operate as a hazardous waste treatment,

stora ge, and disposal (TSD) facility. Rather than obtaining a TSD permit, KBF moved its operations to New Jersey.

Inspections between 1999 and 2005 found AMRC to be in violation of RCRA permitting, as well as a number of specific RCRA hazardous waste management requirements. The result was a U.S. EPA final order in 2003 with a penalty of $45,000, as well as two state orders that imposed $250,000 in penalties. In 2005, the company (then doing business as Veridium Corp.) ceased operations at the Paterson, New Jers ey facility. The facility site was vacated in early 2006 and is now occupied by a townhomes complex, built in 2008.

Description of Contamination: Inspections of the facility between 1999 and sites closure in
2005 found a number of violations at the site re lating to management of wastes. NJ DEP notedAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 41 that in multiple inspections the company had repeatedly failed to properly manage and store wastes including cyanide, acids, bases, and potentially ignitable materials. U.S. EPA issued a final order with a $45,0 00 fine for the improper management of its wastes, while the NJ DEP issued two orders that resulted in a $250,000 dollar settlement. The state orders were also primarily based on improper management, open hazardous waste containers, and other similar
viola tions, though they also revealed that the company had not properly notified the NJ DEP when a fire caused a release of air contaminants. As most of the facility was contained within a single building, inspections did not indicate a need for remedial action , though the NJ DEP would continue to monitor the site followings its closure and before it was redeveloped in 2008. The regulating agencies interactions with KBF/AMRC in both New York and New Jersey, along with the company’s lack of proper permitting and continual efforts to work around the regulations had lead to speculation that their operations could be classified as sham recycling; however this was not definitively proven before the facility shut down.

Sources of Information:

1. Wilk, John, United States Environmental Protection Agency

– Region 2. Personal communication (email) with Amanda Kohler , US Environmental Protection Agency. August 2011.

2. Wilk, John, United States Environmental Protection Agency

– Region 2. Personal communication (email) with Amand a Kohler , US Environmental Protection Agency.
November 2011.

3. Wilk, John, United States Environmental Protection Agency

– Region 2. Personal communication (email) with Amanda Kohler , US Environmental Protection Agency. February 15, 2012.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 42 Site Information

Site Name: American Recovery Corp., Inc.
EPA ID No.: MDD074923392
Address: 1901 Birch St., Baltimore, MD 21226

- 1410 County: Baltimore

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : From 1932 until 1970, Industrial chemical manufacturing operations operated on this property. From 1970 to 1984, American Recovery Corp (ARC), who leased the property from its owner, operated a hazardous waste recycling, treatment and storage facility. D uring the operating period of this facility, American Recovery performed several general cleanups and partial closure activities. In 1984, in response to repeated violations, the State of Maryland revoked the facility’s permit and required the facility to cease operations and submit closure plans. American Recovery conducted final closure activities during 1985 and 1986. In 1988 the State and American Recovery signed a Consent Order which established guidelines for post

- closure activities including correcti ve action. Post

closure monitoring and corrective action investigations were conducted to confirm that closure removed the active sources of contamination. After 1986, the owner of the site leased the property for several years for use as a junk yard and o ther industrial activities. As of 1999, the site was cleared of most of the junk yard material and is now vacant

. This site did not hold a RCRA permit

.

Description of Contamination : Groundwater sampling has detected several volatile organic
constituents above drinking water standards including: benzene, methylene chloride, chloroform, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, 1,1

- dichloroethene, 1,1

- dichloroethane, cis

- 1,2,

- dichloroethene, 1,1,1

- trichloroethane and vinyl chloride. Also detected were several in organics including: cadmium, chromium, cobalt, manganese, nickel and vanadium. The plumes appear to
extend off

- site. Groundwater in this area is not currently used as a drinking water supply.

In the fall of 2001, American Recovery Company, Inc., began im plementing a phased program to confirm the extent of groundwater contamination and determine whether there are continuing sources of contaminants. Two phases of field investigation resulted in the installation and sampling of piezometers, a passive soil ga s study, several soil samples, sediment samples and surface water sampling. This work identified two potential source areas for the groundwater contamination identified at the site.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 43 In May 2003, ARC’s parent company, Outsourcing Solutions filed for bankru ptcy. As a result, Maryland Department of the Environment obtained access to financial assurance funds that were established under a State RCRA Closure Order. MDE is using the funds to direct a contractor to complete the investigation and EPA is providing technical assistance in this endeavor. In the summer of 2004 MDE installed eight shallow groundwater monitoring wells, four deeper groundwater monitoring wells and collected soil and groundwater samples from the two suspected source areas. These field acti vities confirmed the general location of two source areas. In 2005 MDE is performing additional characterization of these source areas to determine an appropriate remedy options.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 3. “Region 3 GPRA Baseline RCRA Correcti ve Action Facility: American Recovery Company, Inc.” 14 July 2005

. 20 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/md/pdf/mdd074923392.pdf

USEPA. “American Recovery Company Incorporated.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.) 20 February 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000913254

USEPA. “American Recovery Company Incorporated.” RCRAInfo

. 12 January 2005. 20 February 2006. https://rtnccisland.rtpnc.epa.gov/rcrainfo/permitting/PMT_series_upd.asp?msg_seriesseq
=1

Additional Contacts : Deborah Goldblum (USEPA

– Region 3) (215) 814

- 3432, goldblum.deborah@epa.go v Art O’Connell (Maryland Department of the Environment) (410) 537

- 3400,
aoconnell@mde.state.md.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 44 Site Information

Site Name: American Recycling Company
EPA ID No.: OHD000720110
Address: 3203 W. 71 st St., Cleveland, OH 44102 County: Cuyahoga

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : American Recycling Company was a mercury lamp and metal reclamation site

. It accepted fluorescent lamps, computers and light ballasts for recycling. The fluorescent bulbs were crushed and the waste streams separated except for the mercury component, which was mostly stockpiled on

- site

.

Description of Contamination : The facility went out of business leaving drums of waste behind
as well as hundreds of drums of PCB wa stes

. The materials were abandoned in 2001

. The owner of the property is being held responsible for the cleanup

. There is no known soil or groundwater
contamination at the site.

Sources of Information: Hale, Karen (Ohio EPA). Email correspondence to David Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste).
24 June 2005.

USEPA. “American Recycling Company.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 22 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.go v/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110004585299

Additional Contacts : Drew Koler (216) 281

- 9200 Karen Hale (Ohio EPA): (614) 644

- 2927, karen.hale@epa.state.oh.us.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 45 Site Name: Anzon Incorporated/ A.I. Divestitures
EPA ID No.: TXD981054273
Address: 7418 FM 1472, Laredo, TX County: Webb
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: TXD981054273

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The formerly Anzon Incorporated (Anzon) site has been the site of antimony smelting and refining operations since the late 1920. The facility is located in an industrial and warehouse area of Laredo, Texas and approximately 28 acres of the 102 acre site was used for plant operations. Anzon was then known as National
Lead Industries and was a World War II Mining and Smelting Company. National Lead operated the facility until 1977. Anzon acquired the facility in 1978 and restarted the operations. In 1982, Anzon filed a notice of registration for the generation and disposal of inorganic slag on site in it s landfill. In 1992, Anzon began importing secondary antimony oxide for feed material into its refining operation. The facility ceased operation in 1999, when it was known as Great Lakes Chemical Corporation and transferred back to Anzon Industries. On Jun e 26, 2003, the property and permits were transferred from Great Lakes Chemical Corporation to A.I. Divestitures, Inc. (A.I.), in Rhode Island.

In September 2000, Anzon under an Agreed Order (TCEQ Docket No. 95

- 0494

- IHW

- E) agreed to submit closure plans an d to address the slag storage area and all identified contaminated media including groundwater, surface water and surface soils. Over the years, high level of antimony was found in the sediments of Las Manadas Creek. In addition Anzon proposed to perform a risk assessment to determine acceptable levels of antimony in the environment surrounding the site which are protective of both human health and the environment. Anzon closure plan involved recycling the slag as aggregate and close the remaining portions of the site by placing the contaminated soils under an asphalt cap. However prior to implementing this remedy, USEPA issued a notification initiating the rulemaking process that resulted in the listing of antimony slag
at the site as a listed hazardous was te (K177). As a result of this pending change in the regulatory status of antimony slag, Anzon/A. I. Divestitures initiated discussions with TCEQ’s regarding the recycling of the antimony slag into road base material before the promulgation of the new
rule . On May 20, 2002, Antimony slag was classified as K177, a listed hazardous waste and anyone managing this waste material after the effective date of the rule became subject to the
rule.

In August 2005, EPA conducted a case development inspection at the s ite as part of the Mining and Mineral Processing Initiative. At the time of the inspection, Anzon/A.I was managingAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 46 antimony slag as non

- hazardous recyclable material (processed slag and slag from its onsite landfill). Anzon/A.I. said it was recycling the a ntimony slag to make it beneficially useful as an aggregate in asphalt pavement/road base. EPA had concern about A.I/Anzon recycling process and that the “product” did not meet the criteria for recyclable material pursuant to the Used in a
Manner Constitut ing Disposal regulation. Anzon/A.I. recycling process consisted of mixing crushed antimony slag, sulfate and water together and stockpiled on site by a conveyor. If the processed material passed the screening test agreed to by TCEQ, it was stockpiled and m ade available for sale, if not it was re

- crushed and reprocessed. From 2003

- 2005, Anzon/A.I. processed and stockpile approximately 300,000 tons of this material a day on site.

Description of Contamination:

In 2005, a Laredo official purchased the proces sed (“recycled”) antimony slag from Anzon/ A.I. and used it to construct road base for private roads in Webb County. The residents became ill. The residents of Colonia Los Arcos community filed a complaint alleging that the material placed on its road caus ed illness and skin rashes and named TCEQ and EPA for approving the use of antimony slag on residential roads. The Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) ordered the removal of nearly a thousand cubic yards of the contaminated soil for the
Coloni a Los Arcos in eastern Webb County. On June 22, 2006, the State of Texas, on behalf of TECQ filed a suit against A.I. Divestitures, Environmental Recycling Technologies, LLC, and
others.

As a result of the storage of the “recycled” antimony slag (runoff a nd wind dispersion), as well as “recycling” activities antimony has contaminated much of the operating portion of the site.

In addition, investigations of the remaining undeveloped portion of the site found a five

- acre portion where soil levels of antimon y were at concentrations that pose an environmental risk and indicate a likelihood of groundwater contamination. The primary contamination on the site is dissolved antimony found primarily in the soils on the developed portion of the property as well

as a five

- acre area of the undeveloped portion. Groundwater testing has indicated elevated levels of antimony in monitoring wells on the developed portion, and the high level in soil on the undeveloped portion, which suggest possible transport of contamination into groundwater. This contamination indicated that the operating portion and the five

- acre undeveloped portion did not meet appropriate levels for closure. Anzon/A.I. Divestitures implemented a number of control improvements to reduce environment releases , and is currently in negotiations regarding further required cleanup activities.

A settlement negotiation is underway regarding the cleanup, closure and disposal of remaining hazardous wastes (Waste piles) on the site.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 47 Sources of Information:

1. USEPA. Facility Registry Systems. Facility Detail Report. Anzon Inc. Accessed Online.
November 2011: http://oaspub.epa.gov/e nviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=48479 00001&pgm_sys_acrnm_in=AIRS/AFS

2. USEPA. Office of Solid Waste. Damage Cases and Environmental Releases from Mines and Mineral Processing Sites. 1997. Anzon Incorporated. Accessed Online. November
2011: http://www.epa. gov/osw/hazard/tsd/ldr/mine/damg3

- 97.pdf

3. McCoy Tiffany. U.S. Environmental Protection agency

- Region 6. Personal communication (email) with Amanda Kohler , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 2011.

4. Benjamin, Agatha. U.S. Environmental Protection A gency

- Region 6. Personal communication (email) with Amanda Kohler , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 2011.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 48 Site Information

Site Name: Aqua

- Tech Environmental, Incorporated (Groce Laboratories)
EPA ID No.: SCD058754789
Address: 340 Robinson Road, Greer, SC 29651 County: Spartanburg

NPL Site: Final: 2/4/2000
In CERCLIS Database: 0403310

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: In the 1940s local residents used this site as a general dumping ground

. The City of Greer owned 35 acres of the 61.56

- acre property and used 20 acres as a municipal landfill from 1963 until 1968

. The landfill was subsequently closed and capped with clay in the early 1970s

. In December 1974, William Groce purchased the 35 acres from the City of Greer

. He began accepting hazardous wastes as Groce Laboratories, Incorporated in 1976. Between 1982 and 1986, he purchased the remainder of the 61.56

- acre property. Site operations consisted of state

- permitted hazardous waste treatment, recycling, storage, and dis posal activities. In April 1987 Aqua

- Tech purchased the facility and continued hazardous waste operations at the site under the name of Aqua

- Tech/Groce Laboratories. In 1990 Aqua

- Tech changed the name of the facility to Aqua

- Tech Environmental, Inc. The si te also
received bio

- medical wastes and low

- level radioactive wastes without obtaining the necessary permits. Aqua

- Tech's clients included manufacturing industries, federal agencies, high schools, universities, and hospitals

. Several parcels of the 61.56

- acre property have been sold in county
tax auctions since December 1996.

From 1981 through 1991, mismanagement, violations, and non

- compliance with state and federal regulations occurred. SCDHEC and USEPA frequently cited the facility for improper

m anagement of hazardous waste containers, leaking and bulging drums, storage violations, spills, unpermitted detonations, and other management deficiencies. Leaking and open drums, deteriorated compressed

- gas cylinders, spills, and discolored soils were obs erved at the site on several occasions. In an attempt to correct these problems, several administrative consent orders were issued. According to records, a 55

- gallon drum fire was reported on March 4, 1990

. The drum contained elemental phosphorus

. One fire fighter was reportedly overcome by the dense smoke and 90 people were evacuated from the area

. On April 19, 1990, an on

- site explosion occurred when workers attempted to repack two drums containing ignitable mixtures

. On July 10, 1990, a controlled explosi on was used to destroy two additional drums containing ignitable
mixtures

. Aqua

- Tech filed for bankruptcy on October 11, 1991

. The site did not have a RCRA permit

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 49 Description of Contamination: Primary contaminants include metals (cadmium, chromium,
coba lt, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc.), various volatile organic compounds, and other
contaminants

. Soil onsite is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi

- VOCs, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs_, pesticides, and metals

. Groundwater is conta minated with VOCs, SVOCs, and metals

. Surface water was also contaminated

. Upon closing there were approximately 7,000 drums and lab packs, 97 above

- ground tanks, 1,200 gas cylinders (some containing phosgene and other toxic gases), unexploded ordnance mat erial, and small amounts of
low

- level radioactive material and biohazard material at the site. Many of the drums, tanks, and cylinders were deteriorated, leaking, and improperly stored

. Containers and debris were located throughout the 35

- acre facility. Ov er 41,000,000 pounds of hazardous waste were sent to the Aqua

- Tech (Groce Labs) site

. Cleanup expenditure at this site as of 2004 was $ 1,927,901.08

.

Sources of Information: South Carolina Department of Health and Environment Control with Agency for Tox ic Substances and Disease Registry. “Public Health Assessment

- Aqua

- Tech Environmental, Incorporated.” 23 March 2001. 24 January 2006

. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/aqua techblue/ate_p1.html#backa

USEPA. “Aqua

- Tech Environmental Inc.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 25 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0403310

USEPA. “Aqua Technology Environmental Incorporated.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 23 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin= 110000618779

USEPA. “Aqua

- Tech Environmental Inc.” RCRA Info. 11 February 2003. 18 January 2006.

USEPA. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). 30 September 2004. 23 January
2006.

USEPA. “NPL Site Fact Sheet Aqua

- Tech Environmental Inc. (Groce Labs).” 22 December 2005. 25 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/nplsc/aquatesc.htm

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Aqua

- Tech Environmental, Inc.” 16 December 1994. 24 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0403310.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 50 USEPA. “Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection Aqua

- Tech Environmental Labs Inc. (Groce Labs ) Site.” September 2003. 25 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/nplsc/aquarod.pdf

Additional Contacts: Ralph Howard (EPA SAM) (404) 562

- 8829
Yvonne Jones (EPA RPM) (404) 562

- 8793 William Joyner (EPA RPM) (404) 562

- 8795 Mike Norman(EPA RPM) (404) 562

- 8792 Paul Wagner (EPA RPM) (404) 562

- 8792 Craig Zeller (EPA RPM) (404) 562

- 8827Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 51 Site Name: Arkla Terra Property
EPA ID No.: FLSFN0406909
Address: 11706 US HWY 301, Thonotosassa, FL 33592 County: Hillsborough
NPL Site: Yes
In CERCLIS Database: FLSFN0406909

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Arkla Terra Property (ATP) site encompasses approximately eight acres. From 1976 through 2006 the site was operated primarily as an Underground Storage Tank (UST) refurbishing facility. Several companies operated at the site, including Southeast Oil an d Development Corporation from 1976 through 1988; Four Star Petroleum from 1982 to 1985; PS Equipment, Inc from 1989 through 1994; Novadyne Corporation from 1986 through 1996; and Arkla Terra Inc., from 1993 through 2006.

Aerial photographs of the site h ave shown over 500 storage tanks on the property at one time, along with numerous other types of containers. Solvents, including tetrachloroethylene (PCE), were reportedly used to clean tanks prior to repair or dismantling. PCE contamination exists in
soil and groundwater at the site

. The site was placed on the National Priorities List in April 2009, making it eligible for a Federal investigation and cleanup.

EPA and its contractor collected surface and subsurface soil samples and residential well water

sa mples in 2009 and 2010. Water samples from the neighborhood indicate that PCE is the only significant contaminant in the neighborhood. In coordination with the county health department
and the F lorida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) , resident s have been connected to a municipal water supply.

In addition to the ground water investigation, EPA and its contractor have performed an investigation on the ATP site to better understand the source of contamination. A total of 15 soil gas samples and 148 soil samples have been collected. Based on historical and current investigations, the source area extent of contamination appears to be limited to an area measuring approximately 72 ft by 72 ft and occurring to a depth of 55 ft below ground surface. Th e investigation indicates the presence of approximately 8,400 cubic yards of PCE source material.

Description of Contamination : Contaminants of concern associated with activities at the ATP include PCE in soil, groundwater, and in private drinking water w ells

. A contaminated groundwater plume that contains concentrations of PCE above EPA's Safe Drinking Water Act's
maximum contaminant level and the State of Florida P rimary Drinking Water Standard hasAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 52 migrated more than 7,500 feet into the adjacent residential area. The contamination is in the Floridian aquifer that is the primary source of drinking water for residents in the area.

The contaminated ground water has affected as many as 117 nearby private wells. The Hillsborough County Public Health U nit has sampled over 200 private residential wells, and at least 78 of those wells contained PCE at levels exceeding state drinking water standards.

Based on the initial residential well sampling, the FDEP provided for the installation of
commercial water treatment systems to affected residents and provided approximately one million dollars to Hillsborough County to extend water lines into the affected areas and connect the residents to the municipal water supply.

The State and the County continue to samp le private drinking water wells in the area on an
annual basis.

Sources of Information:

1. USEPA. Federal Registry System, Facility Detail Report. Arkla Terra Property. Accessed
Online. November 2011: http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=FLSF N0406909&pgm_sys_acrnm_in=CERCLIS

2. USEPA. National Priorities List (NPL) Site Narrative. Arkla T erra Property, Thonotosassa, Florida. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1783.htm

3. USEPA. Region 4, Superfund, Arkla Terra Property NPL Site Summary. Accessed
Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/nplfls/arklaterfls.html

4. USEPA. Superfund Site Progress Profile, Arkla Terra Property. Accessed Online.
November 2011 : http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0406909Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 53 Site Information

Site Name: Former ASARCO Zinc Oxide Production Facility
EPA ID No.: OHD056743933
Address: 1363 Windsor Avenue, Columbus, OH 43211 County: Franklin
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0507513

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: American Zinc Oxide owned the smelter from 1918 to 1970, when ASARCO purchased the property and operated it until ceasing production in 1986

. The facility produced zinc oxide from sphalerite ore by oxidation, reduction,
and back oxidation

. Information in Ohio EPA’s files regarding the ASARCO operations at the
Windsor Avenue facility indicates that from approximately 1986 through early 1989, around 38,000 tons of zinc slag from two large piles on the site were reported to have been shipped from the Columbus facility to facilities in New Jersey and Missouri for processing. Add itional information about final use of the transported zinc slag is not reflected in Ohio EPA’s files.

Runoff from the ASARCO property drained to an open ditch near Joyce and 12th Avenues, referred to as the Joyce Avenue outfall. The receiving ditch, ref erred to as the American Ditch, flowed about one mile through an industrial and residential area and entered the City of Columbus combined sewer system. In June 1989, the American Ditch was diverted to a storm sewer discharging to Alum Creek, classified as a primary contact, warm fishery, public, industrial, and agricultural water supply

. Between 1971 and 1988, ASARCO exceeded Ohio EPA discharge limits several times, and began to take action to ship their zinc slag off

- site.

From 1995

- 1997, ASARCO undertoo k remediation activities, which included leaving in

- situ the remaining zinc slag or clinker and covering it and pre

- remediation on

- site drainage ditches with a compacted 1.5 foot thick clay cap to prevent rainfall or surface water from infiltrating into th e clinker fill. A vertical clay barrier surrounding the perimeter of the cap keeps shallow ground water in contact with the clinker from migrating off

- site. Shallow ground water within the clinker is further remediated by a subsurface drainage system insta lled within the clinker and a geomembrane barrier and pH stabilization tank in a below

- grade concrete vault. The treated surface water and shallow ground water discharges to a storm water retention pond, and subsequently discharges to American Ditch at an National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System outfall.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 54 On June 19, 2003, ASARCO submitted a No Further Action (NFA) Letter to Ohio EPA under the Voluntary Action Program (VAP). In August 2005, ASARCO filed a national bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the F ederal Bankruptcy Code. Ohio EPA records indicate that, as of February 25, 2008, Ohio EPA’s Covenant Not to Sue was still pending. If Ohio EPA issues a VAP Covenant Not to Sue, it will not release ASARCO from liability for the historical off

- site
contamina tion of sediment downstream of ASARCO in American Ditch.

Description of Contamination: Prior to remedial activity under Ohio EPA’s VAP Program, slag area runoff sampling data for September and October 1986, revealed zinc concentrations of 26 mg/L and 46 m

g/L, respectively. At that time, ASARCO agreed to begin removing the zinc slag from the facility. In August 1987, the Ohio EPA described the situation at this facility by stating that, "[d]ue to past practices over many years of dumping waste slag or clink er all over the site, there was still a problem with contaminated runoff. There were documented problems with high concentrations of zinc and cadmium in the runoff." In November 1987, ASARCO notified the City of its shipment off

- site of 35,000 tons of zinc slag.

Sources of Information:

Ohio EPA

. “ Summary of NFAs Received and Covenants Issued .” 25 February 2008

. 10 March
2008

. http://www.epa.state.oh.us/derr/vap/docs/rptVAPNFASummary.pdf

USEPA. “ASARCO.” CERCLIS . 11 January 2008

. 10 March 2008

. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm ?id=0507513

USEPA. “Asarco Inc.” Envirofacts Multisystem Report . (n.d.). 10 March 2008. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000906066

U SEPA. “Human Health and Environmental Damage from Mining and Mineral Processing Wastes.” December 1995. 29 January 2008. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/mining/minedock/da mage/index.htm

USEPA. “Report to Congress on Special Wastes from Mineral Processing, Chapter 14: Primary Zinc Processing.” July 1990. 27 February 2008. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/ot her/mineral/chapter14.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 55 Site Information

Site Name: Atlantic Resources Corporation
EPA ID No.: NJD981558430
Address : 120 Horseshoe Rd., Sayreville, NJ 08872 County: Middlesex
NPL Site: Final: 9/5/2002
In CERCLIS Database: 0201116

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Operations at this site go back to the
late 1930s

. International Recycling operated on this site from 1968 through 1972

. From 1972 until 1985, Atlantic Resources operated on the site

. Both companies recovered gold and silver by incineration, reverse plating, smelting, and acid etching from fly ash, film (including x

- rays), circuit boards, building material, silverware and other waste material containing silver and gold

. VOCs were used as fuel in the incinerators

. At lantic Resources filed for bankruptcy in 1985, after investigation for dioxins on the site revealed a substantial amount of contamination

.

In 2000, USEPA selected a cleanup plan to demolish chemically

- contaminated debris structures located above ground a t the 17

- acre Horseshoe Road Complex, a federal Superfund site adjacent to Atlantic Resources Corporation facility

. As a result, the Atlantic Resources joined the Horseshoe Road Complex as a superfund site in 2002

.

The USEPA remediation plan calls for the demolition of buildings and structures, the removal of surface debris, recycling of metal, concrete and brick, and the off

- site disposal of the demolition debris. Total costs are expected to be about $1.4 million ($ 864,000 for the Atlantic Resources area and $522,000 for the Atlantic Development area). The cleanup will take approximately 13 months to complete. USEPA plans to address soils, groundwater and sediments in the marsh and river in future cleanup actions at the Horseshoe Road Complex federal Superfund site. The agency is currently investigating the Raritan River and nearby wetlands to pinpoint the extent and nature of any site

- related contamination.

Past cleanup work has been conducted at the site using fed eral and state funds. In a series of cleanups since 1985, USEPA and the state have removed more than 3,000 drums (found buried and on the surface) and cleaned up dioxin and mercury spills. Materials found in numerous tanks and vats, as well as excavated co ntaminated soils and debris were also removed from the site. A settlement to reimburse USEPA for a portion of the cleanup costs was reached with some of the parties responsible for the contamination. However, the responsible parties have yet to perform

any of the work.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 56 Description of Contamination : Materials were not managed to minimize loss, and a brushfire in 1981 revealed 70 partially filled drums containing acetonitrile, silver cyanide, and ethyl acetate

. Contamination onsite includes volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi

- VOC’s, base

- neutral compounds, heavy metals, pesticides, dioxins, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

. During cleanup, USEPA removed acids from leaking vats, cleaned up mercury spills, and other
hazardous substances found on site

. U SEPA also disposed of many materials off site, including 152 drums, 5550 gallons of combustible liquid, 70 pounds of mercury, 520 cubic yards of contaminated debris, and 15 gas cylinders

. Incineration of film had led to dioxin contamination,
and waste solv

ents had leaked out of storage containers

. Impact to surface soils was largely contamination from metals such as mercury and cadmium; impact to groundwater was largely
from solvents

.

Atlantic Resources also was noted to have dumped wastes and discharged wastes directly into the Raritan River and the marsh by New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Investigations have shown that these releases are contaminating the Raritan River, which is a fishery, and surrounding marshes. The site was highly c ontaminated, due to sloppy operation and illegal practices, such as the use of nitric acid for etching, and direct dumping of wastes into a nearby run

- off stream.

Sources of Information:

EPA Region 2

- Newsroom. “EPA Selects Cleanup Plan for Above

- Ground Structures at Superfund Site on Horseshoe Road in Sayreville, New Jersey.” 3 October 2000. 17 January
2006. http://www.epa.gov/region02/news/2000/00178a.htm

EPA Region 2

- Newsroom. “EPA Places Three Sites on the Final Superfund National Priorities List in New Jersey.” 4 September 2002. 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region02/news/2002/02087.htm

EPA Region 2. “Superfund Site Summary: Atlantic Resources.” (n.d.) 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/0201116c.pdf

EPA Region 2. “Superfund Site Summary: Ho rseshoe Road.” (n.d.) 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/0200781c.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 57 USEPA. “Atlantic Resources.” CERCLIS . 27 October 2005. 17 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0201116

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Atlantic Resources Corporation.” 2 September 2002. 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0201116.pdf

Additional Contacts: John Osolin (RPM) (212) 637

- 4412, Interview 6/30/05Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 58 Site Information :

Site Name: Aztec Mercury
EPA ID No.: TXD061284105
Address: 970 Callaway Drive, Alvin, TX County: Brazoria

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and/or Description of Recycling Operation : From 1974 to 1985, mercury was recycled at this site. An enforcement order issued by the Texas Water Commission on May 13, 1986, required operations to cease

. During its operations, there were no controls on the management of the hazardous waste and the man operating the site had no hazardous waste permits

. Though a neighbor reported him to the police, th e man did not abandon the site and
continued to live there.

The site did not have a RCRA permit.

Description of Contamination : A remedial investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination was completed July 11, 1994. Results indicated th at contamination of soils and ditch sediments by mercury exist on the site at potentially harmful levels

. A baseline risk assessment concluded that further action was needed to eliminate any potential imminent and substantial endangerment to human health a nd the environment. Following approval of the baseline risk assessment, a feasibility study (FS) report was submitted and reviewed

. The FS report developed three alternatives, with excavation and off

- site disposal as the preferred
alternative. As a result of the removal of soil and sediment, there is no longer a source for groundwater contamination

. The site no longer presents an endangerment to public health or the
environment and was deemed suitable for residential use.

Sources of Information:

Boucher, Carol (Texas Commission Environmental Quality) (512) 239

- 2501, Interview
9 December 2005

.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. “Texas Superfund Site: Aztec Mercury, Inc.” (n.d.). 20 January 2006. http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/superfund/state/aztecmer.htmlAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 59 USEPA. “Aztec Mercury Inc.” RCRA Info. 2 September 2000. 16 January 2006.

Additional Contac ts:

Carol Boucher (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) (512) 239

- 2501 cboucher@tceq.state.tx.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 60 Site Information

Site Name: Back Waste Oil
EPA ID No.: NYN000204415
Address: 704 County Road 30A, Central Bridge, NY 12035 County: Schoharie
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0204415

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The site is a former machine shop

. Over the years the owner has been accumulating thousands of gallons of waste oil, solvents, paint, and other types of ignitable fluids, from his own sources, as well as from unknown individuals who merely left containers of chemicals at his site

. These materials were intended to be used as supplemental fuel by the owner in a small heater inside the machine shop

. Having been out of business for the past 15 years, the waste fluids have been accumulating on the site

.

Description of Contamination : In addition to the more than 5,000 gallons of waste oil and other ignitable fluids , there are approximately 40 compressed gas cylinders of various sizes and a partially filled 300 gallon propane tank

. Inside the shop area, in addition to the containers of ignitable wastes, the owner has two boxes of live, .50 caliber military ammunition

. The rear garage door is missing, and allows for unrestricted access to the building

. There are no operating fire or smoke detectors, nor is there a fire alarm system

. There are visible signs of waste oil spillage onto the soil.

Sources of Information:
USEPA. “Back Waste Oil.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 19 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0204415

USEPA. “Back Waste Oil.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 19 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110013799425

USEPA. “Back Waste Oil.” On

- Scene Coordinator Prof

ile. (n.d.). 19 January 2006. www.epaosc.net/wasteoil

Additional Contacts: Paul Kahn (OSC) kahn.paul@epamail.epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 61 Site Information:

Site Name: Baldwin Waste Oil
EPA ID No.: TXD980626987
Address : Farm Road 1889, Robstown, TX County: Nueces
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and/or Description of Recycling Operation : The property was leased for use as a waste oil processing facility from 1978 to 1986. The site was inspected by the Texas Water
Commission in November 1986 and found to be abandoned

. Contaminants include hydrocarbons, metals, nonvolatile organics.

As of September 2004, clean up costs at the site amounted to $1,635,504.01.

Description of Contamination : Preliminar y investigations of analyzed soil samples indicated elevated lead, chromium, barium, and arsenic concentrations.

Sources of Information: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. “Superfund Site Profile: Baldwin Waste Oil.” (n.d.). 20 January 2006. http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/superfund/state/baldwin.html

USEPA. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). 30 September 2005. 20 January
2006.

Additional C ontacts: Carol Dye (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) (512) 239

- 1504Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 62 Site Information

Site Name: Baron Blakeslee
EPA ID No.: CAD074644659
Address: 8333 Enterprise Dr., Newark CA 94560 County: Alameda

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Baron Blakeslee was a chemical storage and distribution center that is no longer in operation

. In the past the facility also operated as a solvent recovery center for recovery of fluorinated and chlorina ted solvents from waste liquids

. As a result of underground storage tank (UST) closure activities (Closure Report, December 13, 1995), the fire department recommended that the facility investigate their groundwater and as a result, brought the Regional Wat er Quality Control Board (RWQCB) into cleanup activities at the facility

. A CWC 13267 request for a technical report (January 27, 1994) stated that the high levels of contaminants in soil and the ground water should be examined.

Baron Blakeslee was issue d a RCRA permit on November 13, 1992 after its original RCRA permitted issued on November 7, 1983 expired on November 7, 1988

.

Description of Contamination : The facility’s soil and groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and a ground water plume has migrated offsite approximately 1000 feet to the west. Concentrations in ground water are as high as 130 mg/L (ppm) for trichloroethylene (TCE). The revised site cleanup requirements order interim remedial actions for soils and ground water and the proposal of a final remedial alternative

. Cleanup is on

going; however, the current cleanup cost is not available

.

Sources of Information : Cherie McCaulou (RWQCB) 510

- 622

- 2342, Interview 12/8/2005

USEPA. “Baron Blakeslee.” Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination

. 5 February 1999

. 16 January 2006

. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9coract.nsf/0/3a3dfc41fe99 20c988256ac500795f3d/$FILE/B aron%20659%20EI%2000.pdf

USEPA. “Baron Blakeslee.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d)

. 24 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/mul tisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000621284Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 63 USEPA. “Baron Blakeslee.” RCRA Corrective Action Environmental Indicator Forms
Addendum

. 3 October 2000

. 16 January 2006

. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9coract.nsf/92e28fb9e2f1a35a88256a72006760cb/3a3dfc41fe
9920c988256ac500795f3d /$FILE/Baron%20659%20+%2000.pdf

USEPA. “Baron Blakeslee.” RCRAInfo. 27 June 2002. 18 January 2006.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 64 Site Information:

Site Name: Baron Blakeslee
EPA ID No.: ORD061483384
Address : 5920 NE 87th Ave., Portland, OR 97220 County: Multnomah
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and/or Description of Recycling Operation: Prior to 1972, the site was owned by Ethyl Corporation and operated as a chlorinated solvent distribution center

. From 1972 to 1993, Baron Blakeslee operated as a permitted hazardous waste storage and solvent recycling business

. The facility recovered fluorinated and chlorinated solvents from waste liquids

. In July 1991, the site was issued a RCRA permit

. When the facility ceased operations in 1993, Oregon’s Departm ent of Environmental Quality’s RCRA program managed the facility closure plan.

Description of Contamination: On

- site soil and on

- site and off

- site groundwater contain significant concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and chlorinated solvents

. Groundwater is the primary pathway of concern. The solvent constituents detected were acetone, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethylene (PCE), 1,1,1

- trichloroethane, and trichloroethylene

. The specific manner and times of release are not known; the source of contamination in general is historical operating practices.

Sources of Information:

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. “Environmental Cleanup Site Information (ECSI) Database Site Summary Report

– Details for Site ID 1274.” 19 January 2006. 19 January
2006. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/ECSI/ecsidetail.asp?seqnbr=1274

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. “Facility Summary Report.” 11 March 2004. 18
Janua ry 2006. http://deq12.deq.state.or.us/FP20/Fpdetail.aspx?SiteID=8918

USEPA. “Baron Blakeslee.” RCRA Info. 13 September 2000. 18 January 2006.

USEPA. “Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination RCRA Corrective Action.” April 2005. 18 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/

r10/cleanup.nsf/0/35ab1c3dc0f9ce1788256e01006ae0e7/$FILE/ OR3384_042005.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 65 USEPA Region 9: Corrective Action. “Facility Environmental Indicators.” 3 October 2000. 18 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9coract.nsf/0/3A3DFC41FE9920C988256AC500795F3D?Op
enDocument

Additional Contacts : Bill Robertson (503) 229

- 6843 robertson.bill@deq.state.or.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 66 Site Name: Basin Oil Company
EPA ID No.: WAD988477501 , WAD988466991

Address: 8661 Dallas Ave S. and 8617 17th Ave S., Seattle, WA County: King County

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: WAD988466991

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Basin Oil Company (Basin Oil) operated a used oil recycling facility in Seattle, Washington. The facility, located south of the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund site, is in a combined industrial and residential area. It consists of two areas, the primary site on Dallas Avenue South, and what is referred to as the
“West Yard” on 17 th Avenue South. The facility operated from 1987 until it closed in 2004, though wast es and accumulated drums of oil remained on site for more than three years.

Basin Oil first contacted the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) in 1996, identifying itself as a small quantity generator of hazardous wastes, and receiving a RCRA identification number. The wastes reported were waste oil and sludge from used oil tanks, produced during used oil recycling.

Following discussions with Ecology in 2004 and citations for improper management of wastes, the facility shut down. However, 26 a bove ground tanks and approximately 900 barrels of oil waste, as well as booms and other oil soaked debris, were left on the site and were not removed until 2008. During this time many of the drums or open containers had leaks or overflowed.
While the site owner was in contact with Ecology during this time, an arrangement for the cleanup of the site was never adequately reached and Basin Oil was issued multiple citations for failure to properly address the damages at the site. Inspections in 2008 determined the last barrels had been removed from the site, and the owner was sent a notice of penalty by Ecology for a number of the violations noted between 2004 and 2008. The violations were primarily in regard to the used oil processor regulations, though some o f the inspections did note oil and oil wastes uncontained on the grounds of the site. Specific violations were failure to provide secondary containment for tanks and containers, failure to test tank bottom sludge, and failure to process
their customers use d oil within 90 days

. Also included were two violations of state regulations for failure to provide a demonstration of liability insurance for accidental releases and failure to prepare and follow a facility closure plan.

Description of Contamination: Contamination at the site occurred primarily after the site closed in 2004 when Ecology determined that the site was not properly managing wastes. A considerable amount of material, including around 900 barrels of waste oil and sludge, was leftAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 67 on the site after closure, and during this period of abandonment site inspections noted that many barrels were leaking or overflowing. Inspections noted, along with violations for management and safety, that waste was leaking onto and was present on the site surface. The waste on the site had been noted to contain chromium, lead, and a number volatile organics. It was the lead levels remaining in the waste 2004 that caused the waste to be designated as a hazardous.

Source: Washington State Department of Ecology

Th ese wastes were left on site until 2008 when the remaining barrels were finally removed. Basin was issued a penalty of $41,000 by the state for the violations of the used oil processor regulations . A figure of $80,000 was also reported by state officials a s being spent on groundwater testing at the site to determine possible impact of past practices and the abandoned

wastes.

Sources of Information:

1. Washington Department of Ecology. Environmental Fact Sheet. Basin Oil, King County, Washington, August 2007. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/CLEANUP.NSF/LDW/Basin+Oil/$FILE/basin

- oil

- fs

- 08

- 10

- 07.pdf

2. Washington Department of Ecology. N otice of Penalty to Terry Drexler

- Basin Oil.
November 2008.

3. Washington Department of Ecology. Immediate Action Letter to Terry Drexler of Basin
Oil

– Dangerous Waste Compliance Inspection at Bain Oil. February 2007.

4. Smith, Barbara. Washington Department of Ecology, Personal communication (email)
with Amanda Kohler , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regarding Potential Damage cases. August 2011.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 68 Site Information

Site Name: Battery Tech (Duracell

- Lexington)
EPA ID No.: NCD000648402
Address: 305 New Highway 64 E, Lexington, NC 27292 County: Davidson

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0402542

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: This 27.5

- acre battery manufacturing facility zoned light industrial/commercial that is currently owned and operated by the Gillette Company, corporate owner of Duracell

. The site began operating in the 1950s

. Previous owners/operators at the site, includ ing P.R. Mallory and Duracell, manufactured mercuric oxide batteries, as well as dry cells for commercial and industrial use

. Over the years, several plant operations have been added to the site to expand production

. The operating facility consists of
thre e main buildings. Plant #1 is a battery cell assembly operation where chemicals are mixed
and laced into containers to make batteries

. Plant #2 was the building where mercuric oxide was
formulated from 1977 to 1986

. Mercury reclamation operations also took place on the east side of this plant from 1977 to 1986. Plant #2 was demolished and removed from the site in 1995. Plant #3 was purchased in 1976 and is utilized for testing, packaging, and shipping and receiving

. Building #4 was built in 1981 to house t he mercury reclamation furnace; this building is now used to temporarily store hazardous waste and house the wastewater treatment system

. Although the facility did have a mercury reclamation process, it is believed that it did not receive

any non

- process m

aterials for recycling

.

There has been one RCRA inspection done at this site in the past 3 years, completed on 01/19/2005. Battery Tech has been in RCRA non

- compliance for 6 of the past 12 quarters

. There
was one formal RCRA enforcement on 10/22/2004 an d a formal RCRA action taken against it on
07/16/2004.

This site is subject to two CERCLA Unilateral Administrative Orders for RD/RA for each operable unit (soils/groundwater)

. The owner Gillette has completed the soil remediation and the groundwater pump and treat system

. Under discussion is whether to convert the two UAO’s into
Consent Decrees

. Contamination occurred at this site until 1986.

This facility did not hold a RCRA Part B permit.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 69 Description of Contamination: Site operations, including recyc ling hazardous waste such as mercury reclamation, resulted in extensive mercury and manganese contamination in the soil and ground water at the site

. Contamination, however, likely occurs between the mid

- 1970s through
the mid 1980's

. One source of mercury contamination in the soil involved past operations in the
area of Plant #2

. Another source of mercury contamination in the soil involved spillage while transporting the mercuric oxide from Plant #2 to Plant #1

. Leaching of the mercury from the soil
to the soil into the ground water resulted in mercury ground water contamination

. Mercury is present in on

- site ground water at levels significantly higher than both State and Federal drinking
water standards

.

Sources of Information:

Black, Trevor C. (Associate Regional Counsel) (404) 562

- 9581, Interview 21 November 2005

EPA Region 4

. Email Correspondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste)

. 31 October
2005

.

USEPA. “Battery Tech (Duracell

- Lexington).” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 19 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0402542

USEPA

. “Duracell GBMG.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.) 19 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000604187

USEPA. “Duracell GBMG.” Enforcement & Compliance History Online. 8 December 2005. 19 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/cgi

- bin/get1cReport.cgi?tool=echo&IDNumber=110000604187

USEPA. “Duracell.” RCRAInfo . 29 September 2005

. 20 January 2006.

USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Bat tery Tech (Duracell

- Lexington).” 29 September 2005. 19 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/superrods/index.cfm?fuseaction=data.siterods&siteid=0402542

Addit ional Contacts: Steve H. Barron (Contact/Regulatory/RCRA) (336) 242

- 6000 Trevor C. Black, Associate Regional Counsel, 404

- 562

- 9581Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 70 Site Name: Bay Area Metals Recycling
EPA ID No.: WVR000513812
Address: 3815 S State Route 2, Friendly, WV 26146 County: Tyler
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Bay Area Metals Recycling (BAM) conducted an illegal hazardous waste recycling operation at its facility in Friendly, West Virginia

. BAM supposedly operated a non

- hazardous waste processing/recycling facility. In actuality, it was an unpermitted hazardous waste Tr eatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD ) facility. The investigation into the illegal operation ultimately involved five states (Connecticut, Illinois,
O hio, Vermont, and West Virginia) and three U.S. EPA regions (Regions I, III, and V).

The recycling operation involved AGMET Metals, Inc (AGMET), which is a metals processing/recycler with various locations in Ohio. AGMET received materials, including hazardous wastes, from generators in Vermont, Illinois, and Connecticut, and then transported the wastes to the BAM facility in West Virginia. AGMET claimed that all of the wastes sent to
BAM were either non

- hazardous wastes or were exempted and/or there w as an applicable
variance

. However, investigation and sampling revealed that much of the waste sent to BAM was indeed hazardous waste and/or the exemptions and variances did not apply. Utilizing a process called "calcining," employees of both BAM and AGMET jointly treated, stored and disposed of the hazardous wastes in order to partially reclaim the metals contained in the waste.

On October 7, 2010, the State of West Virginia issued a Unilateral Order to BAM that noted a number of waste management violatio ns and ordered the facility to take immediate measures for compliance

. BAM was also ordered to stop accepting wastes until obtaining a valid Hazardous Waste Management Permit.

On December 1, 2010, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection ( WV DEP) issued a Notice of Violation to BAM with regard to violations of hazardous waste management regulatory requirements. Specifically, BAM was given notice for the following violations:

 Storage of uncontainerized listed and characteristic hazardous wa ste;

 Failure to minimize the possibility of a release of hazardous waste which could threaten human health and environment;

 Storage of hazardous waste generated by offsite generators without a permit; andAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 71  Storage of listed and characteristic hazardous wast e in waste piles without a permit and which do not meet design and operating requirements.

Description of Contamination : BAM received hazardous waste generated off site and stored the waste improperly. BAM stored F006 listed hazardous waste, as well as D0 07, D008, and characteristic hazardous waste in unpermitted waste piles on a cracked floor in a building that was partially enclosed. The listed and characteristic wastes were tracked outside of the storage building onto the ground. Hazardous wastes that w ere spilled onto cracked concrete outside of the storage building were rained on and the runoff eventually flowed into surface waters via an unpermitted outfall.

Lead

- containing hazardous used oils (D008) poured out of one hazardous waste stream from GE
A viation onto the cracked floor and into the soils below. These contaminated soils remain on
site.

The hazardous wastes that were tracked from the waste pile storage area onto soils behind the facility have been excavated and shipped offsite to a permitted TSD facility. The soils below the unpermitted outfall have been excavated and shipped to a TSD. Three thousand gallons of F006

- contaminated water from an oil/water separator were pumped and sent to a TSD.

With the exception of several tons of F006 waste yet to be cleaned out of onsite process units and levels of D008 hazardous oils that still remain under the floor of the storage building, the WV DEP has compelled BAM/AGMET to ship tens of thousands of pounds of listed and
characteristic hazardous wastes to offsite TSD facilities. There remains remediation work to be completed at the site.

Per

- day penalties, if totaled in the current civil action, amount to more than $52 million. A team
of WV DEP legal and RCRA staff is currently in negotiations with BAM and AGMET for a resolution of all outstanding issues. WV DEP is attempting to have all of the remedial actions completed, before the company disso lves.

Sources of Information:

1. Gable, Dale. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. Personal Communication (email) to Amanda Kohler , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 19, 2011.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 72 2. State of West Virginia vs. Bay Area Metal Recycling, Inc., Agmet, Inc. Civil Complaint.
Civil Action No. 11

- C

- 27K

3. USEPA. Facility Registry System. Facility Detail Report. Bay Area Metals Recycling

. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=WVR 000513812&pgm_sys_acrnm_in=RCRAINFO

4. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. Notice of Violat ion. Issued to Bay Area Metals Recycling. December 1, 2010.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 73 Site Information
Site Name: Bay Zinc Company Inc.
PA ID No.: WAD027530526
Address: 301 W. Charron Rd., Moxee City, WA 98936 County: Yakima

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Bay Zinc has secondary manufactured zinc micronutrient fertilizer for over 25 years on their 11

- acre site

. The raw materials used in the manufacturing processes were K061 electric arc furnace dust rich in zinc and other metals

. The K061 dust was typically reacted with sulfuric acid.

. The final product was dried into granules or retained in liquid form, then sold as zinc micronutrient fertilizer for agricultural use.

This facility had a RCRA storage permit for K061 prior to recycling

. The facility had a RCRA permit from November 1988 to November 1990

. The site was addressed through MTCA, Washington State’s superfund, even though they had a RCRA storage permit

.

Description of Contamination : Product storage and handling practices and product spills at the facility have resulted in releases of hazardous substances to the soil and groundwater

. Hazardous materials exist in soil and groundwater at the site. In soil, metals such as lead, cadmium and zinc
are the primary concern. Groundwater samples show elevated concentrations of sulfate, chloride, manganese, cadmium and zinc

. The selected cleanup actions for the site include: 1) Excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated soils to an appropriate landfill; 2) Removal and treatment of contaminated groundwater.

Sources of Information: Boyd, Andrew

. Email to Amy Lile (USEPA Office of Solid Waste)

. 21 October 2005

. Information from Washington Department of Ecology’s report to the state legislature in
2002: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0204028.html

USEPA. “Bay Zinc Company Incorporated.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 17 January
2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000491254

.

USEPA

. “Permit Series List.” RCRAInfo

. 19 January 2006.

USEPA

. “RCRA Site Progress Profile: Bay Zinc Co Inc.” 10 December 2005

. 17 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/rcra_profile.getmain?p_handler_id=WAD027530526

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 74 Washington State Department of Ecology

. “Fact Sheet September 2002: Bay Zinc Company
Inc .” September 2002

. 17 January 2006. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0209058.pdf

.

Washington State Department of Ecology

. “Hazardous Waste Management Facilities in Washington

– Problems and Options.” p. 12, 69

. September 2002

. 17 January 2006. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0204028.html.

Additional Contacts: Greg Caron (Hazardous Waste Program, Washington State Department of Ecology) (509) 454

- 7893, grca461@ecy.wa. govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 75 Site Information

Site Name: Beacon Battery Co.
EPA ID No.:
Address: 8666 Delta Line Rd., Custer, WA 98240 County: Whatcom

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Beacon Battery is a small home business located in Custer, Washington, in northwest Whatcom County

. Beacon Battery receives used batteries for recycle and resale

. The business collects lead acid batteries and reconditions
them on site

. The ones that cannot be reconditioned are sent for offsite smelting

. It appears to be a legitimate recycling process

.

Description of Contamination : In 1990, an investigation found that approximately 200 batteries were being stacked outside in an open area with evidence of spillage of battery acid

. S oil samples indicated lead contamination

. In 1999, a second investigation showed elevated levels of lead in the soil; however there was no longer evidence of acid spillage

. In 2000, the site was
cleaned

. Drinking water tests showed the water was safe and t he contaminated soil was removed

. Two hazardous waste inspections were conducted at the site in 2003

. Minor hazardous waste violations were noted and the facility corrected everything in a timely manner

.

Sources of Information : EPA Region 10. Email Cor respondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste).
20 November 2005.

Washington State Department of Health

. “Health Consultation: Beacon Battery, Custer, Whatcom County, Washington.” 19 September 2003

. 17 January 2006

. http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/publications_pdf/HealthConsults/ Beacon_Battery_Custer_Whatcom_6

- 28

- 01.pdf.

Additional Contacts: David S. Misko (Hazardous Waste Compliance, Sup ervisor, Washington Dept. of Ecology

– Northwest Regional Office) (425) 649

- 7014Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 76 Site Information

Site Name: Beede Waste Oil
EPA ID No.: NHD018958140
Address: 7 Kelly Road, Plaistow, NH 03865 County: Rockingham
NPL Site: Final: 12/23/1996

In CERCLIS Database: 0102723

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Beede Waste Oil, an inactive waste oil recycling and virgin fuel oil storage and distribution facility, includes two adjacent parcels totaling 39 acres

. The site was the location of several oil

- related operations, including waste oil processing and re

- sale, fuel oil sale, contaminated soil processing into cold

- mix asphalt, anti

freeze recycling, and other related industries

. These activities were reportedly conducted from the 1920's until operations ceased in August 1994

.

The first parcel has been occupied by oil

- related businesses since 1926, when Robert Beede operated a waste oil recycling facility on site, receiving waste oils, collecting and storing the oils
on site i n containers, and then reselling usable oils to asphalt manufacturing facilities and towns for dust suppression. Between 1964 and 1979, Cash Oil operated on site, and in 1979 Cash Energy, Inc. purchased the property. The last oil

- related business, Tri

- Stat e Resources, left the property in August 1994.

Waste oil was deposited in a surface impoundment for an unknown duration between 1960 and 1975 and in an underground storage vault from an unspecified date until its removal in 1991. The oils were periodical ly pumped into a series of aboveground storage tanks (ASTs)

. By 1978, 86 ASTs with a total capacity of 1.3 million gallons were in use. 38 of these tanks have been documented to contain waste oil, sludge, and/or water contaminated with PCBs and/or metals

. Several tanks are known to have leaked, including one used to store PCB

- contaminated waste
oil.

This site did not hold a RCRA Part B permit.

Description of Contamination: The primary contaminants that have been found in the soil, sediment, surface wate r, and groundwater include PCBs, VOCs, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) and lead. VOCs in the groundwater continue to migrate
off

- site, and have impacted 14 adjacent residential wells. Three underground storage tanks usedAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 77 to store waste oils were removed sometime after 1979

. More than 200 drums of oil, sludge, and contaminated soil are stockpiled on site.

The following materials were abandoned when operations ceased in 1994: approximately 100 large above

- ground storage tanks containing hazardous and non

- hazardous oil product; several large piles of soil containing varying levels of contamination; and about 800 drums of oil product, some containing hazardous materials, which were stored in an open, roofed area. The
levels of vo latile organic compounds (VOCs) exceeded the allowable levels in drinking water in
the on

- site monitoring wells and in two residential wells off

- site. Floating oil was found resting on the groundwater at the Site. The oil has periodically seeped into the K elley Brook that flows adjacent to the Site. In the fall of 1983, chemical contamination was discovered in a residential well near the site. By 2004, 80,000 gallons have oil had been removed from the site.

In January 2004, USEPA announced a $48 million cle anup plan for restoration of the 39

- acre Beede Waste Oil Superfund site in Plaistow, New Hampshire. As of January 2004, EPA and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) have invested about $19 million for investigation and cleanup work at t he site

.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 1. “Waste Site Cleanup and Reuse: Beede Waste Oil Site.” 3 October 2005. 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region01/superfund/sites/beede/

USEPA. “Beede Waste Oil.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 17 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0102723

USEPA. “Beede Waste Oil.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 25 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110004088978

USEPA. “Beede Waste Oil.” RCRAInfo . 1 September 2000

. 20 January 2006

.

USEPA. “EPA Announces Plan for Funding Cleanup of Beede Superfund Site in N.H.” 8 June 2001. 6 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/beede/search_fs.htm

USEPA. “EPA Announces $48 Million Cleanup Decision for the Beede Waste Oil Superfund Site in Plaistow N.H.” 13 January 2004. 6 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/beede/search_fs.htmAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 78 USEPA. “EPA Takes Major Step to Fund Cleanup of Beede Superfund Site in N.H.” 3 June 2002. 6 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/beede/search_fs.htm

USEPA. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). 30 September 2004. 17 January
2006.

Additional Contacts: Angela Bona rrigo (CIC) (617) 918

- 1034 Tom Condon (OSC) (617) 918

- 1206 James Chow (RPM) (617) 918

- 1394 Dorothy Girten

- Parr (OSC) (617) 918

- 1265 Nancy Smith (SAM) (617) 918

- 1436Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 79 Site Information:

Site Name: Bergsoe Metal Corporation
EPA ID No.: ORD991281460
Address: 444 Port Ave, St. Helens, OR 97051 County: Columbia

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and/or Description of Recycling Operation : The Bergsoe Metal facility, a secondary lead smelting facility, was constructed from 1980

- 1982

. Operations started in April 1982 and ceased in October 1986 when BMC was placed in involuntary bankruptcy

. During plant operations the site had six main buildings, each dedicated to a specific function of the plant. Also on site was a surge pond, the forme r slag and matte pile area, and employee parking areas

. The main process of the BMC plant was smelting and refining scrap lead to produce lead ingots
in the form of 60

- to 65

- pound pigs, 1,850

- pound hogs, and other customized molds.

Batteries, battery p lates, solder flux waste, and lead scrap were delivered to the plant and smelted to produce elemental lead, which was further refined and alloyed

. Used lead/acid batteries brought in by semitrailers were processed through the battery dumper (before August 1984) or battery wrecker (after August 1984). The resulting lead materials were staged in the silo building, then mixed with other raw materials to create a furnace charge

. Battery casing chips were washed and sold for recycling. The battery acid was colle cted and sold as reusable material

. Crude lead from the furnace was refined in the refinery kettles. Refined lead was then sent to casting machines and formed into ingots, which were sold to a variety of companies, mainly battery manufacturers. Lead alloys were also produced to customer specifications

. In addition to scrap lead, a variety of chemicals and metals were used in the smelting and refining processes including coke, millscale, iron oxide, shredded iron, lead dross, aluminum, antimony, arsenic,
cad mium, selenium, sodium metal, tin, caustic soda, iron pyrite, so da ash, sodium nitrite, sulfur,
and ammonium chloride.

Bergsoe generated liquid and solid wastes throughout its operations. The facility's methods of storage, treatment and disposal were con sistent for the duration of plant operation. Liquids included waste acid and acidic wash water. For the first few months of operation, waste acids were disposed of at the hazardous waste landfill in Arlington, Oregon. After that they were
sent to Boise Cas cade's St. Helens plant as usable material

. Wash water generated inside the buildings was recycled for reuse in a closed loop system. Heavily contaminated rinse water wasAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 80 sprayed into one of the afterburners

. Storm water was collected through a system of s torm drains, and piped to the on

- site surge pond

. Process water was not discharged to the pond.

Solids in the form of slag and matte were produced from the blast furnace, and were stored on the slag pad north of the furnace building and east of the silo building. Excess material was periodically moved from the slag pad to the slag and matte pile in the northwest corner of the site. Other solids including the baghouse dust were reused as components of the blast furnace charge

. Plastics from the battery wr ecker were rinsed and recycled. Used refractory brick was drummed and stored outside the electrical substation prior to disposal. Wooden pallets on which batteries had been delivered were stored along the north access road. Drums with lead scrap were

spora dically stored along the east fence north of the gate

.

This site was not a RCRA

- permitted facility

.

Description of Contamination : Environmental damage occurred throughout the life of the facility

. Soil was contaminated with lead, arsenic, and cadmium

. Groundwater was contaminated with sulfate, lead and cadmium. During its operations from 1982

- 1986, air on

- site was contaminated with lead. Two releases of rinse water to the ground are on record. The first was 900 gallons in December 1982, the second 25,00 0 gallons in January 1985

. In April 1985, 25,000 gallons of acid wash water were spilled

. Acid leaked from the battery acid containment system during temporary storage

. The liquid was characterized as corrosive and EP toxic for lead

. Slag and matte piles l

ocated at the facility were characterized as EP toxic for lead and cadmium. Fugitive emissions and operating practices caused accumulation of lead, and to a lesser extent cadmium and arsenic, in site soils at the facility

. None of the off

- site soil samples exceeded 500 mg/kg total lead

. Dust on roads was heavily contaminated with lead

. The on

- site pond contained
surface water run

- off from the site which was contaminated with lead

. Floor tanks became plugged and ineffective, corroding out

. During one early D EQ inspection of the site, as much as a foot of pooled acid solution was discovered

.

According to Bob Williams at Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, in the early to mid

90s, $16 million was spent on various interim removal actions and the final remedy was estimated to cost $431,000

. According to USEPA cost figures, actual expenditure as of September 2004 was $26,056.45

. On February 29, 1988 Bergsoe Metal Corporation entered into
an administrative consent order with USEPA under CERCLA

.

Sources:

Levin, Anne (Oregon DEQ) (503) 229

- 6258, Interview 19 December 2005.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 81 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. “Environmental Cleanup Site Information (ECSI) Databases Site Summary Report

– Details for Site ID 12.” (n.d.). 20 January 2006. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/ECSI/ecsidetail.asp?seqnbr=12

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. “Record of Decision Selected Final Remedial Action Bergsoe Metal Corporati on St. Helens Oregon.” October 1994. 20 January 2006.

USEPA. “Bergsoe Metal Corporation.” RCRA Info. 13 September 2000. 18 January 2006.

Williams, Robert (Oregon DEQ) williams.robert@deq.state.or. us , Email 19 December 2005.

USEPA. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). 30 September 2004. 20 January 2006.

Contacts: Robert Williams (Oregon DEQ) (503) 229

- 6802, williams.robert@deq.state.or.us Anne Levine (Oregon DEQ) (503) 229

- 6258 Brett McKnight (Oregon DEQ) (541) 388

- 6146 x236Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 82 Site Information

Site Name: Berman Steel

- Salinas
EPA ID No.: CAD981624950
Address: Highway 101 at Spence Road, Salinas, CA 93908 County: Monterey
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Berman Steel leased this two

- acre property from Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (SPTCo.) and operated a scrap metal recycling and salvage yard facility

. The facility used electrical transformers from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) which were dismantled on the property for recycling

. During recycling operations, PCBs from used transformers were spilled onto the ground

. Heavy metal

co ntamination also resulted from recycling operations.

Description of Contamination : Contaminants at this site included lead, PCBs, copper and compounds, and zinc

.

A remedial action plan was completed on August 26, 1992

. 1,377.2 cubic yards of soils were excavated and disposed at a hazardous waste landfill

. The existing concrete pads at the site were demolished and used as a foundation for the cap. The entire site was capped with clayey soils and vegetative cover. A deed restriction limiting future use of the property was recorded

. The entire site was capped with clayey soils and vegetative cover. A deed restriction limiting future use of the property was recorded. Post closure activities will consist of yearly inspection of the cap for indications of erosi on, cracking or ponding of surface water. Any damage found in the cap will be repaired with soil cap material or topsoil. The cap cover will be sampled yearly to determine if the contaminants are being taken up by the vegetation. Vegetative cover will be c ut yearly to prevent the growth of woody species. Also, there will be a 5

- year review to verify that the cleanup measures are still satisfactory

.

Sources of Information: Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Berman Steel

- Salinas.” EnviroStor Database

. (n.d.) 15 January 2006. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=27350001

US EPA. “Ebstone & Son, Inc.” Envirofacts Data Wareh ouse . (n.d.) 20 February 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/rcris_web.report?pgm_sys_id=CAD981624950Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 83 Additional Contacts : Monica Gan, Project Manager, mgan@dtsc.ca.gov , 510

- 540

- 3748Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 84 Site Information

Site Name: Bern Metals
EPA ID No.: NYD986910057
Address: 22 Bender Ave, Buffalo, NY 14206

- 2803 County: Erie

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0202697

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Bern/Universal Metals site on the east side of Buffalo was used as a scrap metal processing center for almost 50 years until it was closed in the late1980s. The state began its involvement in the case in the late 1980s. In 1992, USEPA excavated some contaminated soil, removed barrels, provided soil cover on part of the property and put up fencing. Because the site owners were deceased, the state then initiated a proceeding against companies identified as c ontributing to pollution at the site. Six entities that sent toxic material to the site have agreed to conduct cleanup activities at the site which are estimated to cost $1.86 million for the cleanup. The entities include: Niagara Frontier Transportation A uthority, Niagara Frontier Transit Metro System, Inc., Honeywell International Inc., National Fuel Gas Distribution Corp., General Motors Corporation, and New York State Electric and Gas Corporation. Consolidated Railroad owned a portion of the site and ag reed to pay $300,000 according to a 2002 Federal Register Notice.

Description of Contamination : Soil at the five

- acre site is heavily contaminated with lead, battery acid and other toxic substances.

Sources of Information:

Federal Register (Volume 67, Number 53). Page 12573. “Notice of Lodging of Partial Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as Amended.” 19 March 2002. 25 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA

- WASTE/2002/March/Day

- 19/f6280.htm

Office of New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. “Agreement Speeds Cleanup of
Buffalo Toxic Site .” 19 July 2002. 19 Januar y 2000. http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2002/jul/jul19a_02.html

USEPA. “Bern Metals.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 19 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0202697Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 85 Additional Contacts: Chait Agnihotri (OSC) (908) 906

- 6908Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 86 Site Information

Site Name: Bingham & Taylor

EPA ID No.: VAD003064490

Address : Nalle Place, Culpeper, VA 22701 County: Culpeper

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Bingham and Taylor Foundry produces cast iron products from recycled scrap iron in a legitimate, regulated recycling practice

. The site consists of office buildings, operating buildings, storage buildings, and a loading dock

. Bingham & Taylor receives scrap iron from various sources

. The scrap iron is melted down and transferred to molds to produce cast iron products

. Pr oducts include valve boxes, curb boxes, meter frames, and lids

. Bingham & Taylor finishes its cast iron products with an asphalt coating

. It does not appear the facility was RCRA

- permitted.

Description of Contamination : Waste products from scrap iron recycling operations at Bingham & Taylor include cupola dust, cupola slag, and spent casting sand

. The cupola dust
emissions are considered hazardous and were mixed with other waste for stabilization and disposal

. In 1986, Bingham & Taylor ceased onsite wa ste disposal

. Between 1999 and 2002, EPA and Bingham & Taylor found elevated levels of lead in onsite surface soil

. Subsurface soil, groundwater and offsite soil did not contain lead levels high enough to cause concern

. Corrective
action onsite included ca pping of 30,000 square

- feet of contaminated soil with an impervious, bituminous asphalt cover.

The site has been capped and according to a rough estimate from Denis Zielinski, EPA Region 3 project manager, remediation costs were approximately $500,000

.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 3. “Bingham & Taylor Facility, Culpeper, Virginia: Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Decision under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 and Opportunity for a Pu blic Hearing.” 27 October
2004

. 17 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/publicnoticebinghamtaylor.htm

.

EPA Region 3

. “Bingham & Taylor facility, Culpeper, Virginia Statement of Basis.” 22
November 2004

. 17 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/publicnoticebinghamtaylorsob.htm

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 87 EPA Region 3

. “Mid

- Atlantic Facility Lead Program Participating Faciliti es.” 6 September 2005

. 17 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/fl_sites.htm

.

EPA Region 3

. “Region 3 GPRA Baseline RCRA Corrective Action Facility: Bingham & Taylor.” 23 December 2004

. 17 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/va/pdf/vad003064490.pdf

USEPA

. “Permit Series List.” RCRAInfo

. 19 January 2006.

Zielinski, Denis M. (Project Manager) (215) 814

- 3431, Interview 16 November 2005.

Additional Contacts:

Denis M. Zielinski, EPA Region 3 Project Manager, (215) 814

- 3431, zielinski.denis@epa.gov

Maria Willia ms, VA DEQ, (804) 698

- 4211, mswilliams@deq.virginia.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 88 Site Name: Blue Ridge Solvents and Coatings, Inc.
EPA ID No: VAR000503656
Address: PO Box 759, Henry, Virginia 24102 County: Franklin
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Established in 2002, Blue Ridge Solvents & Coatings, Inc., manufactures and delivers industrial chemicals, paints, lacquers, thinners, powder coating, and water treatment chemicals

. The company also recycles solvents using distillation and thin film evaporation. The facility contains storage and mixing tanks and solvent recovery equipment

.

On April 7, 2010 the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) conducted a compliance evaluation of the facility, and found that the facility had failed to maintain records required under its permit. These records include monthly inspections for the fabric filter, logs of monitoring device observation s for the thin film evaporator and microwave distillation unit, monthly and annual Hazardous Air Pollutant and Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions, and scheduled and non

- scheduled maintenance and operator training. The facility agreed to pay a $7,826 fine to settle the violations. A fire occurred at the facility on June 4, 2010, causing property damage and requiring the evacuation of nearby homes

.

Description of Contamination : On June 4, 2010 a fire started occurred in a mixing room, resulting in ex

plosions from propane cylinders and chemicals. Firefighters extinguished the blaze
within two hours

. No injuries were reported. The fire was contained to the mixing room, which is a block and concrete building with a steel roof. A portion of the roof colla psed, but the storage tanks inside the room held their contents. Adjacent sections of the building sustained smoke and water damage

.

Twenty residents who lived within a quarter

- mile of the facility were evacuated from their homes and taken to emergency s helters for about two hours while firefighters battled the fire.

USEPA Region III and VADEQ are considering whether additional information or sampling at the facility is required or if corrective action is required by the facility

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 89 Sources of Informatio n:

1. Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

. State Air Pollution
Control Board Enforcement Action

– Order by Consent Issued to Blue Ridge Solvents & Coatings, Inc

. 24 June 2010. http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/enforcement/finalordersII/BRSCJune28 2010.pdf

2. Wagoner, K.A

. The Franklin News Post

. “BREAKING NEWS: Fire forces evacuation of 20 Henry residents.” 4 June 2010. http://www.thefranklinnewspost.com/article.cfm?ID=16449

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

. “Blue Ridge Solvents and Coatings.” 28 June
2010. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/va/pdf/vad003124625.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 90 Site Information

Site Name: Boro Auto Wreckers, Inc.
EPA ID No.: NJD091397299
Address: 2271 Hamilton Blvd., South Plainfield, NJ 07080 County: Middlesex

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Boro Auto Wreckers site is a 4

- acre site operating as an auto salvage and scrap metal recycling facility since 1935

. The property was owned and operated by Fred and Carol Errickson who recycled all types of scrap metal from tanks, appliances, automobiles, etc

. The metal was crushed, stripped of non

- metallic materials, weighted and shipped off

- site for recycling

. Ferrous and non

- ferrous scrap metals were stockpiled in the open yard along with other soil and debris

.

Borro Auto failed to complete necessary remedial investigations and actions required by a 1990 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) administrative consent order, a 1997 judicial consent order, and a 2003 NJDEP administrative consent order

. In 2004, the New Jersey Supreme Court, directed Boro Auto Wrecking to cease operations. It also allowed the NJDEP access to the site for 18 months to clean up the contaminated scrap yard

. In addition, the court ordered Boro Auto to pay NJDEP a penalty of $25,250

. In 2004, NJDEP authorized $500,000 to begin publicly funded testing and cleanup work at the Boro site

.

Description of Contamination : Stained and oil satu rated soils and discharges of petroleum products were first identified by the South Plainfield Health Department in 1984

. Since this initial inspection, there have been numerous inspections by local health and representatives revealing extensive soil conta mination and hazardous discharges on

- site as well as contaminated storm water discharges offsite. Groundwater contaminants have included volatile organic compounds generally associated with petroleum hydrocarbon contamination and gasoline
constituents such as benzene, toluene, xylenes, and methyl tertiary

- butyl ether (MTBE)

. Soil contaminants have included widespread polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination at levels in excess of 50 ppm, heavy metal contamination (primarily lead) and widespread petroleu m hydrocarbon contamination, including polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

. Contaminated soil piles currently exist onsite and are being characterized and removed by NJDEP contractors

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 91 Sources of Information:

EPA Region 2

. Email Correspondence with Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste)

. 31 October 2005

.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

. “Court Allows Clean

- up of Scrap yard to Begin.” 9 February 2004. 17 January 2006. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/2005/05_0011.htm

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. “DEP Seeks Scrap Yard Shut Down and Cleanup” 13 December 2004. 17 January 2006.
ht tp://www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/2004/04_0141.htmAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 92 Site Name: Boulden Incorporated
EPA ID No.: MDD980550198
Address : 895 Nottingham Road, Elkton, MD 21921 County: Cecil
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Boulden Incorporated operated a small

scale parts cleaning and solvent recovery business at the site

. The site consisted of aboveground and underground storage tanks, storage space, and a distillation bu ilding with solvent distillation equipment. Contamination resulted from the storage of recycled solvents at the site prior to 1998

. The business shut down in the early 1990s

. The facility had a RCRA permit.

Description of Contamination : In 1994, Boulden signed a consent order with EPA Region 3 for RCRA Corrective Action and closure of the facility, due to contamination of on

- site soils. Cleanup actions performed at Boulden consisted of: removal of all above ground storage tanks, distillation building and associated equipment; excavation and closure of two underground storage tanks; removal of all contaminated soil; soil and groundwater sampling.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 3

- RCRA Baseline Facilities. “Boulden Incorporated.” (n.d.). 17 January 2 006. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/md/pdf/mdd980550198.pdf

Martinez, Wanda (Project Manager) (215) 814

- 3434, Interview 16 November 2005.

USEPA. “Boulden Inc.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 17 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000907724

USEPA. “Boulden Incorporated.” RCRAInfo . 12 January 2005

. 20 January 2006.

Additional Contacts: Wanda Martinez, EPA Region 3 Project Manager, (215) 814

- 3434, martinez.wanda@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 93 Site Information

Site Name: Breslube

- Penn, Inc.
EPA ID No.: PADO89667695
Address : 84 Montour Rd., Coraopolis, PA 15108 County: Allegheny
NPL Site: Final: 06/17/1996
In CERCLIS Database: 0301139

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : In the mid

- 1970s, American Tallow and Wiseman Oil Companies conducted operations at this site

. American Tallow operated a meat

rendering business and discontinued operations at the facility around 1977. Wiseman Oil Company operated a waste oil processing and reclamation facility at the site. Used oils were re

refined into fu

el oils and sold to residual fuel users. Wiseman Oil also manufactured lubricating oil from the used oils for a short period of time during its operation of the facility. A filtering agent clay was generated as a residue from the filter during this process . The filter cake was stockpiled in the southwestern portion of the property. In February 1981, sampling of accumulated sludge material within the diked areas surrounding the on

- site oil storage tanks indicated elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Wiseman Oil and American Tallow had operated a lagoon in the southwestern end of the property. Oily plating waste from a Westinghouse plant in New Jersey was allegedly disposed in this lagoon. Runoff from the lagoon and spillage onto the ground thr oughout the property caused ground water contamination. The lagoon was backfilled in 1979 but the waste was not removed from the lagoon. Breslube

- Penn Inc. acquired the property and facility in 1982 after Wiseman Oil declared bankruptcy. Breslube

Penn cont inued waste oil reprocessing operations during which time contamination occurred. The company built tanks on the former location of Wiseman's lagoon and also constructed a lubricating oil reprocessing plant. The filter cake from this operation was generall y collected in a
roll

- off box and disposed both off and on site

. Breslube

- Penn discontinued fuel oil reprocessing in 1986. The facility was utilized as a waste oil transfer station from 1986 through late 1991 when operations at the facility ceased. Three t anks were installed for use in oil transferring operations.

Description of Contamination : A sampling site inspection was conducted at the facility in October 1988. Samples collected from the staged contaminated soil area, the filter cake area, and other areas on site revealed elevated concentrations of volatile and semivolatile organic compound s (VOCs and SVOCs), PCBs, and several inorganic compounds, including cyanide. Downgradient groundwater samples contained volatile and semivolatile contaminants and PCBs. Samples collected from the two on

- site wells indicated elevated levels of VOCs.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 94 Sources of Information: Pennsylvania Department of Health Under Cooperative Agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. “Public Health Assessment Breslube

- Penn Inc., Superfund Site.” 14 May 1997. 22 January 2006. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/breslube/bre_toc.html

USEPA. “Breslube

- Penn Inc.” CERCLIS. 7 December 2005. 23 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0301139

USEPA. “NPL Fact Sheet: Breslube

- Penn, Inc.” August 2005. 22 January 2006. http://epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/sites/PAD089667695/index.htm

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Breslube

- Pen n, Inc.” 17 June 1996. 22 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0301139.pdf

Additional Contacts: Marjorie Easton (OSC) (304) 234

- 0251 Bhupendra Khona (RPM) (215) 81 4

- 3213 Larry C. Johnson (RPM) (215) 814

- 3239Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 95 Site Information

Site Name: Cal West Metals
EPA ID No.: NMD097960272
Address: I

- 25 & US 60 & 85 W Frontage, Lemitar, NM 87823 County: Socorro
NPL Site: Deleted:12/20/1996
In CERCLIS Database: 0604050

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Cal West Metals site is located

one

- half mile northwest of Lemitar and approximately 8 miles north of Socorro in Socorro County, New Mexico. The site is bounded on the east by a frontage road for US Interstate 25. The Interstate is located approximately 250 feet east of the site. Land use is predominantly agricultural and residential. There are three households located within 1,100 feet south of the site. The Cal West Metals site is a former battery b reaking and recycling facility.

The Cal West property includes approximately 43.8 acres, of which 12.5 acres are fenced. Site operations were located within the fenced area. The site consisted of two evaporation ponds, three facility buildings, earth ber ms, soil and battery waste piles, a concrete surface pad, and a salvage area. Albert and James LaPoint operated the Cal West Metal battery recycling facility and secondary lead smelter. From 1979 to 1981, the facility processed an estimated 20,000
automobi le batteries to recover lead, plastics, and hard rubber components for commercial sale.

Lead acid batteries were crushed on

- site and the batteries were separated into plastics, hard rubber, and lead oxides. Floatation and centrifugation in a rotating sep arator drum separated the plastics, hard rubber, and lead fraction. Water was recycled through the separator drum and ultimately discharged to the lined pond along with waste sludge. After the discharge line became plugged, sludge was disposed of on the co ncrete surface pad adjacent to the cotton gin building.

Piles of crushed battery components, in various stages of separation, were stored outdoors from the start of operations to approximately 1989. The broken battery piles were stored inside the
central building and stockpiled on the concrete pad adjacent (west) to this building. Cal West has been the subject of numerous State and Federal investigations and regulatory actions since 1979. Preliminary investigations were conducted by NMED, USEPA, and the L aPoints from 1981 through 1989.

Description of Contamination: Elevated levels of lead were found in soil, sediment, and groundwater

. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the battery waste piles, soil,Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 96 sediment, and debris are organics, including polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); and metals, including arsenic and lead

. In addition, about 300 drums containing lead oxide and sulfuric acid
were identified

.

In August 1986, USEPA issued an order to the owner/operators under Section 3008(a) of RCRA
for failure to operate and maintain the facility in compliance with RCRA hazardous waste management requirements.

The selected remedial action for this site included excavating, consolidating, and treating an estimated 15,000 cubic yards of contaminated batt ery waste materials, soil, and sediment onsite using stabilization/solidification; disposing of the treated materials in the southwest corner of the fenced area and capping the disposal area with cement and a 12

- inch soil cover; decontaminating
onsite buil dings and equipment; and sampling ground water. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action, according to a 9/29/1992 Superfund Record of Decision was $1,557,000, which includes an annual maintenance cost of $5,000 for 30 years.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 6. “Cal West Metals Superfund Site Profile.” 13 January 2006. 18 January 2006.

http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6sf/pdffiles/0604050.pdf

Hendricks, Ashley and Sara Lubchenco. “Analysis and Remediation Plan for Lead Contamination at the Cal West Site in Lemitar, NM.” L & H Environmental Engineering. (n.d.). 18 January 2006. http://www.e es.nmt.edu/EPSCoR/GIS_class/Ashley&SaraL.doc

USEPA. “Cal West Metals (USSBA).” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 18 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinf o.cfm?id=0604050

USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Cal West Metals (USSBA).” 29 September 1992. 18 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0692077.pdf

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Cal West Metals (USSBA).” 13 March 1989. 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/si tes/nplsnl/n0604050.pdf

Additional Contacts: Sairam Appaji (RPM) (214) 665

- 3126 Ladonna Walker (SAM) (214) 665

- 6666 Don Williams (RPM) (214) 665

- 2197Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 97 Site Information

Site Name: Callaway & Son Drum Service
EPA ID No.: FLD094590916
Address : 890 East Lake Alfred Drive, Lake Alfred, FL 33850 County: Polk
NPL Site: Final: 5/11/00
In CERCLIS Database: 0400792

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Callaway & Son Drum Service was a family business that operated from 1977 until its abandonment in 1991, as a refurbisher and
reseller of used 55

- gallon oil and citrus drums

. Operations ceased in February 1991 when the facility came to the attention of th e Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) after an application was submitted to operate and construct an industrial wastewater treatment and disposal system for discharge of rinse water used in its drum cleaning process. In December 1994, CSD S was auctioned and sold due to back taxes

. The site contains an office building, a drum cleaning structure, and a sandblasting/painting structure all in dilapidated condition

. There is also a 45,000 sq. ft. percolation pond that was located on site

. At it s peak, the operation processed 500 open

- top citrus drums and 20 spent oil/solvents drums per day

. In 1983, owners estimated that there were more than 60,000 drums on site.

Description of Contamination : Contaminants include 1,2

- dichloroethene, tetrachloro ethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), xylene and vinyl chloride

. All of these can be attributed to the
drum

- processing activities

. The drums were washed and the contents were dumped into storage ponds

. Cleanup activities have been very difficult because of the difficulty in targeting the wide variety of contaminants at the site

. USEPA removed 2,500 empty/partially empty drums from the site during clean up in 2001

. USEPA is developing a proposed plan to remediate the site’s
contaminated areas

. The site owner at the time of contamination (Ronald Callaway) is deceased and generator PRPs are currently trying to be identified. The site was sold at a tax sale in 2004 to Don Livingston

. A supplemental remedial investigation and feasibility study may be conducted,

as well as a remedial action because of pesticides being found in the soil

. The finalization of the site’s remedial plan will take approximately 2 years, and should be completed by 2006

.

Sources of Information : EPA Region 4

. Email Correspondence to Amy Lil e (EPA Office of Solid Waste). 31 October
2005.

Jackson, Galo (RPM) 404

- 562

- 8937, Interview 11/21/2005Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 98 USEPA. “Callaway & Son Drum Service.” CERCLIS

. 27 October 2005

. 27 October 2005. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0400792

USEPA. “Callaway & Son Drum Service.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.)

. 25 January
2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110009273151

USEPA. “NPL Fact Sheet: Callaway & Son Drum Service.” 12 December 2005. 19 January
2006. http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/nplfls/callawfl.htm

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Callaway & Son Drum Service.” 11 May 2000

. 19 January
2006

. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0400792.pdf

USEPA. “Potential Reuse Success Fact Sheet: Callaway & Son Drum Service.” October 2004. 19 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/reuse/fl/callawaypotent.pdf

Additional Contacts: Randall Chaffins (RPM) (404) 562

- 8929 Galo Jackson (RPM) (404) 562

- 8937 Jennifer Wendel (RPM) (404) 562

- 8799 Tanya Floyd (Region 4) 404

- 562

- 9813Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 99 Site Inf ormation

Site Name: Carter Industrials, Inc.
EPA ID No.: MID980274179
Address: 4690 Humboldt, Detroit, MI 48208 County: Wayne
NPL Site: Deleted 3/25/1997
In CERCLIS Database: 0502729

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: From 1966 to 1986, the 3.6 acre site was used to store and salvage scrap metal. The facility changed ownership several times during this period

. A portion of the scrap metal items accepted at the Carter Industrials site included electrical capacitors and transformers. On

- site facilities include a furnace for melting aluminum, a furnace for melting copper, a brick warehouse, and an office building

. Numerous unsheltered piles of scrap metal and equipment were found throughout the yard.

On July 3, 1984, a fire broke out on the west side of the property in an area of wooden pallets and scrap iron mounds

. After noting several transformers in the area of the fire, the city asked the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and the fire marshall's office to investigate potential exposure to PCBs in the transformer oil

. Oil was found near the fire area and near the base of three large transformers

. Other transformers on the west side proved to be empty

. Four soil samples were taken from various locations, including near the office and 150 feet south of the end of Humboldt Road, to measure background levels

. PCBs ranged from 31 to 2,430 parts per million

. Except for the areas noted, no conclusive evidence of oil storage or dumping was discovered on the west side of the pro perty

. However, other areas were not investigated.

Description of Contamination: In 1986, extensive soil contamination was identified at the site

. The primary contaminants of concern affecting soil and debris were organics including PCBs
and metals including arsenic, cadmium, and lead

. During salvage operations at the site, dielectric fluids, containing PCBs, were spilled from electrical capacitors and transformers, contaminating onsite soil

. Commercial, municipal, and residential properties adjacent to the site were contaminated by direct runoff of spilled material; contaminated storm water runoff; wind

blown dust; and tracking of spilled material and contaminated soils by vehicular traffic

. In May 1986, barrels of used PCB oil were found stored on

- s ite in and around scrap metal piles

. Oil leaking from the barrels contained as much as 50 percent PCBs

. Additional sampling in June 1986 indicated that contamination had spread well beyond the Carter Industrials property, including into backyards of nearby residences.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 100 According to an estimate in a USEPA Record of Decision, costs for the remedial action amounted to $19,508.00

.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 5. “NPL Fact Sheets for Michigan: Carter Industrials, Inc.” June 2005. 19 February
2006. http://www.epa.gov/region5/superfund/npl/michigan/MID980274179.htm

USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision Amendment: Carter Industrials, Inc.” 28 February 1995. 19 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a0595284.pdf

USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Carter Industrials, Inc.” 18 September 1991. 19 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0591169.pdf

USEPA. “Federal Register Notice: Notice of Deletion of the Carter Industrials Site, Michigan
from the National Priori

ties List (NPL).” 25 March 1997. 19 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/d970325.htm

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Carter Industrials, Inc.” 31 March 1989. 19 February 2 006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0502729.pdf

USEPA. “Superfund Site Progress Profile: Carter Industrials, Inc.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 19 February 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0502729

Additional Contacts: Linda Howard (RPM) (312) 886

- 0810 Jennifer Ostermeier (CIC) (312) 353

- 0618Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 101 Site Information

Site Name: Century 21 Paints
EPA ID No.: OHD051413078
Address: 166 South Meridian Road, Austintown, OH 44515 County: Mahoning

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: OHD051413078

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Century 21 Paints was a paint retailer,
reformulator and distributor

. It accepted unused paint wastes to recycle or rework.

Description of Contamination : On August 9, 1998, a major fire occurred at the site

. More than 100,000 paint containers and numerous pallets of asphalt shin gles were damaged in the blaze

. Paint was also found buried on the site

. On August 17, 1998, EPA Region 5 and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) began cleanup at the site

. The soil at the site was
contaminated

. In July 2001, Century 21 Paint was r equired to pay $120,000 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund for recovery of past response costs at the site

.

Sources of Information : Federal Register (Volume 66, Number 140) Page 37963. “Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement; Budd Brothers, d/b/a Century 21 Paint, Inc.” 20 July 2001. 25 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA

- WASTE/2001/July/Day

- 20/f18192.htm

Hale, Karen (Ohio EPA). Email correspondence to David Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste).
24 June 2005.

USEPA. “Century 21 Paint.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. 18 January 2006. 18 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110006427919

USEPA. “US EPA Region 5 1998 News Releases.” 1998. 18 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/region5/news/1998news_release_archive.pdf

Additional Contacts : Joseph Freddle (OSC) (440) 250

- 1740 Leo Rosales (EPA) (312) 353

- 6198
Jennifer Peterson (Ohio EPA) (614) 644

- 2160 Karen Hale (Ohio EPA) (614) 644

- 2927, karen.hale@epa.state.oh.us

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 102 Site Information

Site Name: CFF Recycling Titanium Fire
EPA ID No.: TXN000605636
Address: 7501 Wallaceville Rd, Houston, TX 77020 County: Harris

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0605636

Description of Contamination: On November 15, 2003, a fire broke out at the CFF Recycling facility as a result of cutting titanium rods in a heat exchanger with a plasma torch

. The titanium fire could not be extinguished and the fire was left to burn itself out

. Upon arrival, Houston
HazMat determined from information provided by the PRP that the fire was emitting a hazardous plume

. The fire burned itself out and CFF Recycling committed to cleaning up the surrounding

area.

Sources of Information: USEPA. “CFF Recycling Titanium Fire .” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 20 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0605636

USEPA. “CFF Recycling Titanium Fire.” On

- Scene Coordinator Profile. (n.d.). 20 January 2006. www.epaosc.net/CFFRecycling

Additional Contacts: Rita Engblom (OSC) engblom.rita@epa.gov Jon Rinehart (SAM) (214) 665

- 6789Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 103 Site Name: Chemetco
EPA ID No.: ILD048843809
Address: 3754 Chemetco, Hartford, IL, 62048 County: Madison
NPL Site: Yes
In CERCLIS Database: ILD048843809

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Chemetco site in Hartford, Illinois, is a former secondary copper smelter that operated from 1969 to 2001. Smelting operations occupied 41 acres of the 230 acre property. Chemetco's major function was recycling or secondary processing of copper

- bearing scrap and manufacturing residues. This process produced waste byproducts such as slag, zinc oxide (scrubber sludge), and spent refractory brick. The facility ceased operations on October 31, 2001, and Chemetco filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on November 13 , 2001. On December 7, 2001 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) issued an order to restrict site access.

Description of Contamination : On September 12, 1986, the Illinois EPA issued Chemetco a permit allowing construction and operation of a stormwater runoff control system. Later that month, contract laborers hired by Chemetco installed this system, and pursuant to Chemetco's instructions, also installed an unpermitted discharge pipe on Chemetco's property running to an
unnamed ditch tributary

. This discharge did not appear in any blueprint or drawing kept by Chemetco. Chemetco used this discharge to release wastewater containing toxic metals such as lead and cadmium until September 18, 1996, when it was discovered by U.S. EPA a nd Illinois EPA agents.

Contaminated storm water was apparently discharged for approximately 10 years. Discovery of the unpermitted discharge led to a criminal investigation by the State Police, the FBI and others, and prosecution by the U.S. Attorney's Of fice. Four Chemetco employees, including the plant manager, pleaded guilty to charges of violating the Clean Water Act and making false statements to government agencies. The company was fined $3.86 million and put on five years probation.

After discovery of the discharge, Chemetco impounded visible zinc oxide waste and attempted to remediate it. After lengthy technical negotiations, the Illinois EPA approved the last of several closure proposals submitted by Chemetco. In October 2000, Chemetco received a R emedial Action Plan Permit to treat the waste, and treatment began in December 2000. The treatment did not work and in January 2001, Chemetco began shipping the waste to a hazardous waste landfill. Between January and July 2001, about 5,800 tons of hazardo us soil were sent to a permitted
hazardous waste landfill and several hundred tons of non

- hazardous soil were sent to localAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 104 RCRA Subtitle D landfills. Chemetco maintained the remaining impoundments met regulatory standards but confirmation sampling informa tion was never submitted to the Illinois EPA.

Sediments contamination in Long Lake is an ongoing environmental issue. In May 1998, U.S. EPA found extremely high levels of lead and cadmium in the lake sediment. In June 2000, Chemetco sampled Long Lake sediments and found hazardous levels of cadmium up to 900 feet downstream of its zinc oxide impoundment. Though Chemetco claimed these levels were from a source other than their discharge, they provided no information identifying this "other source."

Appro ximately 452,254 cubic yards of waste slag material have been stockpiled on the northeast corner of the facility property. Approximately 62,204 cubic yards of zinc oxide (scrubber sludge) has been identified as being located in five separate areas on the C hemetco property, including a 2.5 acre concrete bunker located at the north end of the facility. Elevated levels of cadmium, copper and lead have been found in the waste slag material and the zinc oxide.

Elevated levels of cadmium, copper and lead have be en found in the sediments collected from the wetlands and Long Lake downstream of Chemetco.

Sources of Information:

1. IEPA. IEPA Orders Bankrupt Smelter Site Sealed Chemetco Inc. subject to $3.86 million
fine. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.state.il.us/environmental

progress/v26/n4/sealed

- smelter.html

2. United States v. Chemetco Incorporated. Accessed Online. November 2011 : http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us

- 7th

- circuit/1004851.html

3. USEPA. Federal Registry System, Facility Detail Report. Chemetco. Accessed Online.
November 2011: http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=ILD04 8843809&pgm_sys_acrnm_in=BR

4. USEPA. National Priorities List (NPL) Site Narrative. Chemetco, Thonotosa ssa, Florida.
Accessed Online. November 2011 : http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1808.htm

5. USEPA. Superfund Site Progress Profile, Chemetco. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0500342Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 105 Site Information

Site Name: Chemical and Pigment Company
EPA ID No.: CAD009159476
Address: 600 Nichols Road, Bay Point, CA County: Contra Costa
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Beginning in 1960 this facility processed zinc from galvanizing waste (zinc fines and dust containing trace metal contaminants) to manufacture agricultural products, such as fertilizers and soil amendments

. The zinc fines contained metals including lead, cadmium, and copper

.

On November 5, 1997, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) issued an administrative enforcement action against the facility for violations of the California
Hazardous Waste Control Law

. The enforcement action w as resolved by a Stipulation and Order, effective March 16, 1998, which required the company to pay $50,000 in penalties

. In addition, DTSC determined that in order for the facility to continue its operations, a hazardous waste facility permit would be req uired

. Although the facility submitted a standardized permit application in 1998, the facility ceased operations after filing for bankruptcy

. It was an unpermitted hazardous waste facility.

The site consists of eight buildings and other process equipment, a capped surface impoundment and approximately 15,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil that has been stockpiled on site. The site is completely fenced with an access gate on both the east and north sides

. State funds are being used to investigate the prop erty

.

Contamination and Relationship to Recycling at the Site : In 1978, a surface impoundment was built to contain fluid by

- products of the manufacturing process. In 1996 the surface impoundment was capped in

- place. In January 2002, DTSC’s Emergency Resp onse Unit took measures to stabilize the site and protect public health and the environment

. These measures included, covering the soil pile, putting locks on the gates, repairing holes in the fence, putting hay bales around the site, removing abandoned ch emicals that remained in the company laboratory, removing all liquid waste from the tanks, and removing drummed and bagged waste from the property.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 106 In October 2002, DTSC issued an Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Determination and Order which gave DTSC the ability to conduct additional investigation and cleanup activities at the site. In December 2002, DTSC collected samples from the storm water runoff and found elevated levels of lead and zinc. In January 2003, a storm water treatment system was in stalled to
collect and treat the rainwater which accumulates on the site. The water is treated to remove the contaminants and discharges into a sanitary sewer under a permit from the Delta Diablo
Sanitation district.

Future cleanup actions include plans t o stockpile soil and off

- site disposal. The estimated volume of the contaminated soil stockpile to be treated is 15,000 cubic yards.

Sources of Information: California Department of Toxic Substances and Control. “Chemical & Pigment Site Fact Sheet.”
M ay 2003. 23 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Projects/upload/Chemical

- Pigment_FS.pdf

State of California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control.
“Docket No. IS&E 02/03

- 005: Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Determination
And Order.” 18 October 2002

. 23 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Projects/upload/Chemical

- Pigment

Co_ISE_Order.pdf

USEPA. “Chemical and Pigment Company A Division of ESI Chem.” Envirofacts Data
Warehouse. (n.d.) 24 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110002635738

Additional Contacts: Jayantha Randeni, DTSC Project Manager, (510) 540

- 3806Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 107 Site Information

Site Name: EQ Resource Recovery (also known as Chemical Recovery System Inc. and Chemical Recovery Systems Inc.)
EPA ID No.: MID060975844
Address: 36345 Van Born Road, Romulus, MI 48174 County: Wayne
NPL Site No
In CERCLIS Database: 0502571

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The EQ Resource Recovery site is a hazardous waste facility that has been in operation since 1957, and is licensed by Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MI DEQ)

. The site was assessed and inspected by USEPA in 1983, and then archived in 1991

. Th e “archive” designation indicated that the site had no further interest under the Federal Superfund Program based on available information

. EQ Resource Recovery blended liquid waste solvents to create fuel used to fire industrial operations
such as cement kilns.

On August 9, 2005, an accidental combination of hazardous liquid wastes caused a storage tank to explode and then set off a chain reaction of fires in 29 surrounding tanks and a building containing 400 55

- gallon drums of flammable liquids

. USEPA R egion 5 responded to the explosion and fire, approximately 900 residents were evacuated, nearby businesses were closed,
and Van Born Road was closed

. Of the facility’s approximately 50 above

- ground storage tanks, ranging in size up to 15,000 gallons, 32 we re impacted by the fire/explosion

. In addition, a propylene glycol re

- boiler and a drum pad with overhead canopy and approximately 400 drums of various products were destroyed

. Nearby residents reported that metallic debris fell into their yards and pools. As of August 2006, sources indicate that the cause of the fire was still unknown.

The site was reopened as a CERCLA site in the aftermath of the fire in August 2005

. On October 20, 2005, USEPA issued a Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent executed b y EQ Resource Recovery, Inc

. Under the agreement, EQ Resource Recovery performed cleanup activities and paid $34,843.93 for costs incurred by USEPA as of September 13, 2005, and agreed to pay response costs paid by USEPA after that date.

Description of Co ntamination: Workers and nearby residents reported, through the media and Michigan’s Toxics Hotline, immediate and acute health effects from the flames and smoke, such as smoke inhalation and burning skin

. However, the effects were not deemed to be lasting or chronic health effects

. A health consultation report by theU.S. Department of Health and HumanAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 108 Services concluded: “

The explosion and fire at the facility posed an urgent public health hazard, warranting the evacuation that was ordered by local officia ls

. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the air, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soot, and metals in soot and debris posed no apparent short

- term public health hazard. Additionally, any residual contaminant concentrations pose no apparent current or future public health hazard.” Further explanation indicates that “when compared to acute exposure screening levels ... all detected chemicals were well below acceptable levels, indicating that no harm would be expected during
short

- te rm exposure.” However, the consultation states that three patients were receiving follow

up medical care from the incident as of October 2005.

A Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Emergency Removal was started August 9, 2005, and completed September 16, 2005

. On September 12, 2005, EQ contractors worked on clearing debris from the drum pad and tank containment area

. On September 13, 2005, EQ contractors continued to remove debris from the drum pad and began power washing the remaining concrete pads with w ater. On September 14, 2005, EQ contractors completed the removal actions on

- site

. Power washing of the concrete pad was completed, and all damaged tanks were cut up and placed into rolloff boxes for disposal

.

USEPA conducted air monitoring during their response efforts on August 9, 2005, and continued air monitoring on August 10

- 14, 2005 using a variety of methods

. USEPA tested for VOCs, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, oxygen and lower explosive limit

. Air monitoring was
concluded at the end of the da y on August 14, and once all samples were analyzed, all
contaminant levels were found to be below health concern limits

. Analysis of metallic debris samples found metals contaminant levels to be below health concern limits

.

Sources of Information: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MI DEQ)

. “Understanding the Results of Sampling from the EQ Fire in Romulus, Michigan.” 26 September 2005. 15 February
2008. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/EQ_Data_Results_Factsheet_137513_7.pdf

Tetra Tech EM, Inc

. “EQ Resource Recovery Fire Site: Romulus County, Michigan.” Prepared for USEPA Region 5 Emergency Response Branch. 7 September 2005. 14 February
2008. http://www.epa.gov/Region5/sites/eqfire/pdfs/romulus

- fire

- report20050907c.pdf

US Department of Health and Human Services. “Health Consultation: EQ Resource Recovery Explosion and Fire.” 1 March 2006. 19 February 2008

. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/EQResourceRecoveryHC030106_153643_7.pdf

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 109 USEPA. “EQ Resource Recovery Fire.” CERCLIS . 16 October 2007. 14 February 2008. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0502571

USEPA. “EQ Resource Recovery.” On

- Scene Coordinator Profile . (n.d.). 15 February 2008.
h ttp://www.epaosc.net/site_profile.asp?site_id=1785

USEPA. “EQ Resource Recovery.” Pollution Report Profile . (n.d.). 15 February 2008. http://www.epaosc.net/polrep_profile.asp?site_id=1 785

USEPA Region 5

. “EQ Resource Recovery Fire Site.” 28 March 20071. 4 February 2008

. http://www.epa.gov/Region5/sites/eqfire/index.htm

USEPA Region 5 Regional Counsel

. “Enforcement Action Summary FY 2006

– November.” 21 November 2005. 16 February 2008. http://www.epa.gov/Region5/orc/enfactions/enfactions2006/week

- 1105.htmAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 110 Site Information

Site Name: Chem

- Solv, Inc.
EPA ID No.: DED98071414
Address : 176A N. Dupont Highway, Dover, DE 19901 County: Kent
NPL Site: Final: 8/30/90
In CERCLIS Database: 0300124

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Chem

- Solv, Inc. distilled spent solvents
at this 1.5

- acre site between 1982 and 1984

. To recycle solvents, drummed wastes were heated
over an electric coil heater and distilled solvents were then collected in clean drums

. Distilled solvents were sold to customers, and residues from the distillation process were stored onsite as
RCRA

- regulated hazardous waste.

Description of Contamination: An explosion and fire in 1984 destroyed the Chem

- Solv recycling facility

. Witnesses saw fluids flowing out of the facility, off of a concrete pad

. Aft er the fire, high concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), mainly trichloroethene (TCE), were found in the Columbia aquifer beneath the site.

In 1985, the state excavated and treated 1,300 cubic yards of contaminated soil using a process
that passes air through the soil to remove VOCs. This process reduced the contaminant concentrations to levels that permitted the soil to be returned to the excavated area. The state also installed a groundwater recovery system which it operated from 1985 to 1 988. The extraction of contaminated groundwater reduced TCE concentrations in the Columbia aquifer beneath the site
from the 200

- 300 parts per million (ppm) range to the 1 ppm range.

Groundwater recovery and treatment operations began in 1997. Following t he treatment of 48 million gallons of contaminated ground water, pumping was conditionally terminated based on substantial improvement in groundwater quality and the improbability of exposure to site contaminants. USEPA identified increasing levels of TCE in two site monitoring wells and notified the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) of the need to resume groundwater pumping and treatment. In addition to the pump and treat operations, the PRPs will continue to perform the required ground water monitori ng at domestic, recovery and monitoring wells until the cleanup levels are achieved.

In 1995, TCE was found down gradient of the former Chem

- Solv facility

. New, deeper wells were dug for area residents, tapping into a deeper aquifer

. More than 114 million gallons ofAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 111 contaminated groundwater has been extracted and treated from the site, and concentrations of TCE in the Columbia aquifer have lessened by 90 percent

. Cleanup construction at this site was completed in 1998

.

Capital costs for cleanup were esti mated between $110,000 and $234,000, Annual O&M were estimated at $57,000 to $148,000 and the present worth was estimated between $660,000 and $686,000

.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 3. “Current Site Information: Chem

- Solv, Inc.” June 2004. 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/npl/DED980714141.htm

EPA Region 3 Superfund Fact Sheet. “EPA Completes Construction at Chem

- Solv Superfund Site.” June 1999. 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/sites/DED980714 141/fs/1999

- 06.htm

USEPA

. “Chem

- Solv, Inc.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.)

. 24 January
2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=11000 5989038

USEPA. “Chem

- Solv.” CERCLIS . 14 December 2005

. 18 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0300124

USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Dec ision: Chem

- Solv, Inc.” 31 March 1992

. 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0392146.pdf

Additional Contacts: Bonnie Gross (EPA Remedial Project Manager) (215) 814

- 3229, gross.bonnie@epa.gov Vance Evans (Community Involvement Coordinator) (800) 553

- 2509 or (215) 814

- 5526, evans.vance@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 112 Site Information

Site Name: Chief Supply/Greenway Environmental
EPA ID No.: OK0000605385/OKD089761290
Address: Rt. 2 Box 71, Haskell, OK 74436 County: Wagoner
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0605385

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The 18 acre site is an inactive RCRA treatment, storage, and recycling facility that operated from 1977 to 2000

. The site originally operated under the name of Chief Chemical and Supply Company until 1997 when it closed down following an explosion at the facility caused by mixing incompatible chemicals

. The site also declared bankruptcy at that time

. The site re

- opened under the name of Greenway Environmental in 1998 and continued operations until abandoning the facility sometime in 2000
when it could not obtain RCRA permits

. The facility currently has several vacant office trailers, a shop building, a large main processing building, two above ground storage tanks (reactors), two sheet metal buildings, fifteen empty tanks, four 18

- Wheeler Trailers, three Ro ll

- Off boxes containing various wastes, and several drums, tanks and other debris in an open field referred to as the "bone yard." Operations at the facility primarily included the treatment, storage, and recycling of hazardous and non

- hazardous wastes

. Ea rly operations at the site consisted of solvent and oil recycling, hazardous waste storage, paint stripping, and drum cleaning

. Hazardous materials processed at the facility include petroleum

- based solvents as well as spent halogenated solvents, contaminat ed soil and debris

. Prior to 1998, Chief Supply reported receiving minor amounts of zinc phosphate, phosphoric acid, mercury, selenium, and asbestos

. Most of the wastes were stored in containers, roll

- off boxes, and tank trucks

. When Greenway
Environmental took over operations at the site, they took hazardous liquids, including paint wastes and solvents, and blended them into fuel, which was transported out of state for use in
cement kilns and other industrial uses.

Description of Contamination : The 1997 fire, which killed an employee and heavily damaged the facility, was the result of improper storage and mixture of wastes

. Following the fire, environmental samples detected chlorinated solvents, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
contamination

. A RCRA Permit was issued in February 1994 after the first permit, which was issued in October 1984, expired in October 1989. In December 2003, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality reached a settlement with Frontier Insurance Company in
Rehabilita tion, Greenway’s financial assurance provider, for a one

- time $175,000 settlement

. The money was used for waste removal at the site

. After the site was abandoned, there wereAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 113 numerous reports of break

- ins at the site and as much as 33,000 gallons of hazardo us waste remain onsite with many deteriorating containers holding unknown contents

. Some of the waste streams identified on the site in 2004 included organic liquids, chlorinated liquids and sludge, trash, paint solids with mercury, and household and pesti cide aerosols

.

Sources of Information: Hailes, Cindy (405) 702

- 5218, Interview 7 December 2005.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. “The 2003 Land Report.” 10 January 2004. 18 January 2006. http://www.deq.state.ok.us/pubs/lpd/03lndrprt.pdf

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. “The 2004 Land Report.” 11 January 2005. 18 January 2006. http://www.deq.state.ok.us/mainlinks/reports/landreport04.pdf

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. “DEQ and EPA plan Greenway cleanup.” 19 March 2004. 18 January 2006. http://www.deq.state.ok.us/mainlinks/media/04news/march/Greenway.pdf

USEPA. “Chief Supply/Greenway.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 18 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0605385

USEPA. “Chief Supply/Greenway.” On

- Scene Coordinator Profile. 21 June 2004. 18 January
2006. www.epaosc.net/greenway

USEPA. “Greenway Environmental.” RCRA Info. 6 May 2002. 18 January 2006.

USEPA. “Greenway Environmen/Haskell Pit.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 18 January
2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110014424140

USEPA. “RCRA Corrective Action News A Record of Successes.” Spring 2000. 18 January
2006. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/resource/newsltr/canews/news0600.pdf

Additional Contacts: Philip Ofosu (SAM): (214) 665

- 3178 Susan Webster (OSC): (214) 665

- 6784 Rita Engblom (OSC): engblom.rita@epa.go vAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 114 Site Information

Site Name: Circle Smelting Corporation
EPA ID No.: ILD050231976
Address : State Rte 50, Beckemeyer, IL 62231 County: Clinton
NPL Site: Proposed: 6/17/1996
In CERCLIS Database: 0500350

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Circle Smelting Corporation facility was originally constructed on a 28 acre parcel of land in 1904 as a primary zinc smelter. In 1920, it was converted to a secondary smelter recovering zinc and alu minum from scrap metals. A Belgium retort system was used to boil zinc scrap and reclaim pure "Prime Western" grade zinc. The Belgium retort system was discontinued at the facility in the late 1960s; smelting operations continued through late 1994. During operations, waste materials were deposited throughout the site, while waste cinders containing lead were used in the Village of Beckemeyer as a surface material for walking paths, driveways, and alleys. Waste material was used over
time to fill low

- lying a reas on the site including a small, shallow lake which was part of the main operations area

.

Description of Contamination : Soil and surface water were both contaminated by the site; the area of contaminated soil is approximately 21 million square feet. A 17 acre slag waste pile, up to 15 feet deep in some sections, has high concentrations of zinc, nickel, lead, and cadmium. Residual metals and coal cinders from the smelting process have contaminated soils on and off the property and generated air emission s that include metal oxides. Approximately 5,800 feet of forested wetlands north of the site had high levels of zinc resulting from contamination of a nearby creek

.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 5. “Cleanup Work has begun at the Circle Smelting Supe rfund Site.” April 1999. 20 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/Region5/sites/circle/circle.pdf

Illinois Department of Public Health. “Public Health Assessment: Circle Smelting Corporation.” 25 January 2006. http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/pdf/circle%20smelting%20PHA%20final2.pdf

USEPA. “Circle Smelting Corp.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005

. 16 Jan uary 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0500350Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 115 USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Circle Smelting Corp.” 17 June 1996. 16 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1475.htm

Additional Contacts: Stavros Emmanouil (312) 886

- 1768 Zenny Sadlon (312) 886

- 6682Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 116 Site Information

Site Name: Clayton Chemical Company
EPA ID No.: ILD066918327
Address : 1 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, IL 62201 County: St. Clair
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 500427

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Clayton Chemical contains a multitude of above ground storage tanks, process units, drum storage buildings, and an office laboratory on the 7.5 acre facility

. Prior to 1961, the property was owned by GM&O Railroad who operated a
roundhouse on the site

. In 1961, Clayton Chemical Company leased the facility to recycle and
recover solvents and waste oils

. On May 12, 1981, the Village of Sauget deeded the site property to the Clayton Chemical Company, whose operations on the site continued until November of
19 96. Between 1996 and 1998, the site was operated by the Resource Recovery Group as a waste oil and spent solvents recycling and recovery business. Illinois EPA denied the company a RCRA Part B permit for the site in 1998, halting operations and any further acceptance of
hazardous and non

- hazardous wastes

.

Description of Contamination: An unspecified amount of liquid hazardous and non

- hazardous
substances remain on

- site in the above ground storage tanks and associated piping, 55

- gallon drums, and miscellan eous containers

. Lead and PCBs are the primary contaminants of concern
both on and off

- site.

Sources of Information: USEPA. “Clayton Chem Co.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 16 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0500427

USEPA. “Clayton Chemical Company.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 16 January 2006.

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000612533

USEPA. “Resource Recovery Group Site.” On

- Scene Coordinator Profile . (n.d.). 16 January
2006. www.epaosc.net/epaosc

Additional Contacts : Kevin Turner Turner.Kevin@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 117 Site Information

Site Name: CleanCare Corporation
EPA ID No.: WASFN1002182
Address: 1510 Taylor Way, Tacoma, WA 98421

- 4127 County: Pierce

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 1002182

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: This site has been an industrial site
since 1926

. There have been several owners of the property who have used the site for disposal of chemical wastes, auto fluff (shredded pieces of automobile parts), and sludge. In 1975, a small tank farm was built on the property and it became a chemical and petroleum recycling facility in the late 1970s. The facility, known as the Poligen plant, was owned by Mr. Glenn Tegen, also owner of Lilybl ad Petroleum, an oil re

- refining facility

. From 1974 until its abandonment in 1999, businesses under several different names, including CleanCare, operated the site as a chemical, solvent, and petroleum recycling facility

. The site was an interim status tr eatment, storage, disposal, (TSD) and recycling facility for off

- site generated hazardous and non

hazardous wastes

. When CleanCare was in operation, its function was to solidify oily sludge wastes originating from catch basins, sumps, and storm drains; rec ycle waste oils, antifreeze, and spent solvents; and crush used oil filters for off

- site recycling by other facilities

. CleanCare also received hazardous and Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE)

- regulated dangerous

waste

. This waste was stored for trans port to another TSD facility for final treatment and/or disposal, or was blended into hazardous waste fuel

. Solvent was received and recycled as parts of a parts

- washer program marketed to generators

. CleanCare picked up the spent solvent and replaced it w ith recycled stock

. CleanCare also received “paint gun wash,” solvent that was generally of low quality, routinely used to clean paint spray guns. This waste was sent to Sol Pro, an adjacent but separate TSD/recycling facility, for recycling and then retur ned to customers. Additionally, CleanCare recycled antifreeze in a dedicated distillation column. A separate distillation column, called the “Splitter,” along with other processing equipment, recovered oil from oily waste and prepared it for used oil fuel blending.

In 1992, Clean Care began the process of obtaining a final permit to operate a treatment, storage, and disposal and recycling under RCRA

. The final application was submitted to WDOE in 1994

. From 1994

- 1999, Ecology had sent letters to CleanCare notifying them that its permit application still contained serious problems which prevented WDOE from approving the final application

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 118 Over the years, some of the companies operating at the site have had a number of serious problems with handling and di sposal of hazardous waste. When the facility was in operation its major function was to solidify oily sludge wastes originating from catch basins, sumps, and storm drains; recycle waste oils, antifreeze, and spent solvents; and crush oil filters for off

- si te recycling by other facilities

. The CleanCare facility has four separate tank farms, two hazardous/dangerous waste container storage pads, and a processing area where the distillation of solvent, oil, and antifreeze used to occur

.

The most recent damag e occurred on March 26, 1999. Approximately l,000 to 2,000 gallons of oily waste spilled into the on

- site storm drains. The wastes flowed off

- site into the Lincoln Avenue ditch and followed the storm drain into the Blair Waterway. To prevent further off

- si te releases, the storm drains were blocked off

. WDOE inspected the site several times during 1998 and 1999 and found many violations. In July 1999, WDOE issued a $486,000 penalty against CleanCare. In August 1999, CleanCare advised WDOE that it would close the business and they stopped taking some waste material. On November 17, 1999, CleanCare closed its doors. CleanCare is providing site access and historical knowledge of site activities to USEPA to help with the current response actions at the site.

In 2000, estimated costs were as follows: USEPA $234,100, START $563, 7000, ERRS $3,224,402, and Coast Guard $123,800, totaling $4,146,002

.

In September 2000, CleanCare completed its removal action

. The total cost of the removal in 2000 was $4.3 million

. Cl eanCare had $23,000 (of a total $83,000 requirement) set aside in a trust fund to meet its financial assurance requirements for closure. WDOE provided $130,000 in the form of a remedial action grant and for one

- time costs related to electrical and security problems at the site. WDOE also continues to pay the monthly utility bills at the site, which range from $600 to $900 per month

. Future costs associated with any further cleanup actions are
unknown.

Description of Contamination: Water samples taken in 19 99 showed the presence of low levels of metal, semivolatiles, and volatile constituents. Results for non

- contact storm water were below draft noncontact storm water discharge limits. Surface soil sample results indicated the presence of arsenic, BTEX const ituents, and polyaromatic constituents at concentrations above USEPA Region 10 risk

- based screening preliminary remediation goals and WDOE’s MTCA Method A cleanup values.

In 1999, USEPA conducted an assessment of the site to document conditions that may pose a threat to human health and the environment. Over 1.6 million gallons of chemicals and otherAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 119 hazardous wastes were being stored in tanks, storage containers, and drums at the 5

- acre site

. The containers were in poor condition and posed a potential th reat if they should break or leak. The chemicals and wastes identified included regulated hazardous wastes, waste and used oil, antifreeze, used solvents, paint wastes, and crushed oil filters. If any of the contamination moved off site, it could easily ge t into the Blair or Hylebos Waterways.

Since December 1999, USEPA removed close to 2 million gallons of waste from the site. The wastes were stored in 3,630 containers, 33 aboveground storage tanks, and 19 temporary aboveground storage tanks. In addition, USEPA demolished four above ground storage tanks and installed an asphalt cap on three areas of the site covering more than 26,000 square feet. Because the site’s stormwater system was broken and contaminated, USEPA installed an aboveground

stormwater man agement system. WDOE has agreed to take over the operation and maintenance of the stormwater system.

Sources of Information: Boyd, Andrew

. Email to Amy Lile (USEPA Office of Solid Waste)

. 21 October 2005

. Information from Washington Department of Ecology ’s report to the state legislature in
2002: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0204028.html

EPA Region 10

- Emergency Response Unit. “EPA Pollution Report: Clean Care Removal Site (CleanCare, Tacoma, Washington.” 13 October 2000. 15 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/CLEANUP.NSF/9f3c21896330b489882568 7b007a0f33/41a cf49d06cb975a88256856005e40f2/$FILE/POLREP37FINAL.pdf

EPA Region 10

- Action Memorandum. “Request for a Removal Action, a Ceiling Increase, a $2 Million Exemption, a 12

- Month Exemption, and a Change of Scope at the CleanCare Site, Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington; Site ID #6W.” 5 January 2000

. 15 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/CLEANUP.NS F/6ea33b02338c3a5e882567ca005d382f/41a cf49d06cb975a88256856005e40f2/$FILE/actmem0105.pdf

USEPA. “CleanCare.” CERCLIS

. 27 October 2005. 15 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=1002182

USEPA. “CleanCare.” Envirofacts Da ta Warehouse. (n.d.). 15 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000620579

USEPA. “Superfund Fact Sheet: CleanCare.” January 2000. 15 January 2006

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 120 http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/CLEANUP.NSF/6ea33b02338c3a5e882567ca005d382f/41a cf49d06cb975a88256856005e40f2/$FILE/cleanca.PDF

USEPA. “Superfund Fact Sheet: CleanCare.” December 2000. 15 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/CLEANUP.NSF/9f3c21896330b4898825687b007a0f33/41a
cf49d06cb9 75a88256856005e40f2/$FILE/1100cleancare+Final.pdf

Washington State Department of Ecology

. Prepared by Ross & Associates Environmental Environmental Consulting, LTD. “Analysis of Cleanup Obligations and Costs for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities i n Washington State

– Final Report.” 29 January 2003. 15 January 2006. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0304011.pdf

Additional Contacts: Kerry Graber (Washington Department of Ecology Hazardous Waste/Regulatory) (360) 407

- 0241Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 121 Site Information

Site Name: College Grove Battery Chip
EPA ID No.: TNSFN0406979
Address: Arno College Grove and Horton Road, College Grove, TN 37046 County: Williamson

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0406979

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Twenty or 30 years ago, battery casings were given away to community members and used as fill or driveway paving material. The site consists of residential properties that contain battery chips that were pla ced in driveways, around barns and other areas as fill material. A local lead smelting operation provided the chips to landowners for use as a fill or aggregate substitute in driveways, around barns, and in other areas. The chips were not treated to remove residual lead prior to their distribution, creating a lead exposure risk to residents to contacting the chips or the soil contaminated by lead washed from the chips.

Description of Contamination: USEPA began a Superfund removal on June 19, 2000 includin g extensive sampling of each property to determine contaminated soil locations, excavation and treatment of contaminated soil, transportation and disposal of materials in a proper landfill, and restoration of the site (including backfill, grade, and revege tation)

. The removal was expected to be completed by June 2001 at an estimated cost of $3,000,000

. Elevated lead levels were detected at 96 of the 109 properties. USEPA conducted removal actions at each of these properties, reducing lead to acceptable leve ls. The final project cost was approximately $7.25
million dollars

. As of May 2003, battery chips have been confirmed at 109 of the 171 properties evaluated in College Grove and the surrounding area. Previous sampling of some properties
indicated elevated levels of lead in the soil.

Sources of Information:

EPA Region 4. "EPA Superfund Removal to Begin at College Grove Battery Chip Site, College Grove, Tennessee." 14 June 2000. 20 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region4/oeapages/00press/000614.htm

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. "EPA Closes College Grove Field Office." May 2003. 20 January 2006. http://www.state.tn.us/environment/dsf/grovemay03.phpAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 122 Federal Register (Volume 70, Number 207). Page 61974. “College Grove Battery Chip Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed Settlement.” 27 October 2005. 25 January 2006

. http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05

- 21459.htm

Tennessee Department of Public Health. “College Grove Battery Chip Health Consult ation Report.” (n.d.) 20 January 2006. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/collegegrove/cgr_p1.html

USEPA. “College Grove Battery Chip.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 20 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0406979

Additional Contacts: Femi Akindele (RPM) (404) 562

- 8809 Randy Bryant (RPM) (404) 562

- 8794 Loften Carr (RPM) (404) 562

- 8804 Tony DeAngelo (RPM) (404) 562

- 8826 Beth Walden (SAM) (404) 562

- 8814 Robert West (RPM) (404) 562

- 8806 Nestor Young (RPM) (404) 562

- 8812Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 123 Site Information

Site Name: Columbus Steel Drum Company
EPA ID No.: OHD004291654
Address: 1385 Blatt Boulevard, Blacklick, OH 43230 County: Franklin

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Columbus Steel Drum Company, Inc. began operations in 1955 and its name changed to the Franklin Steel Company in 1979. The facility was built in 1970

. Evans Industries operated the facility from 1997 through the end of 2002, when Queen City Barrel Com pany leased the site. The facility is currently operated by Queen City Barrel and is doing business as Columbus Steel Drum

. The 18

- acre facility
reconditions used 55

- gallon drums for resale. Closed head drums are placed on a conveyor belt and transported t o the process building. In the process building, the drums are cleaned with a hot caustic solution, rinsed, shot blasted to remove the old paint, and then repainted

. Open head drums are turned upside down before they enter the oxidizer to drain any liquids

. The oxidizer (furnace) burns off any residual material remaining in the drum. The open head drums are then sent into the process building for caustic rinse, shot blasting and repainting.

The site does not have a RCRA permit.

Description of Contaminat ion: The soil, sediment and surface water, and ground water showed elevated levels of many metals as well as semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

. Franklin Steel processed approximately 4,000 to 6,000 closed head
and open head drums per day. Prior to 1986, when drum inventory was at its peak, approximately 450,000 "RCRA empty" (less then one inch of liquid) drums were being stored at the site. At that time, approximately 38 acres were being used by Franklin Steel for drum storage and processing; consisting of two separate 10

- acre drum storage areas and the main 18

- acre processing/drum storage area. Since 1988, only the main 18

- acre drum processing facility has been used for the drum reconditioning operations. Currently , approximately 50,000 empty drums are being stored on the site

.

On February 25, 1980, there was a spill of 15,000 to 20,000 gallons of hazardous waste sludge from Franklin Steel's caustic clarifier, caused by an overflow of the system

. The released slud ge entered the Blacklick Creek drainage system

. Sediment and surface water samples taken in March 1980 revealed cadmium, chromium, lead, zinc, and phenol. Sampling of the storm waterAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 124 holding pond by Ohio EPA on December 5, 1985 indicated elevated levels of various VOCs and SVOCs, and elevated levels of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cyanide and lead.

Testing completed in October 1998, soil was contaminated with many metals including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead as well as SVOCs and VOCs

. Groundwater h ad elevated levels of numerous metals including aluminum, arsenic, barium, chromium, and lead, SVOCs and VOCs.
Surface water and sediment were also contaminated.

More recently, in June 2005, the Ohio EPA proposed a consent order to address environmental
violations at Columbus Steel

. These violations include creating a public nuisance through odorous air emissions, exceeding emission limits for several pollutants, failing to obtain several air permits and install required air pollution control measures, st oring hazardous waste without a permit, failing to identify hazardous waste and shipping hazardous waste to a landfill not permitted to accept it, and polluting waters through storm water runoff from the facility

. The proposed consent order, issued June 2, 2005, includes a total civil penalty of $500,000

. In 1993, under RCRA, Columbus Steel Drum was forced to pay $28,100

.

Sources of Information: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. “Division of Emergency and Remedial Response Site Cleanup Summary Columbus Steel Drum Co., Inc. July 2004. 22 January 2006. http://www.epa.state.oh.us/cdo /colssteeldrm.htm

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. “Ohio EPA Seeks Comments on Proposed Consent Order with Columbus Steel Drum.” 2 June 2005. 18 January 2006. http:// www.epa.state.oh.us/pic/nr/2005/june/columbussteeldrum.html

USEPA. “Penalty Report for Fiscal year 1993 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.” 1993. 18 January 2006. http:

//www.epa.gov/region5/orc/annualreports/1993/pen_93_rcra.htm

USEPA. “Columbus Steel Drum.” RCRA Info. 15 September 2000. 18 January 2006.

USEPA. “Ohio Petition Review Public Meeting.” 13 November 2001. 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region5/ohioreview/pdf/2001Nov13

- pubmtg

- PalermoRm

evening.pdf

Additional Contacts: Jim Leach (614) 644

- 2160 Kevin Johnson (614) 644

- 2160Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 125 David O’Toole (Ohio EPA) (614) 728

- 5040Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 126 Site Information

Site Name: Commodity Refining Exchange
EPA ID No.: CAD981402522
Address: 11847 United Street, Mojave, CA 93501 County: Kern
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Commodity Refining Exchange (CRE) has been operating since 1970 recovering precious metals, primarily silver from photographic film, and limited quantities of gold from circuit boards. The site's previous owners recovered copper (Cu) and lead (Pb) from ci rcuit boards and insulated wire. Incineration of these materials produced a waste dioxin ash which was deposited on various portions of the site

. The site was identified in 1988 as a result of contamination from discharges in 1988.

Description of Contami nation: Because of the nature of the waste materials, the major pathway of contamination is airborne transport by prevailing winds. The site is fenced to prevent direct contact to the community. There is contaminated soil but currently no evidence of groun dwater
contamination

. A polymer coating was applied on portions of the property in May 1990, to prevent migration by wind

. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) issued an I/SE Order to CRE and other potentially responsible parties (P RPs) in February 1991. A removal action (RA) was conducted in June 1992 in the effected area. The RA involved the hot spot removal of baghouse ash from the surface soils. These areas were restabilized with a soil
sealant.

An RI/FS characterizing the exte nt of contamination in the effected area was completed in June 1993. The RP has submitted a draft RAP for review and approval from the Department. The RAP proposes to cap in place, the effected area. DTSC approved a Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
in June of 19 95. The RAP calls for the capping of the contaminated areas with a geofab liner under a concrete cap. Because the affected area had been stabilized to give CRE the ability to budget construction cap into its operation, CRE was allowed to construct the cap over a 46 month period. CRE implemented the Remedial Actions described in the RAP in 1996.

Due to its long operating history much of the contamination probably occurred before 1982

. The total amount spent on cleanup at this site is approximately $200,000

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 127 Sources of Information: California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Commodity Refining Exchange.” Site Cleanup

– Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database. (n.d.). 16 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/Calsites/CALP001.CFM?IDNUM=15330008

Domingo, Danny. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (Project Manager), ddomingo@dtsc.ca.go v, Email 12/08/2005.

Deed Restriction Document. “Commodity Refining Exchange.” 4 February 1997. 16 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Deeds/upload/SMB R_DEED_15330008.pdf

USEPA. “Commodity Resource and Environment.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d)

. 21 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110002695450

Additional Contacts: Danny Domingo (Project Manager) (559) 297

- 3932 DDomingo@dtsc.ca.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 128 Site Information

Site Name: Conbraco Industrie s EPA ID No.:
Address: 1509 S. Van Mungo Boulevard, Pageland, SC 29728 County: Chesterfield

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Conbraco Industries has been in the brass foundry business since 1957

. The company has facilities in both North and South
Carolina

. They originally conducted all foundry operations at their Matthews, North Carolina facility

. In March 1998, the foundry operations were moved to Pageland, South Carolina and the
Matthews fa cility stopped manufacturing brass casting products

. The facility manufactures brass casting products that are used in brass valves, regulators, and other control devices

.

Brass casting is manufactured by a process that uses sand for molding and for core

- making

. The brass used is approximately 85% copper, 5% tin, and 5% lead

. The facility uses a process known as the greensand molding process (which is the most common type of molding process in the U.S.)

. During the process, contaminants entered the system until the level became too high, enough to render them inefficient (approximately 6

- 8 tons a day)

. To maintain efficiency, some of the sands were sent to a thermal reclamation unit (reclaimer)

. After being reclaimed, the sands were either reused or dispos ed

. According to Conbraco, all of the sand disposed from
mid

- April/October 1998 to January 2000, was either used as fill material at the Steven Kinlaw property in Pageland, SC or stored on

- site at the facility pending pick

- up.

Description of Contamination: Copper and lead are the contaminants of concern

. Conbraco believed that the sands which they treated from 1998 to 2000 were non

- hazardous after being
treated in their reclaimer

. In January 2000, Conbraco conducted TCLP and dis covered that the treated sand tested above the RCRA level of 5.0 ppm for leachable lead

. Conbraco now ships all
waste sand to a hazardous waste landfill.

In June 1987, the Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch of the North Carolina Department of Hum

an Resources (NCDHR) entered into an Order requiring Conbraco to clean close two piles of lead contaminated waste sand that had been accumulating at its Matthews, NC, site since 1957

. The work was completed in 1991

. Conbraco stated that in 1997, during the course of performing clean closure on the contaminated sand piles (pursuant to the 1987 Order), they discovered that not all of the foundry sand was legally disposed.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 129 As a result of the activities related to the two piles of lead contaminated waste sand and the sands treated from 1998 to 2000, Conbraco was required to identify and remediate seventeen different sites (seven in North Carolina and ten in South Carolina)

. At these seventeen sites, lead and copper contaminated foundry sand was sold to horse fa rms as fill for their stable and riding

areas

. Investigation is on

- going and thus far, it has been determined that no further action is required at six of the facilities

.

On September 24, 2002, P&L Bark Nursery, Inc. (P&L) of Pageland, South Carolina, wa s issued a RCRA § 7003 Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Order. During 1997

- 1998, P&L purchased approximately 375 tons of foundry sand from Conbraco Industries to be bagged and sold as play sand

. The sand, which had been treated by Conbraco Industries, contained levels of lead above regulatory limits

. P&L packaged and marketed the entire inventory of sands as play sand, and over an 8

- month period in 1997 and 1998, sold the sands to approximately 40 different retailers throughout Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina

. USEPA’s Order requires P&L Bark to undergo a series of investigative measures, including written notifications, to identify as many end users of the play sand product as possible.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 4. “Fisc al year 2002 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report.” 2002. 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region4/ead/attachments/2002_accomplishments_rep ort.pdf

EPA Region 4. “No title available.” (n.d.). 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/Region4/r4data/tris/trifac_sc.txt

EPA Region 4. Memorandum from Beverly Banister, Acting Direct or, Waste Management Division to Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator, Solid Waste and Emergency Response. “Waste Management Division Weekly Report

– Key Items.” 13 January
2006.

McKee, Nancy (USEPA Region 4) mckee.nancy@epa.gov , Email 13 February 2006.

USEPA. “Final Administrative Order on Consent.” 24 October 2001. 13 February 2006.

USEPA. “Information Requests Pursuant to Section 3007 of the RCRA. Responses of Conbraco Industries, Inc.” (28 April 20 00). 13 February 2006.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 130 Additional Contacts: Nancy McKee, USEPA Region 4, (404) 562

- 8674, mckee.nancy@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 131 Site Information:

Site Name: Consolidated Iron and Metal
EPA ID No.: NY0002455756
Address : East End of Washington St., Newburgh, NY 12550 County: Orange
NPL Site: Final: 6/14/2001
In CERCLIS Database: 0204175

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Consolidated Iron and Metal (Consolidated) was a car and scrap metal dealer, processor/recycler, and storage facility that operated from 1960 through 1999 when it closed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) due to numerous violations

. The facility received whole automobiles; automobile engines, tr ansmissions, and batteries; keypunch machines; computer parts; white goods (appliances); and transformers. The 7

- acre consolidated site is bordered by a boat marina on one side and the Hudson River on another

. The facility included a staging area and smelt er, a compactor and metal shear, an office, a scale, and a garage

. Scrap metal and tire piles were found throughout the site as well

. Smelting operations occurred onsite between 1975 and 1995. Primarily, the smelter was used to melt aluminum transmissions into a reusable product, but other metallic materials were smelted as well, resulting in lead

contaminated ash/slag

. Other operations onsite included sorting of ferrous and non

- ferrous metal scrap for recycling, and baling and shearing large pieces of meta l

– including whole cars

– into smaller pieces for transport

. Mismanagement on site led to contamination

.

From 1997 to 1999, NYSDEC conducted several inspections at the facility

. In 1999, USEPA cleanup crews greatly reduced any threats of contamination m oving to nearby areas by disposing of a 4,000 to 6,000 ton pile of ash/slag, which contained high levels of lead, at an USEPA

approved facility. The Agency spent $1.5 million on this effort. A clearing operation was conducted by USEPA in 2003

. The City of Newburgh has foreclosed on the property

. Clean up at the site hasn’t begun

.

As of September 30, 2004, cleanup expenditure at this site was $4,376,309.28

.

Description of Contamination: Contamination was due to mismanagement of useable scrap

meta l and processing byproducts. Precautions were not taken to minimize contamination during smelting operations, processing and storage of scraps

. In addition, ash/slag and oil/waste liquids were disposed directly on the property without proper containment, a llowing contamination of soil, groundwater, and the Hudson River.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 132 Between 1997 and 1999, NYSDEC conducted inspections and sampling at the Consolidated facility

. NYSDEC observed oil and other waste liquids on facility soils, and storm water being discharge d into the Hudson River from the property without the appropriate testing or permits

. In 2000, the NYS Attorney General prosecuted Consolidated for violations, including illegal discharge to surface water without a permit

. There were three main causes of s ite contamination: the metal smelting operation, recycling of scrap metals, and storage of scrap metals

. An ash/slag pile generated by the smelting operation contained lead at 6,350 mg/kg and PCBs at 27,000 μg/kg

. USEPA separated the ash/slag pile into fer rous, non

- ferrous and fine (contaminated) piles, and removed the approximately 6,600

- ton fine pile to a RCRA

- approved treatment, storage, and disposal facility

. USEPA removed approximately 2,000 tons of soil and debris generated by recycling activities, wi

th lead contamination at 4,000 mg/kg and PCBs at 39,000 μg/kg

. In addition, USEPA removed 30,000 tires, 58 truckloads of scrap metal, and 8,000 gallons of hydraulic oil

. Onsite sampling of surface and subsurface soil and groundwater, after removal
activiti es, found significantly elevated levels of VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and metals, primarily beneath the former slag pile

. In addition, contaminants found at elevated levels in the Hudson River included benzopyrene, PCBs, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercur y and zinc.

Sources of Information:

EPA Region 2

- Newsroom. “EPA Places Sites in East Fishkill and Newburgh on the Federal List of Hazardous Waste Sites.” 11 June 2001. 19 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region02/news/2001/01066.htm

EPA Region 2

- Newsroom. “EPA Poised to Begin Long

- Term Cleanup at Newburgh Superfund Site” 29 September 2003. 19 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region02/news/2003/03111.htm

Negrelli, Mike (RPM) (212) 637

- 4278, Interview 17 November 2005.

USEPA. “Consolidated Iron and Metal.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 19 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0204175

USEPA. “Consolidated Iron and Metal.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 25 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110009260726

USEPA. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). September 30, 2004. 19 January
2006.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 133 USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Consolidated Iron and Metal.” 14 June 2001. 1 9 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1614.htm

USEPA. “NPL Site Fact Sheet: Consolidated Iron and Metal.” (n.d.) 19 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/0204175c.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 134 Site Information

Site Name: Consolidated Recycling, Inc.
EPA ID No.: NHD500014436
Address: 164 Mile Slip Rd. Milford, NH 03055 County: Hillsborough

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Consolidated Recycling (CRI) accepted light bulb and light ballast wastes that included mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from school districts and government agencies in Colorado, New York, North Carolina, Ohio
and elsewhere. The owners falsel y claimed that CRI had the equipment to recycle the wastes; however, the company never purchased any recycling equipment

. The hazardous wastes were collected, stored and abandoned at locations in Hollis and Merrimack, N.H., and in Fitchburg, Methuen and Ty

ngsboro, Mass.

The operator of Consolidated Recycling, Inc., Franklin D. Sales, was sentenced in May of 2002, to 18 months in prison for misrepresenting the capability of his recycling and disposal operation

. Sales pleaded guilty in January to wire fraud , mail fraud, and making false statements. Sales accepted large quantities of fluorescent bulbs containing mercury powder and lighting ballasts contaminated with PCBs that were shipped from out of state to his disposal facilities in New Hampshire and Massa chusetts

.

He deceived customers by claiming that Consolidated Recycling had the equipment and procedures needed to conduct recycling and disposal processes in compliance with federal and state regulations. In fact, according to the government, Sales never obtained the necessary equipment or the required permits

. Wastes were stockpiled and then abandoned at warehouses in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. As part of the scheme, Sales issued fraudulent "certificates of recycling" to Consolidated Recycling customers, according to prosecutors

. One of the customers duped by Sales was the U.S. Department of the Army, which shipped bulbs from its base at Fort Drum, N.Y., and received false certificates of recycling from the company.

The case arose out of viol ations of environmental statutes, such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and was investigated by the EPA, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

. All of the charges, however, involved criminal fraud

. In addition to receiving the 18

- month prison term, Sales was ordered to pay restitution totaling more than $280,000 to victims of the scheme.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 135 Description of Contamination : Unknown

Sources of Information: Daily Environment Report No, 91. “Recycler Sentenced to 18 Months in Prison For Making False Claims about Capabilities.” BNA, Inc. 10 May 2002. 20 January 2006. http://pubs.bna.com/NWSSTND/IP/BNA/den.nsf/SearchAllView/02A1169BADB7BF1F 85256BB5000679F4?Open&highlight=RECYCLER

New Hampshire Supreme Court. “Transcript of the State v. Consolidated Recycling Inc.” 16
December 1999. 17 January 2006. http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/1999/consolid.htm

USEPA News Release. “New Hampshire Man Pleads Guilty in Recycling Fraud” 1 February
2002. 17 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/6fbf350992c6935c85256b530063747e?Open
Document

USEPA. “Consolidated Recycling Incorporated.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 17 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110007685861

Additional Contacts:
Luke C. Hester 202

- 564

- 7818, hester.luke@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 136 Site Information

Site Name: Continental Steel Corp.
EPA ID No.: IND001213503
Address : W Markland Ave., Kokomo, IN 46902 County: Howard
NPL Site: Final: 3/31/89
In CERCLIS Database: 0501228

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Since 1896, manufacturing processes and products on the site have varied, but for much of its recent history Continental Steel Corp.
manufactured rods and wire products from low

- and high

- carbon steel recycled from steel scrap

. The site is located in a mixed residential, commercial, and industrial area, zoned for general use. The facility is divided into six operable units, consisting of an abandoned steel m anufacturing facility (Main Plant), pickling liquor treatment lagoons (Lagoon Area), a former waste disposal area (Markland Avenue Quarry), a former waste disposal and slag processing area (Slag Processing Area), onsite creeks, and the groundwater under th e site

The facility reprocessed scrap metal into nails, wire, and wire fencing using reheating, casting, rolling, drawing, pickling, galvanizing, tinning, and tempering processes

. Waste pickle liquor resulting from these operations was collected in a 10

- a cre, 20

- million

- gallon surface impoundment constructed in 1946. The contents were processed through a neutralization system and discharged to Wildcat Creek.

Continental Steel filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Federal bankruptcy code on
Novembe r 25, 1985, and ceased operations on February 21, 1986. The bankruptcy was converted to Chapter 7 on February 25, 1986. The facility acquired Interim Status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when the owner filed a Notifi cation of Hazardous Waste Activity and Part A of a permit application.

Description of Contamination : In 1984, 1985, and 1986, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management identified chromium, cadmium, lead, and iron, constituents known
to be in the impoundment, in on

- site ground water. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and metals associated with the recycling activity were found in the groundwater, soil, sludges and sedime nts around the site following the company’s bankruptcy

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 137 The Lagoon Area was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List in June 1988, and formally placed on the NPL in March 1989. The Markland Avenue Quarry and the Main Plant were proposed for aggregation to the site, and were added in May 1990.

In response to a State report of contaminated runoff being released from the drum storage area in the Markland Quarry, the USEPA initiated a removal action in February 1990. This action
involved constr

uction of a trench, soil sampling, offsite disposal of 800 cubic yards of soil from the quarry area and 220 drums. USEPA also removed drums and storage tanks from the quarry pond between June 1991 and August 1991.

As a result of a site assessment of the Continental Steel facility itself, initiated in March 1990, the USEPA arranged for the disposal of about a thousand empty, crushed drums, about 200 drums of product material, about 50 containers of lead cadmium batteries, and about 5,000 gallons of base

- ne utral liquids

. The entire site, including all six operable units is now listed on
the NPL.

Two Records of Decision (RODs) were signed in 1996 and 1998 respectively, outlining interim and final decontamination plans for the entire site. However, a ROD Amen dment, signed in September 2003, incorporated new information gathered from predesign investigations performed by USEPA in 2000

- 2001 and a five

- year review performed by the state in 2002 which estimate the cost of remedy at $61 million dollars. This figure may be revised downward if a proposed redesign to the Lagoon Area remedy plan is approved by USEPA. For FY 2005, USEPA will provide $3 million to begin construction of sediment dewatering and drying beds at the Lagoon Area and construction is expected to begin soon.

Sources of Information:
USEPA. “ Continental Steel.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 16 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0501228

USEPA. “Continental Steel.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 25 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110009326327

USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Continental Steel Corp.” 16 August 1996. 16 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0596310.pdf

USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Continental Steel Corp.” 30 September 1998. 16 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0598091.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 138 USEPA. “NPL Fact Sheet: Continental Steel Corp.” June 2005. 16 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region5/superfund/npl/indiana/IND001213503.htm

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative fo r Continental Steel Corp.” 24 June 1988. 16 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0501228.pdf

Additional Contacts : Samuel Borries (OSC) (312) 353

- 8360
Ross Del Rosar io (RPM) (312) 886

- 6195 David Ellison (OSC) Mike Joyce (CIC) (312) 886

- 0269 Thomas Krueger, Region 5Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 139 Site Information

Site Name: Cooper Drum Co.
EPA ID No.: CAD055753370
Address: 9316 Atlantic Ave., South Gate, CA 90280 County: Los Angeles

NPL Site: Proposed: 2/07/1992; Final: 06/14/2001
In CERCLIS Database: 0903253

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: From 1941 until 1992, drum recycling was conducted at this site by various owners

. From 1971 to 1992, the Cooper Drum Co.
reconditioned closed

- topped, steel drums that previously held a variety of industrial chemicals

. In a 1991 interview, Cooper Drum Company representatives stated that approximately 70 percent of the drums accepted for recycling were from oil companies, with the remaining 30 percent including paint, resin, and solvent drums

.

The reconditioning operation at this site was set up as an assembly line process along the length of an elevated concrete floor in the southern portion of the property

. It essentially c onsisted of flushing and stripping the drums with sodium hydroxide in preparation for painting and resale. Fluids generated by the reconditioning operation were conveyed to two holding tanks and five
clarifiers that bordered the north side of the elevated floor. The settled out contents were pumped out and transported off site for recycling or disposal. The liquid was circulated back into the reconditioning process

. Prior to the late 1980s, the holding tanks and clarifiers consisted of open concrete sumps t

hat were connected to each other and the reconditioning process tanks (e.g., flushers and strippers) by open concrete trenches. Since then, closed

- top steel tanks were installed over the sumps, with the sumps providing secondary containment, and the trench es were replaced with hard piping. Until 1992, the hard wash operation was conducted in the northern portion of the property and consisted of placing chains and sodium hydroxide inside the drums, and then rotating the drums over four concrete sumps that we re fitted with grates. The sumps were connected to each other by open concrete trenches. In 1992, the hard wash operation was moved to the east end of the drum reconditioning facility in the southern portion of the property. The sumps in the former hard wa sh area are no longer in use.

In April 1987, the Los Angeles County Health Department (LACHD) Emergency Response Team responded to an incident at the Tweedy Elementary School property. An unknown quantity of highly caustic liquid waste had migrated via un derground seepage from the Cooper Drum Co. property. The waste resulted from the caustic wash water from the drum recycling process line located in the building directly north of the school property. Initially, the waste was thought toAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 140 comprise mainly sodi

um hydroxide and oil. When contamination migrated onto school property, the top layer of soil was excavated and the area was paved. Due to public health concerns, Tweedy Elementary School has remained closed. In 1987, the City of South Gate also closed
fou r municipal wells due to volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination

. However, evidence suggests that the shallow aquifer and the lower Silverado Aquifer are hydraulically connected, allowing the water to move between them. Municipal wells located within 4 miles of the site supply drinking water to approximately 335,000 people; the nearest of these wells is located within 1/2 mile of the site. An estimated 340,000 people live within 4 miles of the site. The Cooper Drum Co. was sold to a new drum company i n 1992, which employs 50 on

- site
workers.

Description of Contamination : Analytical results from soil and sampling events conducted in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998, and a soil gas sampling in 1999, indicate that VOCs are present at elevated concentrations in soils and soil gas beneath the concrete floor of the reconditioning facility, proximal to the holding tanks and clarifiers, in the former hard wash area, and in other areas of the site

.

Analytical results from 1996 and 1998 monitoring well ground water sampling events and a 1998 Hydropunch (TM) groundwater sampling event indicate the presence of VOCs at concentrations significantly above background levels in the two uppermost aquifers (Bellflower and Exposition aquifers) beneath and hyd raulically downgradient of the former hard wash area. The Bellflower, Exposition, and Gage aquifers are interconnected within 2 miles of the Cooper Drum Company site. Eleven municipal drinking water wells, which draw from the Exposition and Gage aquifers,
are located within 4 miles of the site.

Immediate actions at this site consisted of the excavation of contaminated soils at the Tweedy Elementary School in April of 1987 and soil and groundwater analysis

. The selected remedy for soil uses dual phase extra ction for treatment of VOCs in soil

. Other non

- VOC soil contaminants, including SVOCs, PCBs, and lead, will be excavated for disposal

. Institutional controls will be implemented to prevent exposure to soil contaminants where excavation is not feasible

. The total worth cost of this cleanup in 2002 was $2.77 million

. The cleanup strategy for groundwater contaminated with VOCs will use a combination of methods to achieve remedial goals and to restore the potential beneficial use of the aquifer as a drinking wa ter source

. The total worth cost in 2002 for this cleanup was $5.36 million

.

Sources of Information: Agency of Toxic Substances & Disease Registry. “Preliminary Public Health
Assessment : Cooper Drum.” 7 February 2006.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 141 http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/cooperdrum/coo_p1.html

NOAA’s National Ocean Service : Office of Response and Restoration. “Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Review: Cooper.” (n.d.) 7 Feb ruary 2006. http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/159_Cooper.pdf

USEPA. “Cooper Drum Company.” CERCLIS . 27 October 2005

. 7 February 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0903253

USEPA. “Cooper Drum Company.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d). 7 February 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110001167399

.

USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Cooper Drum Co.” 27 September 2002

. 7 February 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0902029.pdf

USEPA. “

NPL Fact Sheet: Cooper Drum Co.” (n.d.) 7 February 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplfs/fs0903253.pdf

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Cooper Drum Co.” 14 June 2001

. 7 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0903 253.pdf

USEPA. “Superfund Site Fact Sheet: Cooper Drum Co.” June 2002

. 7 February 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/fsheet.nsf/024bc4d43f9aa0f48825650f005a714e/d1c4cd
bd55c 6bfe188256ff900678d10/$FILE/cooper

- drum

- proposed

- plan%2006

- 02.PDF

Additional Contacts: Eric Yunker (EPA Site Manager) (415) 972

- 3159, yunker.eric@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 142 Site Information

Site Name: County Line Auto Parts (Imthurn Drum Site)
EPA ID No.: OHR000022327
Address: 585 The Bend Rd., Ney, OH 43549 County: Defiance

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0507704

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : County Line Auto Parts, also known as Imthurn Drum Site, was a salvage yard recovering drums and was located at an abandoned
school

. The company also accepted spent solvents which were burned in the school boilers

. Imthurn Drum Site, owned by Ellis Imthurn who is now deceased, never had a RCRA permit and never obtained permits of any kind to transport , store or dispose hazardous waste

. Beginning in 1977 and continuing until at least 1991, a Campbell Soup Company food production plant sold or provided Imthurn with 55

- gallon drums of waste material, some of which Imthurn used as
fuel.

Description of Con

tamination : Contamination at the site is due to the 1,500 leaking drums of solvents, waste oil & sludges that are stored at the site

. On January 23, 1997, Ohio EPA and USEPA conducted a preliminary assessment at the Imthurn facility. The agencies discovered approximately 1,500 deteriorating 55

- gallon drums of hazardous waste. In 1996 and 1997, Campbell removed the drums and some of the contaminated soil under an enforcement order
from USEPA

. Ohio EPA determined that Campbell failed to: evaluate the waste generated at the Napoleon facility; ensure that hazardous waste generated at the Napoleon facility was delivered to a permitted treatment, storage or disposal facility; notify USEPA of hazardous waste fuel activities; and comply with Ohio law. The c ompany also violated Ohio regulations by marketing hazardous waste fuel directly to a burner without obtaining permission.

In 2001, Campbell Soup Company and Campbell Soup Supply Company agreed to pay a civil penalty of $67,000 and reimburse Ohio EPA $37 ,571.50 for costs the Agency incurred for
hazardous waste violations related to the Imthurn drum site

. In addition to paying the civil penalty, Campbell must secure the site to ensure that no further dumping takes place, evaluate ground water to ensure no contamination has occurred, and submit and implement an acceptable hazardous waste closure plan.

In order to return the property to residential use, a portion of the civil penalty payment will be used by the Campbell companies to clean up solid waste at the Imthurn facility. Campbell mayAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 143 apply up to $22,000 of the civil penalty to remove and properly dispose of all solid waste on the site, as a supplemental environmental project. The remaining $45,000 will go to Ohio EPA's hazardous waste cleanup fund.

Sources of Information: Hale, Karen (Ohio EPA). Email correspondence to David Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste).
24 June 2005.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. “Ohio EPA reaches $104,571.50 Settlement With Campbell Soup Company and Campbell Soup Sup ply Company for Hazardous Waste Violations.” 23 October 2001. 22 January 2006. http://www.epa.state.oh.us/pic/nr/2001/oct/campbell.html

USEPA. “County Line Auto Parts.” RCRA Info. 10 October 2003. 18 January 2006.

USEPA. “Imthurn Drum Site.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 22 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0507704

USEPA. “County Line Auto Parts.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 22 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000816190

Addi tional Contacts : Partap Lall (OSC) (734) 692

- 7685 Michael Maringer (Contact/Regulatory) (419) 592

- 1010 Karen Hale (Ohio EPA) (614) 644

- 2927, karen.hale@epa.state.oh.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 144 Site Information :

Site Name: CoZinCo
EPA ID No.: COD094154671
Address: 100 W. Zinc Street, Salida, CO 81201 County: Chaffee

NPL Site: Part of Smeltertown Site; Proposed: February 7, 1992
In CERCLIS Database: 0800167

Description of Recycling Operation : CoZinCo has processed zinc sulfate and smelter slag from 1977 to present

. CoZinCo manufactures zinc sulfate soil amendment/animal feed by treating metallic galvanizing wastes called "skimmings" with 94 percent sulfuric acid. Areas of contamination include several drum piles, two pon ds used to hold spent processing water, a pile consisting of sludge scraped from the ponds, and an area where sludge was worked into the soil

. This facility contaminated the eastern portion of the Smeltertown site

. The Smeltertown site covers approximately 100 acres in a rural area near Salida, Choffee County, Colorado. It consists of areas involving operations of Koppers, Inc., CoZinCo, Inc., and a smelter

.

CoZinCo did not ha ve a RCRA permit.

Description of Contamination : Soil on the property contains elevated levels of heavy metals, including chromium, lead, zinc, antimony, nickel, and lead, according to a 1987 EPA report. Contaminants were found in three drum storage are as.

Sources of Information: Agency for Toxic Substance & Disease Registry. “Public Health Assessment: CoZinCo.” (n.d.). 17 January 2006. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/smeltertown/smel_p1.html

USEPA. “CoZinCo.” CERCLIS . 27 October 2005. 17 January 2006

. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0800167

USEPA. “CoZinCo.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.)

. 24 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro /multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000467922

USEPA. “CoZinCo.” RCRAInfo. 13 October 2000. 18 January 2006.

USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: CoZinCo.” 4 June 1998

. 17 January 2006.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 145 http://cfpub.epa.gov/superrods/index.cfm?fuseaction=data.siterods&siteid=0801085

USEPA. “NPL Fact Sheet: Smeltertown.” March 2003. 17 January 2005. http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/sites/co/smeltown.html

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Smeltertown.” 7 February 1992. 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0801085.pdf

Additional Contacts : Martin O'Grady (State Project Manager) 303

- 692

- 3300, 888

- 569

- 1831 toll

- free Stan Christensen (EPA Remedial Project Manager) 303

- 312

- 6694 Sabrina Forrest, (SAM) (303) 312

- 6484 Pat Smith (SAM) Martin O’Grady (303

- 312

- 6638)
Walter Avramenko 303

- 692

- 3300Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 146 Site Information

Site Name: Crawfordsville Scrap and Salvage
EPA ID No.: IND065548703
Address: 419 N. Green St., Crawfordsville, IN 47933 County: Montgomery
NPL Site: No

In CERCLIS Database: 0501483

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Crawsfordsville Scrap and Salvage is now participating in Indiana Department of Environmental Management’s (IDEM’s) Voluntary Remediation Program

. CSX Transportation (the Responsible Party) has conducted a site characterization and has submitted an ecological risk assessment to determine potential impacts of site contaminants to Shelley Ditch

.

Description of Contamination: The site is contaminated with PCBs and lead found in the soil
and surface water

.

Sources of Information: Indiana Department of Environmental Management. “Hazardous Waste Response Sites: Crawfordsville Scrap and Salvage.” 13 September 2005. 16 January 2006. http://www.in.gov/idem/land/statecleanup/sitesummaries/crawfordsville.html

USEPA. “ Crawfordsville Scrap and Salvage.” CERCLIS

. 27 October 2005. 16 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0501483

USEPA. “Crawfordsville Scrap and Salvage.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 25 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110009284522

Additional Contacts: Richard Harris (317) 233

- 8284Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 147 Site Information

Site Name: Crosby Motor s EPA ID No.: FL0000562603
Address : 3506 Clifford Lane, Jacksonville, FL 32209 County: Duval
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0406773

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The site has operated as various automotive salvage

- related businesses since 1968. Mr. and Mrs. Hicks were the prior owners and original operators of the salvage yard, and ceased to operate the business at some point in 1980s. Mr. James Crosby purchased t he business and operated the yard from 1988 until as recently as 1994. Mr. Randy Taylor reportedly purchased the property in 1994

. A 1994 site assessment by the FDEP was completed following a report that there was improper disposal of automotive
fluids thr oughout the site.

Description of Contamination : The Crosby site was added to the FDEP state

- action site
list in 1998

. The IT Corporation, acting as the FDEP State Cleanup Contractor, submitted a Site Assessment Work Plan in August 2000. The FDEP requested a water well survey to be completed at this site after the initial project visit. This survey indicated two potable

we lls located within 1⁄4 mile from the site. Sampling and analysis has indicated no water
well contamination.

The soil is contaminated with PAHs and phthalate esters

. Groundwater is contaminated with VOCs, SVOCs, and inorganic metals

. Sediment samples collec ted from the drainage ditch along the property boundary contained PAHs, pesticides, PCBs, and inorganic metals. There was no
water well contamination

. Possible sources of contamination may have been from automobile crushing resulting in the spillage of var ious fluids (i.e. antifreeze, waste oil, motor oil, gasoline, brake fluid, suspected burial of lead

- acid batteries)

. In April 2001, 490 tons of tires, 750 tons of scrap metal and 680 tons of debris were removed from the site

.

Sources of Additional Inform ation: Florida Department of Environmental Protection. “Waste Management Publications: Crosby
Motors.” http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publica tions/wc/sites/summary/115.pdf

USEPA. “Crosby Motors.” CERCLIS . 27 October 2005

. 19 January 2006.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 148 http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0406773

USEPA. “Crosby Motors.” EPA Envirofacts Warehouse

. 25 January 2006

. 25 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110009328487

Contacts : Jennifer Wendel (RPM) (404) 562

- 8799 Nancy Murchison (Florida DEP)Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 149 Site Information

Site Name: Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc.
EPA ID No.: NJD011717584
Address: 416 Lanza Ave., Saddle Brook Twp, NJ 07662 County: Bergen
NPL Site: Construction Complete 9/30/1997
In CERCLIS Database: 0200273

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc. site includes the real property where two active scrap metal recycling businesses operated: Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc. and Ci

rello Iron and Steel Company. The site is approximately 1 acre in size and contains two single story buildings that are used primarily as warehouses. The area surrounding the site is comprised of residential homes and industrial properties

. Salvaging

opera tions began at the site in the early 1950s

. Prior to this time, the land was used for dairy farming

. In 1952, Curcio purchased the East and West Lots and in 1981, the company purchased
the South Lot

. Initially, only rags and paper were recycled

. In 1975, a luminum and copper and
other ferrous and non

- ferrous metals began to be stored and recycled at the site

. In 1977, the original structures on the site were demolished, the present main building was erected and sections of the West Lot were paved

. In 1978, t he truck scale and scale control shed were
constructed on the East Lot

. The structures at the site have remained essentially unchanged since
1985.

Description of Contamination: At least three documented polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) spills had occurred on the site. In 1982, the company received a shipment of 50 electrical transformers, salvaging the copper and baling the remaining metal. During the cutting of the transformers, oil containing PCBs spilled onto the ground

. An area covering about 200 square
feet was blackened with oil and soil from the area contains PCBs

. Run

- off from the site, taken from a drainage ditch at the rear of the property, also contains PCBs

. Site soils are relatively permeable, which facilitates movement of contaminants into grou nd water. The state became
aware of the site in 1982 when a citizen became concerned over Curcio’s activities. The state found the soil and runoff from a drainage ditch to be contaminated with PCBs. In 1985, the state discovered an oil spill that flowed fr om the site to a pond approximately 300 feet from the Curcio site and determined that Cirello was responsible for the spill. The company spilled approximately 200 gallons of hydraulic fluid on the Curcio site

. In 1989, Cirello caused a spill
of PCB

- contami

nated oil into onsite soil, and the state required Cirello to excavate and drum the resulting contaminated soil

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 150 Groundwater was contaminated with the following: vinyl chloride, chloroethane, methylene chloride, acetone, carbon disulfide, 1,1

- dichloroethene, 1,1

- dichloroethane, cis

- 1,2

- dichloroethene, trans

- 1,2

- dichoroethene, chloroform, 1,2

- dichloroethane, 2

- butanone, 1,1,1

- trichloroethane, bromodichloromethane, carbon tetrachloride, barium, calcium, magnesium, sodium, benzene, toluene, al uminum, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, potassium, selenium, sodium, thallium, vanadium, zinc, aroclor

. Soil was found to be contaminated with three different PCB's, lead, copper, nickel and trichloroethylene
in on

- site soil samples.

Sources of Information: New Jersey Department of Health Environmental Health Service. “Public Health Assessment Curcio Scrap Metal, Incorporated.” 11 May 1995. 19 February 2006. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/curcio/Csm_toc.html

USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc.” 28 June 1991. 19 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0291143.pdf

USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc.” 30 September 1997. 19 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0297107.pdf

USEPA. “First Five

- Year Review Report Curcio Scrap Metal Inc. Superfund Site.” September 2002. 19 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f02

- 02005.pdf

USEPA. “NPL Fact Sheet: Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc.” (n.d.). 19 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/R egion2/superfund/npl/0200273c.pdf

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Curio Scrap Metal, Inc.” 22 July 1987. 19 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0200273.pdf

USEP A. “Superfund Site Progress Profile: Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 19 February 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0200273

Add itional Contacts: Michelle Granger

- Santana (RPM) (212) 637

- 4975Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 151 Site Information
Site Name: Cycle Chem Incorporated
EPA ID No.: NJD002200046
Address : 217 South First Street, Elizabeth, NJ 07206 County: Union
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Cycle Chem, a commercial TSDF

, purchased its two

- acre property from Perk Chemical Company in 1985

. Recycling activities at the facility include recovering spent solvents and treating hazardous and non

- ha zardous wastes

. Solvents, hazardous and non

- hazardous wastes are stored in containers and tanks

. Cycle Chem accepts commercially generated, as well as on

- site generated hazardous waste for storage,
treatment and transfer

. Cycle Chem was issued a RCRA Part B permit in December 1988 and
December 1997

.

Description of Contamination: Current contaminants onsite include benzene, trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene in the groundwater

. Contamination can be linked to current and past storage activities

. For ins tance, Perk Company emptied, cleaned and removed three aboveground storage tanks that used to contain chlorinated solvents. However, there is also groundwater contamination coming onto the site from a higher site, which suggests that it was caused not only from past operations, but also from some off

- site source

. In 2002, Cycle Chem was cited by the New Jersey Department of Environmental protection for violating the NJ Water Pollution
Control Act

. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection noted that Cycle Chem stored a large amount of hazardous waste outdoors exposed to rain, where it could wash into the Elizabeth River. However, there is the possibility that some contamination is due to an offsite

source

. Site

- wide investigation is being conducted t o determine Cycle Chem’s contribution to
contamination.

Sources of Information:

Environment News Service. “Hazwaste Company Fined for Polluting River.” 18 November 2002. 17 January 2006. http://ens

- newswire.com/ens/nov2002/2002

- 11

- 18

- 09.asp#anchor7

EPA Region 2

- Waste. “Cycle Chem Incorporated Factsheet.” 1 November 2005. 17 January
2006. http://www.epa.gov/ region02/waste/fscycle.htmAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 152 USEPA. “Cycle Chem Corp.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.) 17 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000319780

USEPA. “Cycle Chem Corp.” RCRAInfo . 26 November 2001

. 20 January 2006.

Additional Contacts:

Clifford Ng (212) 637

- 4113Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 153 Site Information

Site Name: Danmark, Inc.
EPA ID No.: FL0001093103
Address: 4808 Paul St., Tampa, FL 33611 County: Hillsborough

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0406338

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Danmark Co. is a former used oil hauler, collection and recycling facility which operated by various Danmark companies from 1989 to 1993. William Michael Shaw was the operator of the Danmark Site and the president and general manager of Danmark. On September 30, 1998, Mr. Shaw pleaded guilty to illegally accepting and managing hazardou s waste and storing a hazardous waste without a permit in violation of section 3008(d)(2)(A) of the RCRA

. He was charged with abandoning the facility in August 1993 and leaving behind 80,000 gallons of contaminated liquid waste and 150 tons of
contaminated solid waste

. Mr. Shaw did not join the settlement because USEPA determined that Mr. Shaw did not have the financial ability to do so. Since both the operator and most of the largest generators were orphan parties, USEPA agreed to compromise 25 percent of its response costs pursuant to the Orphan Share Policy. This settlement requires the settling parties to waive their contribution rights against parties that sent less than 2,000 gallons of materials to the site.

Description of Contamination: Abandoned ma terials were left on site

.

USEPA completed the transportation and disposal phase of the removal action at the Danmark site in March of 1996. During the removal action, approximately 80,000 gallons of liquid waste and 150 tons of solid waste (stockpiled s oils, used oil filters and sludge) were processed and disposed of off

- site.

On April 14, 2000, USEPA finalized a settlement with 59 settling parties for recovery of USEPA’s past costs associated with the removal action taken at the site. This settlement, pursuant to Sections 107(a) and 122(h) of CERCLA provides for the reimbursement by the settling parties of $516,374.57 in response costs incurred by USEPA in responding to the release
of hazardous substances at the site.

Sources of Information:
Da ily Environmental Report No. 191, “State, Federal Officials Crack Down on Criminal Violators in Tampa Bay.” BNA, Inc. 2 October 1998

. 21 January 2006.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 154 http://pubs.bna.com/NWSSTND/IP/BNA/den.nsf/SearchAllView/6EA088D64F5BF8AD 85256691000BC1D9?Open&highlight=RECYCLER

EPA Region 4. “Enforcement & Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report.” Fiscal Year 2000. 19 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/Region4/ead/attachments/2000_accomplishments_ report.pdf

USEPA. “Danmark Site.” CERCLIS . 27 October 2005

. 19 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0406338

USEPA. “Danmark Site.” Envirof acts Data Warehouse

. 25 January 2006

. 25 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110009273838Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 155 Site Information

Site Name: David John Property
EPA ID No.:
Address: South end Vandalia Street on commercial lot, Otterbein, IN County: Benton
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The property owner, Mr. David John, operated a drum recycling operation at the site for approximately 20 years

. On December 1, 2000, while conducting a spill incident investigation, Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) discovered between 30 to 40 empty drums and soils discolored by paint sludge through out the property

. During the incident investigation, Mr. John acknowledged that the residual fluids contained in the drums were dumped onto the ground

.

Description of Contamination: On Dec ember 5, 2000, a remedial investigation was conducted and revealed elevated concentrations of volatile organic compounds in both the subsurface soils and groundwater beneath the property

.

Sources of Information: Indiana Department of Environmental Manag ement. “Hazardous Waste Response Sites:
David John Property.” 13 September 2005. 16 January 2006. http://www.in.gov/idem/land/statecleanup/sitesummaries/davidjohn.pdf

Additional Contacts: Aaron Green (317) 234

- 0350Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 156 Site Information

Site Name: Davis Chemical Company
EPA ID No.: CAD070215355
Address: 1550 North Bonnie Beach Pl. Los Angeles, CA 90063 County: Los Angeles

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Davis Chemical Company operated as a recycler of spent solvents and transporter of waste solvents from various small manufacturing operations from 1949 until 1990, when it went out of business. Davis rep ortedly accepted and processed wastes using distillation chlorinated and petroleum

- based solvents throughout its operational history. Since 1953, the predominant process at the facility has been reclaiming acetone/polyester resin wastes from the fiberglass industry. However, according to hazardous waste manifests, other types of solvents were also sent to the facility. The property is located on
a 1/3

- acre lot in East Los Angeles in a light industrial area that includes some residential use.

Davis collecte d waste polyester resin dissolved in acetone in 55

- gallon drums. The solutions were then pumped into an 800

- gallon feed tank that served as the distillation equipment. After the solids settled, the acetone waste was distilled through one of two steam

- heate d vaporization units (a 150

- gallon/hour unit and a 40

- gallon/hour unit). The distilled acetone was then placed in
55

- gallon containers for resale.

Around 1980, Davis installed four stainless steel underground storage tanks (USTs) at the facility

- two 2,500

- gallon reclaimed solvent tanks and two 6,000

- gallon waste solvent tanks. No secondary containment or release controls were installed on these ta nks. These USTs were removed under the supervision of Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LADPW) in November 1989. According to LADPW records, the sampling conducted in 1989 and 1990 by Davis and its contractor did not adequately address the pos sibility of a release from these tanks.

From August 1, 1990 to October 23, 1990, Betterbilt Chemicals (EPA ID# CAD981686249) operated fuel blending activities and recovered acetone from waste polyester resins at the facility
and also acted as a hazardous waste transporter. Flammable wastes (liquid and solid) were accepted at the facility and then shipped offsite for disposal by incineration at Systech Inc., a cement kiln facility in Lebec, California (EPA ID# CAT080031628). DTSC issued a Directive to Comp ly on October 23, 1990 ordering Davis to cease and desist all hazardous waste treatment and storage operations, stating that the facility was conducting unpermitted operations such asAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 157 accepting flammable solids and liquids, blending flammable solids and li quids as fuel for Systech Inc., and treating waste paint related material by distillation.

USEPA conducted a preliminary assessment of the site in 1992 and noted “significant spillage” and recommended referral to the state RCRA program for further clean

- up administered by the California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).

On October 2, 1997, DTSC’s Statewide Compliance Branch referred the site to DTSC’s Site Mitigation Program. In an effort to commence th e remedial investigation (RI) process and recover associated costs, in June 1999 DTSC sent out information request letters to potentially responsible parties, namely Betterbilt, Diana Davis (a trustee of the Ernest Davis Estate), and Donald Williams, forme r manager of Davis. Betterbilt and Diana Davis responded to the letter but Donald Williams failed to respond. The response from Betterbilt stated that it had never owned or operated the facility but was at one point negotiating to purchase the property.

Be tterbilt said it never finalized the purchase because it was unable to obtain a permit to operate as a TSD facility. Betterbilt did not provide information concerning the type and quantities of hazardous substances it delivered to the facility, even though it was one of the transporters of hazardous waste to the facility, according to hazardous waste manifests obtained from DTSC’s headquarters office.

Description of Contamination : A site reconnaissance visit by Ecology and Environment, Inc. in
1992 for the USEPA, revealed evidence of poor housekeeping, significant spillage of waste solvents and resin, and deteriorated concrete flooring throughout the facility. Currently, hazardous wastes are not known to be stored on the property.

The solvents managed at t he facility through the recycling process included acetone, methylene chloride, trichloroethane (TCA), trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), xylene, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), isopropyl alcohol (IPA), toluene, methanol, ethanol, and paint thinner s

. Smith

- Emery Geoservices analyzed 15 soil samples in November 1996. Eight of the samples were found to exceed the action levels of one or more of the following compounds: 1,1,2

- trichloroethane (TCA), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and 1,1,2,2

- tetrachloroethan e. The hazardous waste regulatory level at the time for PCE in soil, according to title 22, California Code of Regulations, section 66261.24, was 700 ppb. No hazardous waste levels are specified for TCA and 1,1,2,2,

- tetrachloroethane in soil. The highest c oncentrations detected for 1,1,2,2

- tetrachloroethane, PCE and TCA were 16 ppb, 1200 ppb, and 64 ppb respectively.

The boundary of the Central Groundwater Basin is approximately 1 mile south of the site. Two of the 1996 soil borings showed levels of some v olatile organic compounds increasing withAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 158 depth, thereby raising the possibility that groundwater, if it exists beneath the site, may be
contaminated.

A 2002 Consent Order determined that the recyclers at the site should undertake the costs of cleanup and pay DTSC $20,000 for previous clean up costs.

Sources of Information: California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “ Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Determination and Consent Order.” December 2002. 23 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Projects/upload/DavisChemicalCo_SMBRP_ENF_ ORDER_ISECO.pdf

USEPA. “Davis Chem Co.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d)

. 24 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110002656117

Additional Contacts: Safouh Sayed (714) 484

- 5478, ssayed@dtsc.ca.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 159 Site Name: Dearborn Refining Company
EPA ID No.: MID005510805
Address: 3901 Wyoming Avenue, Dearborn, MI, 48120 County: Wayne
NPL Site: Not on the NPL
In CERCLIS Database: MID005510805

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : From 1947 until approximately November of 2003, the Dearborn Refining Company (Dearborn Refining) operated an 8.5 acre facility in Dearborn, Michigan that blended and marketed lubricating and metalworking products formulated primarily from purchased oils and various additives. The facility also received, stored, and processed used oil.

Michigan adopted regulations consistent with the 1992 Used Oil Management Standards in 1996. On June 1, 1999, Michigan achieved federal authorization for the 1992 Used Oil Management Standards. In June 1999, Region 5 conducted a multimedia compliance inspection at Dearborn Refining. Through evidence obtained during the on

- site inspection, review of documents, and oral deposition given by Aram Moloian, President of Dearborn Refining, EPA discovered violations of the Used Oil Management Standards in December 1999. On September 28, 2001, Region 5 EPA issued an eight

- count RCRA administrative complaint seeking injunctive relief and a penalty of $2.9 million. Settlement could not be reached and the case proceeded to administrative hearing. On August 15, 2003, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Order containing a Compliance Order and a $1.25 million penalty.

In December of 2004, the State of Michigan filed a misdemeano r complaint against Dearborn Refining Company and its owner, Aram Moloian. The complaint alleged illegal storage or disposal of liquid industrial waste and used oil. On or about May 23, 2005, Dearborn Refining and Mr. Moloian entered into a Plea Agreement with the State of Michigan in response to the misdemeanor complaint filed against them. Dearborn Refining pled guilty to the misdemeanor charges. The Plea Agreement required Dearborn Refining to permanently discontinue receipt of
used oil and remove all us ed oil within 180 days.

Dearborn Refining failed to comply with an Environmental Appeals Board RCRA Order to pay a civil penalty, to perform RCRA corrective action, and to close in compliance with RCRA. The city and Dearborn Refining entered into a Stipula tion and Order to Vacate Premises. That Stipulation required Dearborn Refining to vacate the premises by February 13, 2006. Since its abandonment, the site has been subject to a Superfund emergency removal, and now cost

recovery.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 160 Description of Contaminati on: Dearborn Refining's operations at the facility have resulted in the discharge, spilling, or placing of used oil containing lead onto the ground surface. Previous investigations at the site by the U.S. EPA (2000) and MDEQ (2003) indicated that numerous spills of oil or oily wastewater onsite impacted soils. Leaking hoses and valves and holes in tank walls caused tank contents to spill onto staging pads and soil. 40,000 gallons of hazardous waste were abandoned by the former owner.

During the 1999, 2000, and 2005 investigations, U.S. EPA observed that surface and subsurface soils were stained and saturated with oil. Sampling determined that the surface and subsurface soils were contaminated with lead, arsenic, and PCBs that exceeded U.S EPA Region V’s Risk

Based Screening Levels for an Industrial Scenario. Additionally, the U.S. EPA observed that oil was present in the groundwater underlying some portions of the site. U.S. EPA observed oil and sludge on the building floors and walls. A number of tanks were in poor condition and/or lacked structural integrity. Inspectors observed concentrated sulfuric acid spurting from a corroded tank. There was a lack of secondary containment sufficiently impervious to prevent a release from reaching soil and groundwater.

In 2003, MDEQ conducted soil and groundwater sampling at the site. Soils contained arsenic, barium, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, zinc, and VOCs. Groundwater/surface water contained polynuclear aromatic (PNA) comp ounds.

As of August 2007, Dearborn Refining had removed approximately 4,114 lbs of hazardous waste and 14,300 gallons of hazardous waste from the site.

U.S. EPA conducted an emergency removal cleanup at the site. Utilizing funds from the Oil Pollution Act, the Superfund Program has spent more than $2.6 million at the site since 2006, including a removal action on July, 10, 2006.

Additionally, on October 11, 2011, contractors hired by the potentially responsible party (PRP)
excavated a total of 359.69 tons o f PCB

- contaminated soil from the prescribed excavation area
located at the northeast corner of the site. The total extramural costs of the PRP action have been $104,000.

Sources of Information:

1. Brauer, Sue. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

- Region 5. Personal communication (email) with Amanda Kohler , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 2011. Attachment “Potential Damage Cases 08.10.11.docx”.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 161 2. Brauer, Sue. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

- Region 5. Personal communication (email) with Amanda Kohler , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. November 2011. Attachment “dearbornrefiningprp_epa_polrep_6.htm”.

3. Brauer, Sue. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

- Region 5. Personal communication (email) with Amanda Kohler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 23, 2012.

4. USEPA. Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent between USEPA and Dearborn Refinery Company. 2007.

5. USEPA. News Releases from Region 5: EPA begins $4 million ChemServe cleanup in Detroit. April 23, 2008. Accessed Online. December 2011: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/a5792a626c8dac098525735900400c2d/c527f4 bdd5a5bd2f8525743400470ad4!OpenDocument

6. USEPA. EPA On

- Scene Coordinator Profile. Dearborn Refining. Accessed Online.
December 2011: http://www.epaosc.org/site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=2079

7. USEPA. EPA On

- Scene Coordinator Profile. Dearborn Refining PRP POL REP#1.
Accessed Online. December 2011: http://www.epaosc.org/site/polrep_profile.aspx?site_id=3424&counter=7566Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 162 Site Information

Site Name: Delatte Metals
EPA ID No.: LAD052510344
Address : 1541 Weinberger Road, Ponchatoula, LA 70454 County: Tangipahoa Parish
NPL Site: Deleted: 8/8/2005
In CERCLIS Database: 0600428

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Delatte Metals superfund site encompasses both the former Delatte Metals facility and the inactive Ponchatoula Battery Company. The two facilities total 56.8 acres and are aggregated because they are adjacent, performed identical lead salvage operations, and generated the same type of waste material. The only difference in operational procedures was that Delatte Metals operated a lead smel ter to recover addition lead material. Delatte Metals began operations in the early 1970s until the
1980s

.

The operations performed at the facilities included recycling spent lead

- acid batteries to remove and smelt the associated lead plates to produce l ead ingots. The typical process at the facility involved sawing off the tops of the batteries and removing the lead plates in a battery saw building. After opening the battery cases, the battery acid was drained into a sump

. During the 1980s, acid was pump ed from the sump to an unlined pond located on the north side of the site. After the closure of the acid pond, the acid was pumped through an underground pipe to the acid
tank farm on

- site. The spent acid was then shipped off

- site for recycling.

The reco vered lead from the acid was sold to lead recycling facilities located throughout the
southern United States and other countries. The facilities were issued several Notice of Violations and Compliance Orders during their operational life, as state and USEP A inspections showed discharges with a pH range from 0.55 to 2.

The Joyce Wildlife Management Area is located 1.4 miles downstream, and the Manchac Wildlife Management Area is located 12.5 miles downstream. Wetlands were also identified in
the 15

- mile do wnstream target distance limit.

Nine sources were evaluated at the Delatte Metals site during the HRS investigation: two battery chip piles, two slag piles, a waste pile, a buried/backfilled surface impoundment, tote bags, a contaminated soil area (former removal area), and the settling tank basin. Analytical samples
collected from on

- site soils, piles, and the tote bags indicated the presence of heavy metalsAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 163 including arsenic, lead, and cadmium. Analytical results obtained from ground water samples
collec ted from monitoring wells around the surface impoundment indicated the presence of arsenic, cadmium, and lead at concentrations that met observed release criteria.

This facility did not hold a RCRA permit.

Description of Contamination: Battery casings we re discarded on site, and investigations revealed two battery chip piles, two slag piles, a waste pile, a buried surface impoundment, and a settling tank basin

. Drainage from the facility went through a series of ditches to Selser’s Creek

. During the mid 1 980s and 1990s, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) worked with the both facilities in attempts to correct site deficiencies in environmental practices, though both companies have since gone bankrupt

. In September 1997, the Louisiana Gover nor Mike Foster formally requested that the Delatte Metals site be addressed by USEPA and listed on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL)

. In September 1998, EPA Region 6 began a removal action at the DMI facility. The removal activities consisted o f removing above ground wastes at the DMI facility, which included piles of slag, dust, and battery chips. Other identified source areas removed from the DMI facility included the acid tank farm, furnace building, drums
of metal

- contaminated waste, and tot e bags of baghouse dust.

The total volume of waste treated and disposed was 85,444 tons; this represents an increase of 32,794 tons over the estimated 52,650 tons presented in the September 26, 2000, Record of Decision (ROD). The final remedial action cost of $13.1 million is an i ncrease of $3.2 million over the ROD estimate of $9.9 million.

Sources of Information: Gibson, Kathy (214) 665

- 7196, Interview 7 December 2005.

USEPA. “Delatte Industries, Inc.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 25 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000613738

USEPA. “Delatte Metals.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 17 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0600428

USEPA. “Delatte Metals.” RCRAInfo . 2 September 2000

. 20 January 2006.

USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Delatte Metals.” 2 6 September 2000. 17 January
2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0600514.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 164 USEPA. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). 30 September 2004. 17 Janu ary 2006.

Additional Contacts: Kathy Gibson (RPM) (214) 665

- 7196 Katrina Higgins (RPM) (214) 665

- 8143 Jon Rinehart (RPM) (214) 665

- 8575 Rosemary Vazquez (CIC) (214) 665

- 8575Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 165 Site Information

Site Name: Dennis Residence
EPA ID No.: ORQ000020297
Address: 25727 Wildwood Rd. Veneta, OR 97487 County: Lane
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: A complaint was received in March 2001, alleging that one of the occupants of the residence was trying to extract gold from computer circuit boards with strong acids.

Description of Contamination: During a State Police investigation, thirteen 55 gallon d rums of chemicals were discovered on the site, many of which had corroded and were releasing
hazardous constituents into the environment. In addition vats of acid and arsenic had been dumped on the ground. Over 6,000 pounds of hazardous waste was removed f rom the site by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. There was evidence of toxic air releases as well as potential drinking water well contamination as a result of this operation.

Sources of Information: Oregon Department of Environmental Qual ity. “Environmental Cleanup Site Information (ECSI) Database Site Summary Report

– Details for Site ID 3069.” (n.d.). 20 January 2006. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/ECSI/ecside tail.asp?seqnbr=3069

Oregon Electronic Product Advisory Committee. “Report to the 2005 Oregon Legislature.” January 2005. 20 January 2006. http://www.econ.state.or.us/ElecProdRpt05.pdf

Additional Contacts: Geoffrey Brown (Oregon DEQ) (541) 686

- 7819Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 166 Site Information

Site Name: Diamond State Salvage
EPA ID No.: DE0000122218
Address: 702 E. 14th Street, Wilmington, DE 19802 County: New Castle

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0304940

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Diamond State Salvage, situated on 4.25 acres, operated at this site from 1949 to 1992

. The owner's father acquired the land from a coal and heating oil company in 1949

. During this time, full scale s alvage operations consisted of removing salvageable metals from automobiles, appliances, batteries, empty compressed gas cylinders, empty drums, and tanks

. The salvage operation used torches or machinery to section objects

. The most common salvaged materia ls were aluminum, copper, iron, brass, and lead

. The metals were then shipped to several scrap metal buyers

. Materials which were not of value, such as rubber and plastics, were stockpiled on site

. Other materials were transported to the local
landfill

. Ex

tensive soil contamination occurred on the site during its operational history

. During 1991 and 1992, operations at Diamond State Salvage consisted mainly of excavating the ground surface of the site to locate any metals with salvage value

. As a result of this excavation, over half of the site is covered with piles of earth mixed with large portions of debris and trash

. Weathering effects have formed deep ditches and pools along the edges of the debris piles

.

Description of Contamination: The Diamond Stat e Salvage site is a $11.9 million Superfund Removal action. The site is contaminated with lead and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). This action will mitigate the potential public exposure to and ongoing discharge of lead and PCBs into
the Christina River/

Delaware Watershed

. On

- site removal of oily waste will likely continue through the end of the removal action. Weather permitting, excavation to remove lead and PCB contamination in the stream bank and sediments will begin following installation of the wate r diversion structure, which was expected by March 2000, and was expected to be completed in late spring or early summer 2000. Additionally, based on the significant amounts of PCB

contaminated oil encountered on

- site and under the stream bank, as well as other USEPA costs, USEPA is considering a request from the On

- Scene Coordinator (OSC) for additional funding to allow completion of this removal action, to a total of approximately $16.7 million.

Since May 1998, USEPA has secured and temporarily stabilize d the site. Site buildings and structures have been demolished and removed. Soil contamination outside the former salvage yard property fence has been excavated and restored, and most site contamination has beenAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 167 excavated and properly disposed off

- site. Ap proximately 80,000 tons of contaminated soils have been excavated and disposed.

Sources of Information: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. “Health Consultation: Diamond State Salvage.” 10 July 1998

. 18 January 2006

. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/diamond/dss_toc.html

USEPA. “Diamond State Salvage.” CERCLIS 27 October 2005. 18 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0304940

USEPA. “Diamond State Salvage.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.)

. 24 January
2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110009273641

USEPA. “Mid

- Atlantic Superfund: Diamond State Salvage.” November 2004

. 18 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/npl/DE0000122218.htm

Additional Contacts: Kevin Boyd (OSC) (215) 814

- 3418 Vance Evans (CIC) (800) 553

- 2509, (215) 814

- 5526 Shawn Garvin (Government Relations) (215) 814

- 2998 Deborah Carlson (OSC) (304) 234

- 0249 Peter Schaul, Region 3Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 168 Site Information

Site Name: Dixie Barrel & Drum
EPA ID No.: TND034692632
Address: 2120 Jones Street, Knoxville, TN 37920 County: Knox
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0407666

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Dixie Barrel & Drum Site is an
abandoned two

- story office, warehouse & production facility

. The facility formerly operated as a steel & plastic drum reconditioning business from about 1976 until clos ing mid

- year in 2002 under a petition of bankruptcy and after numerous environmental violations went unaddressed by the company's officers

. Their process included emptying the drum material into on

- site storage tanks and then cleaning and restoring the dru m through a series of chemical processes (using acids, caustics, and paints)

. Numerous violation at the site were found after an inspection on August 23, 2001, including waste running in a six

- inch wide stream across the facility floor where employees work ed

.

Currently, approximately $1.2 million has been spent on clean up at this site.

Description of Contamination: The area was contaminated with numerous hazardous substances including lead, chromium, ethyl benzene, and trichloroethylene

. Drums stored o n site were found in poor condition and stored next to other incompatible chemicals thus elevating the risk of fire and explosion.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 4

. Email Correspondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste)

. 31 October 2005

.

USEPA. “Dixie Barrel & Drum.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 20 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0407666

USEPA. “Dixie Barrel & Drum.” On

- Scene Coordinator Profile. (n.d.). 20 January 2006. www.epaosc.net/DixieBarrel&Drum

Wills, Jennifer. (Assistant Regional Counsel, EPA Region 4) 404

- 562

- 9562 Interview, 21
November 2005.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 169 Addition al Contacts: David Andrews (OSC) (404) 562

- 8763, cell: (404) 434

- 8837, andrews.david@epa.gov Sherryl Carbonara (CIC) (404) 562

- 8611 Steve Spurlin (OSC) (731) 394

- 8996 David Dorian (OSC) 404

- 562

- 8767, dorian.david@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 170 Site Information

Site Name: Dixie Oil Processors, Inc.
EPA ID No.: TXD089793046
Address : 2505 Choate Rd, Friendswood, Texas 77546 County: Harris
NPL Site: Final: 10/4/1989
In CERCLIS Database: 0600006

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The site was originally a copper recovery and hydrocarbon washing facility operated by Intercoastal Chemical Company from
1969 to 1978

. In 1978, Dixie began oil recovery including cuprous chloride catalyst, hydrocarbon washing, oil washing, and blending/distilling residues

. Dixie went on to store wastes on site and transport them off site for disposal or recycling and ultimately shut down five years later

. The original operation used a seri es of lagoons that are still on site

. There is a creek that runs along the western border of the site

. The site did not have a RCRA permit.

Description of Contamination : Contamination was the result of mismanagement of recyclables

. Often, materials were l

eft on the ground before being recycled and residuals were left on the ground following the recycling process

. Spills from the operations have contaminated the nearby Mud Gully and Clear Creek

. DOP detected lead, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and copper i n

on

- site wells

. DOP removed 6000 cubic yards of contaminated soil

. At least six lagoons with accumulated copper sediment and 500 barrels of a copper catalyst are allegedly buried on site.

Sources of Information: Meyer, John C. (RPM) (214) 665

- 6742, Inter view 8 December 2005.

USEPA. “Dixie Oil Processors, Inc.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 20 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0600006

USEPA . “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Dixie Oil Processors.” 31 March 1988. 20 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/superrods/index.cfm?fuseaction=data.siterods&s iteid=0600006

Additional Contacts: John C. Meyer (RPM) (214) 665

- 6742 Rosemary Vazquez (CIC) (214) 665

- 8575Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 171 Site Information

Site Name: Don’s Recycling (aka Al Salvaged Auto Parts)
EPA ID No.: FLR000085878
Address: 3141 Sharpe Rd., Apopka, FL 32703 County: Orange
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Don’s Recycling is a 15

- acre property located at the end of a residential neighborhood which has been used as an automotive salvage/scrap metal yard for more than 30 years

. In 2002, the Florida State Department of Environmental Protection inspected the facility and observed petroleum stains and piles of battery casings on a large portion of the property.

Description of Contamination : The propert y owner determined the soil lead concentration is
over TCLP hazardous waste levels

. Additionally, the property has petroleum contamination

. The department is currently working with the property owner to dispose of the contaminated soil and
continue the ass essment

. Unfortunately, the original property owner passed away and the heir is trying to resume remediation but does not have the financial capability to do so at this time

.

Sources of Information: Posner, Augusta. (State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection)

. Email Correspondence to Dave Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 17 March 2005

.

USEPA. “Don’s Recycling.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 19 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110012550970

Additional Contacts: Augusta Posner (FDEP) (850) 245

- 2282, augusta.posner@dep.state.fl.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 172 Site Information

Site Name: Dyno Battery Co.
EPA ID No.: WAH000003996
Address: 4248 23 rd Ave W, Seattle, WA 98199 County: King

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Dyno Battery is a lead

- acid battery recycler

. The facility melts lead, casts lead grids, pastes lead grids with lead monoxide, and places grids with acid into battery casings

. The recycling/reclamation of damaged lead grids, pasted lead grids, baghouse dust, lead dross and floor sweepings is viewed as legitimate recycling

. Damaged grids with l ead monoxide paste (scrap metal) are sent to RSR in Los Angeles

. Dross (byproduct) and baghouse dust (characteristic sludge) are shipped to Metalex in
British Columbia

.

Description of Contamination : The site was investigated in 1998

. The soil in the stor mwater swale behind the facility is contaminated (1.2 percent total lead)

. The source of the contamination appears to be poor housekeeping and storage practices

. Fork lifts track dust and debris from inside the facility into the alley where it is washed in to the swale

. Large commercial fishing boat batteries and smaller batteries in poor condition are stored in the alley

. Pallets used to ship batteries are also stored in the alley

. These pallets show evidence of acid stains.

Sources of Information: Boyd, Andrew

. Email to Amy Lile (USEPA Office of Solid Waste)

. December 2005

. Information from Washington Department of Ecology’s report to the state legislature in
2002: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0204 028.html

EPA Region 10. Email Correspondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste).
20 November 2005.

USEPA. “Dyno Battery Incorporated.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 25 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000489846

Additional Contacts: David S. Misko (Hazardous Waste Compliance, Supervisor, Washington Department of Ecology

– Northwest Regional Office) (425) 649

- 7014Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 173 Site Information

Site Name: East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc.
EPA ID No.: PAD002330165
Address : Deka Road, Lyon Station, PA 19536 County: Berks
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc. operates a manufacturing facility on 289 acres in a primarily rural area

. East Penn manufactures
lead

- acid storage batteries, battery cables, hold downs, terminals, and booster cables and operates a secondary lead smelter as part of its battery recycling operations

. The site was issued a RCRA
Permit in June 1988

. In June 1998, the permit expired and was reissued in September 2004

. The site is still in operation.

Description of Contamination : Onsite soil is contaminated wi th antimony, lead, and mercury

. Onsite groundwater is contaminated with chlorinated organics, trichloroethene (TCE), trichloroethane, and tetrachloroethene (PCE). Corrective action measures include excavation and treatment of contaminated soil and battery case waste (from the past recycling operations), improved wastewater treatment facilities, and ongoing groundwater extraction/treatment, and monitoring

. USEPA went onto the site in 1986 and contamination did occur on the site between
1980 and 1986

. USEPA i ssued an RCRA Corrective Action Permit to the Facility in 1988

. RCRA Corrective Action activities at East Penn facility are being conducted under the direction of a joint lead by USEPA and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). Any ne cessary clean up and monitoring activities are being implemented in accordance with
USEPA Corrective Action Permit

. East Penn excavated and removed approximately 3,800 cubic yards of battery case waste and 9,700 cubic yards of contaminated soils above 1,00 0 parts per million (ppm) lead from the Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) Battery Case Landfill.

Sources of Information: Hon, Lee (Project Manager) (215) 814

- 3419, Interview 18 November 2005.

USEPA. “East Penn Mfg Co.” RCRA Info. 13 September 2000. 1 8 January 2006

.

USEPA. “Redevelopment and Reuse Fact Sheet East Penn Manufacturing Company.” (n.d.). 22 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/pdf/eastpenn.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 174 USEPA. “Region 3 GPRA Baseline RCRA Corrective Action Facility East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc.” (n.d.). 22 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/pa/pdf/pad002330165.pdf
Additi onal Contacts: Hon Lee (EPA Region 3 Project Manager) (215) 814

- 3419, lee.hon@epa.gov Linda Housal (PA Department of Environmental Protection) (717) 705

- 4919 Douglas A. Donor (Sr. RCRA Technical Advisor) (215) 814

- 3 394, donor.douglas@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 175 Site Information

Site Name: Echo Valley Recycling Enterprises
EPA ID No.: MOR000505438
Address: 15400 N. County Rd 2110, Rolla, MO 65402 County: Phelps
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: A cathode ray tube dump was found in Missouri. An electronics reclaimer left a pile of at least 15,000 computer monitors on land outside Rolla, Missouri. Missouri Environmental officials say that a reclaimer leased a nearby building in which to undertake electronics demanufacturing

. When the landlord evicted the tenant, the pile of monitors was left behind.

Description of Contamination : Unknown.

Sources of Information: Resource Recycli

ng, May 2003Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 176 Site Information

Site Name: Efros Barrel Co.
EPA ID No.: RID980732135
Address: RFD #1 Box 1346 Salvas Avenue, Coventry, RI 02825 County: Kent
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0101294

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The 0.42 acre site was an undeveloped property prior to 1969

. The property was purchased in 1969 by a private owner. From 1969 to 1990, the property was used to receive, store, and dispatch used 55

- gallon drums for recycling.

Description of Co ntamination: The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) Solid Waste Division inspected the property in 1978, and documented five hundred to
six hundred 55

- gallon drums on the property; inspectors also observed spilled material on the ground and d etected a chemical odor in the ambient air. Analytical results of sampling indicated the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In spring 1978, RI DEM Division of Air Resources received telephone complaints, regarding Efros Barrel. In 1982, a complaint was filed with RI DEM Division of Air and Hazardous Materials, which alleged that partially filled drums had been disposed of on the property. In 1982, RI DEM iss ued a Notice of Violation and Order
to Efros Barrel

. There are no groundwater monitoring wells located on the property. In 1981, groundwater samples were collected by RI DEM from two drinking water wells located in the vicinity of the property. Analytical results indicated the presence of VOCs and groundwater has not been sampled since

. Analytical results of soil samples collected from the property in 1994, indicated the presence of pesticides and metals at concentrations greater than concentrations
indicat ed by background samples. Impacts to on

- site soils may be partially attributable to historical operations at the property.

Sources of Information:

USEPA. “Efros Barrel Co.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 23 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/arcsites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0101294

USEPA. “Efros Barrel Co.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 23 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110009321723Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 177 USEPA. “Waste Site Cleanup and Reuse in New England: Efros Barrel Co.” 3 February 2003. 23 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r1/npl_pad.nsf/0/e2956d1334062e7e85256b420060685f?OpenD

ocument

Additional Contacts:
Gerardo Millán

- Ramos (SAM) (617) 918

- 1377, millan

- ramos.gerardo@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 178 Site Information

Site Name: Emerald Recycling
EPA ID No.: WAD058367152
Address: 1500 Airport Way S, Seattle, WA 98134 County: King

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Emerald Recycling is involved with used oil recycling (crank case, diesel, bunker C, gasoline), solvent recycling, and ethylene glycol recycling/distillation and redistribution

.

In the late 1970s, a tank cleaning compa ny (Northwest Tank Service) processed used oil and oily waste at the site. From the early 1980s until 1995, a hazardous waste management company, Northwest EnviroServices operated under interim status, pending approval of the Part B

. From 1995 to 1999, Nor

thwest Tank Service again used the site for used oil processing until Emerald Petroleum, now Emerald Recycling, began operations in 1999

. Currently Emerald Recycling, Inc. utilizes the site for used oil recycling

. Oil and gasoline filters are drained and crushed onsite,
and the metal is sent offsite for metals reclamation at Nucor Steel

. Antifreeze and solvent reclamation activities do not take place at this facility but drummed wastes may be held at the
10

- day transfer facility before shipment offsite to the final reclamation facility.

Description of Contamination : Site contamination was discovered in 1988 after the installation of eleven groundwater monitoring wells

. The groundwater was found to be contaminated with benzene, arsenic, and lead

. Subsoil o n site was also been found to be contaminated with arsenic, lead, and benzopyrene

. Analytical results from these wells show the contamination levels have remained stable over the years and annual sampling is ongoing

. Northwest EnviroService
continues to ov

ersee the closure of the facility as per the agreement and requirements of the Part B permit

.

There has been one formal enforcement action with penalty issued to Emerald Recycling in the past five years

. This action was the result of Emerald's failure to follow proper check in procedures that resulted in a high concentration of PCB oil.

Sources of Information : EPA Region 10. Email Correspondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste).
20 November 2005.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 179 USEPA. “Enforcement and Compliance History Online: Detailed Facility Report.” October

– December 2005

. 17 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/cgi

- bin/get1cReport.cgi

.

Washington State Department of Ecology

. “Information from Toxic Cle anup Sites Program
Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination.”
March 2003

. 17 January 2006

. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/cleanup.nsf/0/ cc222b8059fa7b3488256e0100668a31/$FILE/ WA7152.pdf

Additional Contacts : Trudy Harding, Hazardous Waste Inspector (Washington Department of Ecology

- NWRO) (425)
649

- 7289Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 180 Site Information :

Site Name: Encycle/Texas Inc.
EPA ID No.: TXD008117186
Address: 5500 Up River Road, Corpus Christi, TX 78407 County: Nueces
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Description of Recycling Operation : Process and recover usable materials from metal bearing waste streams such as waste sludge generated from plating operations (F006 series), bag house dust and spent catalyst. The metals recovered include copper, nickel, lead, chromium, zinc, cadmium and some precious metals

. USEPA and Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) alleged that Encycle/Texas, Inc., ASARCO’s wholly

- owned subsidiary in Corpus Ch

risti, violated RCRA by failing to properly manage hazardous waste and otherwise engaging in unlawful recycling practices

. The company has settled with the government.

A RCRA permit was issued to the facility in September 1988

.

Description of Contaminat ion: The USEPA and TNRCC won a case in 1999 that Encycle/Texas, Inc., ASARCO's wholly

- owned subsidiary in Corpus Christi, violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act at the facility by failing to properly manage hazardous waste and otherwise engagi ng in unlawful recycling practices

. Releases of metals such as arsenic, lead, and mercury have resulted in on

- site and off

- site soil contamination that will require some remedial action

.

Under the agreement, ASARCO will implement site

- wide corrective act ion at the Encycle/Texas plant and will undertake a project expected to prevent the burial of more than half a million pounds of potentially cancer

- causing and toxic material each year in hazardous waste landfills. ASARCO also will implement an innovative new technology, electrowinning, to fully reclaim metals from waste brought to the facility costing $15 million. In addition, the company will clean up and dedicate to the public a 30

- acre conservation area in Corpus Christi including trails, an
environment al education area, and a permanent site for an air monitoring station.

Sources of Information Federal Register (Volume 64, Number 85) Page 23858

- 23859. “Notice of Consent Decree Under The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Clean Water Act.” 4 May 1999. 25 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA

- WASTE/1999/May/Day

- 04/f11074.htmAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 181 Toxic Texas

. “Corpus Christi’s Refinery Row.”1 March 2006

. http://www.txpeer.org/toxictour/corpus_christi.html

USEPA. “Asarco will Address Alleged Hazardous Waste, Clean Water Violations.” 15 April 1999. 20 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/11a3a77209f154858525675b006d30f2?Open

Document

USEPA. “Encycle Texas Inc.” RCRA Info. 2 September 2000. 18 January 2006.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 182 Site Information

Site Name: Energy Savings LTD, Inc
EPA ID No.: FLR000032821
Address: 3080 Fowler St., Fort Myers, FL 33901 County: Lee
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Energy Savings LTD, Inc is a lamp recycling company, which was junking the bulbs into a dumpster out back

. The site was abandoned for the landowner to clean up.

Description of Contamination : Unknown

Sources of Information: Posner, Augusta. (State of Florida Department of Environme ntal Protection)

. Email Correspondence to Dave Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 17 March 2005

.

USEPA. “Energy Savings.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.) . 19 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110005642698

Additional Contacts:

Augusta Posner (FDEP) (850) 245

- 2282, augusta.posner@dep.state.fl.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 183 Site Information

Site Name: ENRX, Inc. (formerly Voelker Analysis)
EPA ID No.: NYD991291782
Address: 766 Babcock St., Buffalo, NY 14206 County: Erie

NPL Site: No

In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: This company was a permitted hazardous waste chlorinate organic recovery facility until the permit was revoked in 1989

. The source of contamination is unclear, though the initial recycling process was conducted without secondary containment

. This was corrected when ENRX, Inc. acquired the site in 1987, but they did not remove inventory from the original building, so leaking drums could have contributed to
the contamination

.

In Oc tober 1994, the USEPA announced a proposed settlement with the ENRX Site and the Buffalo Warehousing Site

. Both sites violated CERCLA and the settlement was entered into by USEPA and 91 parties

. Under the agreement, the parties would pay USEPA $1,006,000.0 0 plus interest to reimburse USEPA for costs incurred at the respective sites

.

Description of Contamination: Source of contamination is unclear; leaking drums from improper could have contributed to the contamination

.

Sources of Information:

Federal Register. “Environmental Documents: Proposed Administrative Cost Recovery Agreement Under Section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, Regarding the ENRX Site and the Buffalo Warehousing Site, Buffalo, NY.” 17 October 1994. 25 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA

- WASTE/1994/October/Day

- 17/pr

- 23.html

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. “Monthly Hotline Report.” October 1994. 19 January
2006. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline/94report/10_94.txt

USEPA. “ENRX Incorporated.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 19 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000616682Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 184 USEPA. “ENRX Incorporated.” RCRAInfo. 21 November 2000.

Additional Contacts: Albert Steele (716) 864

- 7313Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 185 Site Information:

Site Name: Environmental Pacific Corporation
EPA ID No.: ORD980977334
Address: 111 W 4th St. #B, Amity, Oregon 97101 County: Yamhill

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and/or Description of Recycling Operation: Environmental Pacific Corporation was a battery recycler

. In December 1990, the facility was sited for hazardous waste spills

. EPC agreed to immediately cease receipt of all hazardous w aste, remove all waste, decontaminate all hazardous waste storage tanks, and ship batteries stored at a Port of Portland terminal to a federally approved hazardous waste storage facility

. The facility ceased operations and filed for bankruptcy in January 1 993.

In January 1994, the site entered into a consent degree with Environmental Pacific Corporation requiring the site to reimburse USEPA $113,055 for response costs under CERCLA and $60,163
under RCRA corrective action

. In October 1997, a consent decree ordered the site to reimburse USEPA $83,953.68 for past costs incurred by USEPA at the site

. The site was never issued a RCRA permit.

Description of Contamination: Soil was contaminated with cadmium, mercury and sulfuric
acid

. Several spills occurred at the site

. On October 14, 1986, 270 lbs. of sulfuric acid (battery electrolyte) were spilled

. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) inspected the facility in December 1990 and issued a Notice of Violation (NOV)

. The Oregon DEQ and Environmental Pacific Corporation agreed on a $32,000 enforcement action settlement. EPC agreed to immediately cease receipt of all hazardous waste, remove all waste, decontaminate all hazardous waste storage tanks, and ship batteries st ored at a Port of Portland terminal to a federally

- approved hazardous waste storage facility.

Sources of Information: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, “Environmental Cleanup Site Information (ECSI) Database Site Summary Report

– Details for Site ID 38.” (n.d.) 20 January 2006. http://w ww.deq.state.or.us/wmc/ECSI/ecsidetail.asp?seqnbr=38

USEPA. “Environmental Pacific Corp.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 18 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/arcsites/cs itinfo.cfm?id=1001703Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 186 USEPA. “Environmental Pacific Corp Sup.” RCRA Info. 13 September 2000. 18 January 2006.

USEPA. “Monthly Hotline Report.” January 1994. 20 January 2006. http:// www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline/94report/01_94.txt

USEPA. “Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.” 15 October 1997. 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA

- GENERAL/1997/October/Day

- 15/g27210.htm

Additional Contacts: Gil Wistar (Oregon DEQ) (503) 229

- 5512, wistar.gil@deq.state.or.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 187 Site Information

Site Name: Environmental Processing Services
EPA ID No.: OHD000608588
Address: 416 Leo St, Dayton, OH 45404 County: Montgomery
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Environmental Processing Services was a solvent recycler and fuel blender

. The facility is out of business. The site never had a RCRA permit

.

Description of Contamination: Groundwater is contaminated with VOCs

. Environmental damage o ccurred in the 1980s into the early 90s by storage prior to recycling

. Waste was stored in an onsite parking lot (unpermitted unit) because waste was determined upon receipt to be not amenable for recycle

. Seven hundred drums of waste were stored for an ex tended period of time in the parking lot while an alternative management method was determined

. Leakage occurred during the time the drums were stored in the lot

.

Sources of Information: Hale, Karen (Ohio EPA). Email correspondence to David Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste).
24 June 2005.

USEPA. “Environmental Processing Services.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 22 January
2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/m ultisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000616735

USEPA. “Environmental Processing Services.” RCRA Info. 15 September 2000. 18 January
2006.

Additional Contacts : Karen Hale (Ohio EPA) (614) 644

- 2927, karen.hale@epa.state.oh.us.
William Cernatic (Contact/Regulatory) (513) 222

- 1062Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 188 Site Information

Site Name: Environmental Waste Resources, Inc.
EPA ID No.: ILD087157251
Address: 2390 South Broadway Street & Reed Road, Coal City, IL 60416 County: Grundy

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0500488

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Environmental Waste Resources, Inc. (EWR), a Connecticut corporation, operated this treatment, storage, and recycling facility from
1976 to 1997

. During its operation EWR accepted hazardous and non

- hazardous waste in bulk and container shipments

. On July 8, 1997, EWR filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Act (Case No. 97

- 32784). When EWR's bankruptcy proceeding converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding on February 3, 1998, EWR abandoned the site, including hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants. The waste remained on the site in deteriorating drums, and bulk tanks. The waste contained elevated concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as well as lower co ncentrations of other VOCs and semi volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). In addition, approximately 40 compressed gas cylinders, many containing flammable gases, were left in outdoor areas of the site. Numerous laboratory chemicals including,
concentrated a cids, bases, flammables, oxidizers, poisons, and radioactive material were left in an onsite laboratory building

.

Description of Contamination: Site abandonment as a result of the company’s bankruptcy claim led to significant environmental damage. Shortly after EWR filed for bankruptcy the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) conducted a site investigation and referred it to USEPA for response actions. USEPA conducted an emergency site assessment which identified 831 full drums containing both hazardous and non

- hazardous waste; several hundred empty and partially full drums stored in three semi

- trailers; 23 aboveground tanks in outdoor tank farms, most full to capacity of 10,000 to 50,000 gallons each; 4 aboveground tanks in the process
bu ilding; 29 compressed gas cylinders; and a variety of laboratory chemicals

. The inspections also revealed numerous wastewater violations, including discharges into the municipal sewer system containing copper, lead, chromium, cyanide, nickel, oil and greas e, tin, zinc, cadmium and other chemicals in excess of limits established in EWR's Wastewater Discharge Permit

.

As of September 2004, cleanup expenditures at this site total $260,768.89.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 189 Sources of Information:

USEPA. “Environmental Waste Resources.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 16 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0500488

USEPA. “Environmental Waste Resources, Inc.” RCRAInfo . 15 Septemb er 2000

. 20 January
2006.

USEPA. “Environmental Waste Resources Incorporated.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.) 25 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/mult isys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000912932

USEPA. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). 30 September 2006. 16 January
2006.

Additional Contacts: Stavros Emmanouil (312) 886

- 1768Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 190 Site Information

Site Name: Enviropur West Corporation
EPA ID No.: CA0001562370
Address: 1835 E. 29 th St., Signal Hill, CA 90806 County: Los Angeles

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0905333

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Enviropur West Corporation treated
hazardous waste and waste oil at its Signal Hill facility from 1984 until it went bankrupt in 1996. The Bankruptcy Trustee abandoned the Enviropur West property in September 1996, leaving behind tanks and drums containing approximately 1 million gallons of ignitable hazardous waste.
The site also included abandoned tank trucks and semitrailers full of drums of waste

. Many of the tanks and drums were rusted through and were releasing extremely hazardous organic vapors.

Description of Contamination : The tanks and drums were releasing extremely hazardous organic vapors.

The State of California asked USEPA for assistance with the site. USEPA immediately addressed the emergency by maintaining the flare vapor recovery system, providing site security at Enviropur and removing the waste for off

- sit e treatment

.

USEPA’s legal team went to work finding potentially responsible parties to pay for the removal. USEPA has reached a proposed agreement with some of the major generators, including 14 federal agencies

—

primarily military

— and nine private parti

es. Under the proposed agreement, these major generators will pay for 75 percent of the removal costs (estimated at $2.49 million)

. USEPA intends to pursue nonsettlers for the remaining costs of removal of the aboveground

waste.

Sources of Information :

USEPA. “Enviropur West Corporation.” CERCLIS . 27 October 2005. 16 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0905333

USEPA. “Enviropur West Corporation.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.). 24 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000610269Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 191 USEPA. “EPA Responds to Emergency at Abandoned Facility: EPA Reaches Settlement to Pay for Waste Removal at Enviropur West Corporation.” June 1997. 16 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/fsheet.nsf/024bc4d43f9aa0f48825650f005a714e/18325 29aa3e920268825655b006ed2e1/$FILE/ENVPUR.PDF

Additional Contacts :

Richard Martyn (OSC) 415

- 744

- 2288 Jere Johnson (SAM) 415

- 972

- 3094 Matt Mitguard (SAM) 415

- 972

- 3096 Dawn Richmond (SAM) 415

- 972

- 3097Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 192 Site Information:

Site Name: Exide Technologies (formerly GNB Technologies, Inc.)
EPA ID No.: GAD070330576
Address: 3639 Joy Road, Columbus, GA 31906 County: Muscogee
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and/or Description of Recycling Operation: The Exide site has had historic operations since the 1950s

. An old smelter operated onsite until the mid

- 90s, and a new smelter was opened in the late 90s

. Exide's Battery Recycling Plant recycles lead in used lead

- acid
batteries and various other lead wastes

. The process consists of battery breaking, desulfurization, drying, smelting, refining, and casting

. In the battery breaking area, the solid lead and le ad paste are separated from the plastic casing

. The lead paste (primarily lead sulfate) is desulfurized using
sodium carbonate to form lead carbonate and sodium sulfate. The lead carbonate is reunited with solid lead and dried in the Rotary Material Dryer

. The sodium sulfate is crystallized and sold as a by

- product

. The dried lead from the Rotary Material Dryer is stored in bunkers, from which it is charged to the Reverb Furnace for smelting

. After smelting, the lead is poured into large kettles
where it is refined and cast into ingots

. The slag produced by the Reverb Furnace is conveyed to the Rotary Furnace for recovery of remaining lead

. The lead from the Rotary Furnace is transferred to the kettles for refining and casting.

The sulfuric acid from used batteries is chemically converted to sodium sulfate crystals

. The plastic from used battery housings is recovered and sold as plastic chips

.

The Exide site was also used to manufacture and distribute new batteries

.

The operations at Exide were consider ed legitimate; however materials were not managed to minimize loss, a key criterion for recycling legitimacy

.

This facility is currently in RCRA Corrective Action

. The facility was issued a RCRA permit (in March 1988 and April 1998) for storage of the ol d batteries used in the smelting operation

. The smelting facility operated with a recycling exemption from RCRA

.

Description of Contamination: Improper storage and containment systems for plastic battery casings and lead platelets resulted in significant soil and groundwater contamination by lead, chromium and battery acid

. Contamination, which occurred after RCRA was in effect, resultedAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 193 from many aspects of the process besides storage

. Trucks bringing the batteries to the site often leaked battery fluids

. The battery cracking operation was messy, resulting in many leaks. Georgia’s Environmental Protection Division fined the company consistently

. The estimated closure cost is $8,890,000 and the total cost is approximately $8,089,570

.

Sources: Georgia Environmental Protection Division

. “Facility Information: Exide Technologies.” Georgia Title V Application Warehouse

. (n.d.). 20 January 2006

. http://airpermit.dnr.state.ga.us/gatv/TitleV.asp

Slewinsky, Jim. Georgia Environmental Protection Division

. Interview, 21 November 2005.

Smith, Mark (Hazardous Waste Management Branch, Georgia Department of Natural Resources)

. Letter to Dave Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 21 February 2005.

USEPA. “

Exide Technologies Incorporated .” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 20 January
2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000361359

.

USEPA

. “Permit Series List.” RCRAInfo

. 20 January 2006.

Contacts: Penny Gaynor (Georgia Environmental Protection Division) Geologist Managing Cleanup (404)
656

- 2833 Jim Slewinsky (Georgia Environmental Protection Division) Jim McNamara (404) 656

- 7802

J im Ussery (Georgia Environmental Protection Division) Program Manager, Facilities Compliance Program (404) 656

- 2833 Dave Yardumian, Unit Manager, Combustion and Treatment Unit 5/24 (404) 656

- 2833Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 194 Site Information

Site Name: Far Star
EPA ID No.: TNN000407643
Address: 979 Horse Mountain Road, Shelbyville, TN County: Bedford

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 407643

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The former Far Star company recycled cassette tapes, compact discs, and vinyl phonograph record components during the mid 1990's

. The recycling process included a wash line containing sodium hydroxide to dissolve and remove the labeling from the media

. Unprocessed media was stored o utside of the building.

Description of Contamination : Far Star was issued an order by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) Division of Solid Waste Management (DSWM) for improper storage and disposal of waste dated November, 199 6

. Far Star failed to comply with
the order

. TDEC inspectors discovered that the facility had been abandoned in 2001

. A vast number of abandoned drums, many of which were unlabeled, were corroded and/or leaking at the
site

.

Sources of Information : USEPA. “Far Star.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 20 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0407643

USEPA. “Far Star.” On

- Scene Coordinator

. (n. d.) 20 January 2006. www.epaosc.net/FarStar

Additional Contacts : Terrence Byrd (OSC) byrd.terrence@epa.gov , 404

- 562

- 8755 Bob Bittinger, R4 POLREP distribution list, ERRB bittinger.bob@epa.gov David Randolph, TDEC State Representative david.randolph@state.tn.us Steve Spurlin (OSC) (731) 394

- 8996 Jackie Harvey, EPA, 404

- 562

- 8882Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 195 Site Information

Site Name: Federated Metals
EPA ID No.: CAD009134636
Address: 1901 Army St. San Francisco, CA 94124 County: San Francisco
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The site was previously owned by Federated Metals Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of ASARCO. Historic operations at the site included the production of lead and brass ingots. Materials used in the production of these ingots were brass and bronze sc rap metals, oxides of tin and lead, and pure forms of tin and lead. Oxides formed during the company’s smelting process to produce the ingots were removed and deposited onsite. DTSC estimates that during Federated Metals Corporation’s operations at
the sit e from 1939 to 1987 approximately 122 cubic yards of lead slag and 1,500 cubic yards of crushed and washed battery boxes (manufactured before 1950) were deposited on the property.

Description of Contamination : DTSC found levels of lead and mercury in the site’s soil above USEPA industrial soil screening levels, and in spring 2003 the site was graded and paved with asphalt. A deed restriction was placed on the property to limit future uses of the site to industrial or commercial redevelopment. Bridgeview Ma nagement Company, the current property owner, has agreed to maintain the site. The $100,000 cleanup, certified in November 2003, was funded with state monies.

Sources of Information: California Department of Toxic Substances and Control. “DTSC Certifies Federated Metals Site.” 12 December 2003. 23 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PressRoom/upload/NEWS_2003_T

- 37

- 03.pdf

California Department of Toxic Substances and Control. “Federated Metals Site Cleanup.” (n.d). 23 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/Calsites/CALP001.CFM?IDNUM= 38330005

USEPA. “Federated Metals Corp.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.) 24 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110002635328Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 196 Additional Contacts: Edgardo Gillera

- (510) 540

- 3826, EGILLERA@dtsc.ca.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 197 Site Information

Site Name: Feldman Barrel & Drum
EPA ID No.: NYD013721907
Address: 35 Newell Street, Buffalo, NY 14206 County: Erie

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0204376

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Feldman Barrel & Drum Site is an inactive drum reconditioning facility located at 35 Newell Street in Buffalo, Erie County, New York. The facility is located in a predominately industrial and commercial section of Buffalo, however, there are some residential homes bordering the site to the East

. According to the owner/operator, the site has been inactive since May 2001

. Information supplied by the owner stated that Feldman Barrel & Drum ceased operating when some of their major accounts were
terminated.

A private citizen called the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) when children found nume rous drums and detected an unidentifiable odor inside an abandoned building on the site

. The NYSDEC subsequently performed an inspection on June 27, 2002 and found several hundred drums in various stages of deterioration

. Drums were found
with corrosive an

d flammable labels

. The NYSDEC requested response and removal assistance from the USEPA. According to a January 30, 2003 On

- Scene Coordinator (OSC) Pollution Report (4), the total project cleanup is budgeted to cost $780,000.

Description of Contamination: On July 1, 2002, USEPA and the Removal Support Team (RST) contractor conducted a preliminary assessment and collected drum, tank, and floor drain samples from within this abandoned drum reconditioning facility

. A total of 439 drums, in severe stages of de terioration, were identified within the building, of which an estimated 400

- 420
contained waste materials

. A 3,500 gallon caustic bath tank and a 500 gallon caustic pre

- flush tank were identified and found to contain a caustic liquid and sludge like materi al

. On site results detected primarily caustic liquids and sludges (pH 12

- 14) and flammable liquids in a majority of the samples collected.

Sources of Information:
USEPA. “Feldman Barrel & Drum.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 19 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0204376Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 198 USEPA. “Feldman Barrel & Drum.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 19 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110012535319

USEPA. “Feldman Barrel & Drum.” On

- Scene Coordinator Profile. (n.d.). 19 January 2006. www.epaosc.net/feldmanbarrel

USEPA. “Pollution Report: Feldman Barrel & Drum.” 30 January 2003.

Additional Contacts: Jeff M. Bechtel (OSC) 732

- 906

- 6807, becht el.jeff@epa.gov Cris D’Onofrio (OSC) Bob Moody, Response Manager 267

- 540

- 0048, rmoody@wrsie.comAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 1 99 Site Information:

Site Name: Florida Petroleum Reprocessors
EPA ID No.: FLD984184127
Address : 3211 S.W. 50th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 County: Broward
NPL Site: Final: 3/06/098
In CERCLIS Database: 0406469

Site History and/or Description of Recycling Operation: This site is a former waste oil reprocessing facility that operated from 1979 through 1992 under various names

. Operations were generally reported to include the collection of waste oil (i.e., used motor oil, surplus fuels, marine oils and slops, hydrauli c oils, aviation oils, and fuels) from local automotive, agricultural, and marine enterprises

. Millions of gallons of waste oil were processed at this facility

. Incoming waste oils were generally filtered, graded according to water content, and stored on s ite in large
bulk tanks

. The waste oil was typically sold as fuel or to other waste oil marketers

. Current records indicate that more than 15 million gallons of waste oil were processed at this facility

. FDEP stated that there was hazardous waste on the si te but it was difficult to prove its existence

.

Description of Contamination: Although little is known about the actual waste handling practices at the site, studies conducted by the USEPA show that former operations at the facility
resulted in contamina tion of surface and subsurface soils and groundwater by oil and grease, organic chemicals common to gasoline, and chlorinated cleaning and degreasing solvents

. The studies showed that contaminants were found in a concentrated form floating on top of the wa ter table, as well as in a dispersed form mixed with the underlying groundwater. Contaminants have migrated downward from land surface to a depth of 200 feet into the aquifer

.

USEPA's comprehensive investigation of the facility in 1998 documented a plume of groundwater contamination over 600 acres in size, extending into the Biscayne aquifer to a depth over 140 feet, as well as high levels of contaminated soil and residual amounts of highly
concentrated non

- aqueous phase liquids (NAPL)

. These contaminants are believed to have
resulted in the contamination of the Peele

- Dixie Wellfield in 1986

. In 1997, USEPA removed
numerous containers from the site

. In 1999, a second removal action excavated approximately 6000 tons of highly contaminated soil to a depth of approximately 15 feet

. A third removal
action from 2001

- 2003 was very successful in removing the bulk of contaminants in the subsurface soil through in

- situ treatment of subsurface contaminants via chemical oxidation.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 200 Samples collected by USEPA from abo veground tanks indicated the presence of 1,1

- dichloroethane, 1,1,1

- trichloroethane, trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene

. Two contaminants, 1,1

- dichloroethene and vinyl chloride, are present in the groundwater at levels high enough to be a potential heal

th concern

.

The cleanup cost at this site was estimated at $4,200,000; however, cleanup costs may reach $6

- $7 million

.

Sources of Information: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. “Health Consultation: Florida Petroleum Reprocessors.” 2 June 1997

. 20 January 2006. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/florpet/fpr.html

Brad Jackson (EPA Superfund Project Manager Region 4) 404

- 562

- 8925, Interview 11/21/2005

EPA Region 4. “EPA Record of Decision: Florida Petroleum Reprocessors.” March 2001

. 20 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/nplfls/fprrod.pdf

USEPA. “Florida Petroleum Reprocessors.” CERCL IS . 27 October 2005. 19 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0406469

USEPA. “Florida Petroleum Reprocessors.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d .). 19 January
2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110009328049

USEPA. “NPL Fact Sheet: Florida Petroleum Reprocessors.” 12 December 2005. 20 January
2006. http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/nplfls/flpetrfl.htm

Additional Contacts:

Augusta Posner (FDEP) (850) 245

- 2282, augusta.posner@dep.state.fl.us
Brad Jackson ( EPA Superfund Project Manager Region 4) (404) 562

- 8925, Jackson.brad@epa.gov Paul Wierzbicki (District Office FDEP SE District Office) (561) 681

- 6677 Jennifer K. Wills (Assistant Regional Counsel USEP A, Region 4) 404

- 562

- 9562Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 201 Site Information

Site Name: Franklin Burn EPA ID No.: NJD986570992 Address : Marshall Mill Road, Franklin Township, NJ 08322 County: Gloucester NPL Site: Final: 6/17/1996 In CERCLIS Database: 0204087

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The overall site is made up of seven land parcels ranging from 480 square feet to 15,000 square feet

. To burn off plastic materials coating insulated wires and other electrical components, each parcel had a series of con trolled fires set by local individuals

. They then recovered and resold the exposed copper wiring

. The burnings took place on open, unprotected ground, and created contaminated piles of ash and
areas of contaminated soil

. Site burning operations began as ea rly as 1960 and ceased in 1988

. The site has remained inactive since that time

. In 1988 illegal activity at the site was reported in to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)

. NJDEP contacted the USEPA, which conducted assessment and removal activities until completion in 1997

.

Individuals burning plastics coated wires and other electrical components were engaged in illegal activities, subject to criminal prosecution

. Franklin Burn

– and the activities occurring there

– were unknown to the public until anonymously reported in 1988

. Not all responsible parties were found, and those found were considered insolvent (not fiscally able to support cleanup). Though the total cost of recovery action including all excavation and remedial clea nup was $8,765,961.70, USEPA expenditure spreadsheets from September 2005 list the cleanup expenditure as $3,257,798.69.

Description of Contamination : Ash piles and surface soils onsite were found to contain high levels of metals, including cadmium, chrom ium, copper, zinc, and lead

. Some ash piles also contained low levels of one or more of the following: pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, furans and organics

. USEPA found PCBs in the soil as well

. Initially, there was
concern about the potential of the dioxin contamination, due to the burning of plastics, but only minimal levels of dioxins were actually found

. Likewise, contamination did not affect local groundwater. From November 1992 through May 1993, USEPA removed more than 10,000 ton s of debris from the Franklin Burn site.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 2. “Franklin Burn Site Profile.” (n.d.) 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/0204087c .pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 202 EPA Region 2

- Newsroom. “EPA Proposes Plan to Address Franklin Township Superfund Site.” 22 August 2001. 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region02/news/2001/01104.htm

Naman, Ron (212) 637

- 4375, Interview 21 November 2005

USEPA. “Franklin Burn.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 18 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0204 087

USEPA. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). 30 September 2005. 18 January
2006.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 203 Site Information

Site Name: Franklin Slag Pile (MDC Industries, Inc.)
EPA ID No.: PASFN0305549
Address : 3110 Castor Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19134 County: Philadelphia
NPL Site: Final: 9/5/2002
In CERCLIS Database: 0305549

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The MDC site comprises approximately 4 acres and contains a large copper slag pile of 68,000 cubic yards called the Franklin Slag Pile

. The slag in the pile was a byproduct of the nearby copper smelting operation of Franklin Smelting and Refinery Corporation (FSRC)

. The slag was bought, stored, and then sold by MDC Industries, Inc. (MDC)

. MDC had been selling the slag as grit for san dblasting, in 50

- lb bags and by the truckload, since the 1950s

. MDC ceased operations and abandoned the site on December 30, 1999, due to bankruptcy

. The Franklin Slag Pile was not a RCRA

- permitted facility

.

Description of Contamination: While in operation, materials from the Franklin Slag Pile migrated beyond property boundaries in all directions

. Slag was observed on sidewalks, caked on storm drains emptying into the Delaware River, in a wetland area, and being carried offsite by
the wind

. In Dec ember 1999, MDC was cited by EPA Region 3 for releasing lead in storm water

run

- off that was captured by storm drains and discharged into the Delaware River

. After operation ceased, elevated levels of heavy metals were found onsite and offsite of the MDC

p roperty, as contaminants leaked from the perimeter of the Franklin Slag Pile during storage. The contamination was cumulative, occurring throughout the 40

- plus year operation. Air was contaminated with beryllium, copper and lead

. Slag samples revealed leac hable concentrations of lead above 35,000 μg/L and total lead concentrations above 9,000 mg/kg

. Other contaminants include beryllium, copper, and lead in the air. In 2000, USEPA conducted emergency cleanup activities, removing 12,000 tons of contaminated s oil and slag, 246 tons of hazardous debris, and 20 tons of bagged slag.

Sources of Information:

Matzko, Kristine (RPM) (215) 814

- 5719, Interview 17 June 2005.

Taylor, Trish (CIC) (215) 814

- 5539, Interview 15 June 2005.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 204 USEPA. “Community Involvement Plan for the Franklin Slag Pile Superfund Site.” January 2006. 22 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/sites/PASFN0305549/cip/01

- 2 006.pdf

USEPA. “Franklin Slag Pile (MDC).” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 22 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0305549

USEPA. “Franklin Slag Pile Superfund Site Frequently Asked Questions.” September 2004. 22 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/sites/PASFN0305549/fs/FAQ092104. pdf

USEPA. “NPL Fact Sheet: Franklin Slag Pile.” April 2004. 22 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/npl/PASFN0305549.htm

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Franklin Slag Pile (MDC).” 5 S eptember 2002. 22 January
2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0305549.pdf

Additional Contacts Kristine Matzko (RPM) (215) 814

- 5719, matzko.kristine@epa.gov Trish Taylor (CIC) (215) 814

- 5539, taylor.trish@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 205 Site Name: G2 Revolution
EPA ID No.: OHR000163139
Address: 200 Stanford Parkway, Findlay, OH, 45840 County: Hancock
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : G2 Revolution operates as a recycler/repackager of various commercial products including but not limited to: nail polish, nail polish remover, various aerosols (h air spray, fragrances, tanners), liquid hand sanitizer, plastics (HDPE, PET, PP, LDPE), soaps, cosmetics, alcohol based perfumes, fragrance oils and glycols, and spray paints

. Specific volumes are unknown at this time but total volumes of materials are

est imated at over 10,000 gallons of liquids and over 50,000 pounds of solids.

Description of Contamination : The G2 Revolution facility caught fire at approximately 8:30 AM on November 18, 2011

. The source of the fire is believed to be a burner fueled by waste
hand sanitizer

. The fire then spread throughout the approximately 52,000 square foot facility

. Smoke from the fire resulted in the evacuation of some nearby businesses and an advisory for those downwind to stay out of the smoke and/or stay indoors.

Runoff from the fire suppression efforts entered area storm sewers and discharged to drainage ditches to the west and south of the facility and eventually discharged to the Blanchard River.
Initial efforts to divert run

- off to the Findlay Wastewater Treatment Pl ant (WWTP) were
discontinued due to concerns that contaminants in the run

- off may impact the biological treatment at the plant

. The run

- off did result in a fish kill in Oil Ditch.

Run

- off entering the ditch flowed to the Blanchard River which is located approximately 1.5 miles from the facility. Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife was on scene to begin investigating a fish kill in the drainage ditch. Over 100 d ead fish were reported. Several species of fish were noted that included: several species of minnows (darters, daces, creek chubs), blue gill, and catfish

. Because of the quantity run

- off from the fire fighting efforts entering the Blanchard River, the

wa ter intake for the City of Ottawa approximately 22.5 miles downstream was temporarily shut down until the river flow would have carried runoff beyond the intake

. Also, analysis of water of sampling data by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Regist ry (ATSDR) indicated that use of water from the Blanchard River as a drinking water source was not a health concern

. ATSDR also analyzed air monitoring data and concluded that levels of volatile organicAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 206 compounds (VOCs) near the source during the smolderin g/overhaul/hot spot phase did not pose
an acute health hazard.

In response to the fire, contractors hired by G2 Revolution installed diffusers in Oil Ditch, sealed all surrounding storm and sanitary sewer manholes, and constructed an earthen berm around th e facility to contain any run

- off generated by fire suppression or rainfall

. Exposed portions of the facility were fenced off for safety reasons and to prevent unauthorized access. In addition, material staged and stored outside of the impacted warehouses was transported off

- site for storage.

On November 22, 2011, four days after the fire, the site was released by Findlay Fire Department to G2 Revolution to begin cleanup. Five 20,000 gallon frac tanks on site were filled with
contained run

- off water. Sampl es of this water were collected and submitted to the municipal WWTP On November 23, 2011 the WWTP gave permission to the G2 Revolution contractors to
disch arge the contained run

- off to the sanitary sewer at a rate of up to 20,000 gallons per day.

The Site has been turned over to Ohio EPA for oversight of long term cleanup.

Sources of Information:

1. U. S. EPA. On

- Scene Coordinator Website. G2 Revolution POLREP #1. Accessed
December 2011. http://www.epaosc.org/site/sitrep_profile.aspx?site_id=7445&counter=16670

2. U. S. EPA. On

- Scene Coordinator Website. G2 Revolution POLREP #2. Accessed
December 2011. http://www.epaosc.org/site/sitrep_profile.aspx?site_id=7445&counter=16676

3. U. S. EPA. Facility Registry System, G

- 2 Revolution. Accessed December 2011. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=OHR0 00163139&pgm_sys_acrnm_in=RCRAINFOAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 207 Site Information

Site Name: Gettysburg Foundry Specialties Company
EPA ID No.: PAD003009362
Address : 2664 Emmitsburg Rd., Gettysburg, PA 17325 County: Adams
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: This 49

- acre site was used as a secondary aluminum smelter producing aluminum ingots from recycled aluminum

. The company recycled about 100 million pounds of aluminum scrap each year

. It was in operation from 1956 to March 13, 1997.

Description of Contamination: Site activities resulted in large quantities of dross waste, which

c onsisted of salts, impurities, aluminum oxides and other metals being deposited on site

. In July 2000, the former owners of the now

- defunct facility, Creed F. White and Robert L. White were each sentenced to one year of confinement and five years of probat ion

. The owners pled guilty in March 2000 to felony charges of intentional disposal of hazardous waste, operating an illegal hazardous waste treatment facility and misdemeanor charges of operating an illegal residual waste disposal facility, air pollution and surface and ground water pollution

. The Whites also pleaded guilty to polluting the wetlands, which is a summary offense. In addition, Creed White pleaded guilty to a second

- degree felony charge of operating an illegal hazardous waste storage facility. Two former owners of the now

- defunct Gettysburg Foundry Specialist Co. have pleaded guilty in Adams County Court to multiple criminal charges of illegally dumping tons of hazardous waste. The environmental crimes violations resulted in an estimated $5 mil lion cleanup of severe soil, water and wetlands contamination. The owners were ordered to pay up to $5.5 million in restitution for the cleanup of the former foundry site

. The now

- defunct Gettysburg Foundry Specialist Company was also ordered to pay $33,10 0 in fines.

The owners instructed their employees to dump baghouse dust, a black powdery material created during the foundry process, into a pit about the size of a football field. The dust, containing cadmium and lead, was collected in the foundry’s filt ration system and emptied into 55 gallon drums that were buried in the pit. Approximately 2,000 pounds of baghouse dust was produced each month at the foundry. Emissions from the baghouse collection system created air pollution that migrated into neighbori ng properties

. 90 tons of baghouse dust was illegally stored in barrels at the foundry

. Furnace waste from burning scrap metals in the aluminum casting process wasAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 208 also buried in the pit. The dross contained high concentrations of aluminum, copper, zinc an d
chromium

. The owners were also charged with illegally mixing baghouse dust with residual waste that was hauled to two landfills that were not permitted to accept hazardous waste

. The landfill companies were unaware they were accepting hazardous waste.

S ources of Information: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. “DEP Orders Gettysburg Foundry to Shut Down Furnace.” 22 November 1996. 23 January 2006. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/polycomm/update/11

- 22

- 96/11229616.htm

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. “Former Foundry Owners Plead Gu ilty to Environmental Crimes.” 17 March 2000. 23 January 2006. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/polycomm/update/03

- 17

- 00/031700u2.htm

Pennsylvania Depart

ment of Environmental Protection. “Gettysburg Foundry Owners Sentenced to Prison.” 21 July 2000. 23 January 2006. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/polycomm /update/07

- 21

- 00/072100u4.htm

USEPA. “Gettysburg Foundry Specialties Company.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 23 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/mul tisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000841386

Wolf, Cindy (File Room) (717) 705

- 4700, Interview 15 November 2005.

Additional Contacts: Sandy Roderick (PA DEP): (717) 705

- 4931 Susan Frank (PA DEP): (717) 705

- 4931Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 209 Site Information

Site Name: Gibson Environmental

EPA ID No.: CAD980883177

Address: 2401 Gibson St., Bakersfield, CA 93301 County: Kern
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Gibson Environmental is an abandoned treatment and storage facility for waste oil and contaminated soil that operated from 1978 until
1995

. The property had been operated as an oil refinery since the 1940s

. In 1978 Gibson Oil and Refining bought the subject property and constructed a crude oil refining operation, which it operated on the site until 1986

. From June 1987 to October 1995 the site was operated as Gibson Environmental and was primarily a used oil storage and soil treatment facility

. It received used oil, and certain other oily wastes as well as contamin ated soils, which were treated using a fixation process on

- site.

The facility operated under a hazardous waste part B permit which was issued by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) on June 28, 1988, and was given interim status
authorizatio n obtained for newly regulated wastes on September 18, 1990

. The permit and interim status authorization terminated on February 4, 1998 when DTSC denied the facility’s permit renewal and permit application, based in part on repeated violations, including:

• unauthorized acceptance, storage and treatment of hazardous waste;

• failure to comply with design and operating requirements for hazardous waste piles;

• failure to comply with water quality monitoring requirements; and

• failure to provide required liability insurance and closure cost financial assurance.

In October 1994, DTSC filed a civil lawsuit against the owners and operators of Gibson Environmental alleging numerous violations of hazardous waste laws

. Gibson filed for
bank ruptcy and in 1995 stopped accepting new waste.

Description of Contamination : DTSC issued an Imminent and/or Substantial Endangerment Determination and Order and Remedial Action Order to over 40 potentially responsible parties (PRPs) after DTSC sampling o f seventeen steel tanks, two poly

- tanks, three sumps, and multiple unlined, weathered waste piles from October 11, 1999, through October 15, 1999

. DTSC estimated that there was approximately 850,000 gallons of contaminated wastewater, waste oil,Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 210 and sludge present

. The DTSC investigation uncovered evidence that six tanks had slow leaks, five had leaking valves, and one tank showed evidence of a seep from the sidewall

. These tank wastes were contaminated with lead, PCB, benzene, and naphthalene

. The tank far ms were abandoned in 1995 and eroded until their cleanup

.

In 2000 remediation at the site was being conducted under a state superfund clean up order

. The site clean up is being funded and managed by a PRP group under DTSC’s Permitting Branch supervisio n

.

The PRP Group, under DTSC oversight, began cleanup work on January 17, 2000

. Initial work focused on site security and liquid removal from the above ground storage tanks

. The removal of sludge was initiated in September 2000, and demolition began in O ctober of 2000

. When the removal action was completed in June of 2001, approximately 740,000 gallons of liquids, including contaminated rainwater, and 1800 tons of sludge had been removed for the site and disposed of in several permitted hazardous waste fa cilities throughout the country

. All tanks have
been removed

.

In August 2002, a tall heating tower was taken down and removed from the site

. In March 2003, additional surface equipment was taken down and removed

. The only remaining surface equipment is a tank that will be used to hold water for future cleanup activities

. In January 2003, chemical dust suppressant was applied to stabilize the soil piles

. Field work implementing this work plan began in October of 2002

. Initial data from this work has been e valuated and a work plan for additional follow

- up investigations was approved on June 16, 2003

. This additional field work was completed in July of 2003.

As of August 2003, there was approximately 80,000 cubic yards of impacted soil stockpiled on

site in five large soil piles

. This impacted soil is related to Gibson Environmental’s soil treatment
activities

. The PRPs developed a work plan, approved by DTSC in April 2001, to investigate the piles

. The work was completed and the analytical results indicate that three of the soil stockpiles
contain California hazardous waste

. These piles are contaminated with lead, PCBs, benzene, and naphthalene and hydrocarbons and were subject to erosion and wind dispersion

. As of 2000, the facility had site

- wide soil conta mination especially in the tank farm area

. Groundwater was also suspected to be contaminated

. The site has shallow groundwater and porous soil. There are residences and businesses nearby. There have been complaints from nearby businesses about particulates coming from the site.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 211 Sources of Information : California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Department Denies Gibson Environmental Permit Appeal.” 18 February 1998. 16 January 2006

. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PressRoom/upload/t

- 02

- 98.pdf

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Docket No. I&SE 99/00

- 002: Imminent and/or Substantial Endangerment Determination an d Order and Remedial Action Order.” (n.d.). 16 January 2006. http://165.235.111.242/HazardousWaste/Projects/upload/Gibson_ENF_order.pdf

California Department of To xic Substances. “I&S Order Issued to Bakersfield Facility.” 16 November 1999. 16 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PressRoom/upload/t

- 23

- 99.pdf

California Department of Toxic Substances. “Update on Site Cleanup: Gibson Environmental.” August 2003. 16 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Proje cts/upload/Gibson_FS_CA

- 0803.pdf

USEPA. “Documentation of Determination: Gibson Environmental.” 5 February 1999. 16 January 2006. http ://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9coract.nsf/0/2c0ad9846d8d31de88256ac50082b5b9/$FILE/ Gibson_177_EI_00.PDF

USEPA. “Gibson Environmental.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.)

. 24 January
2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000916359

USEPA. “RCRA Corrective Action Environmental Indicator Forms: Additional Questions: Gibson Environmental.” 27 April 2000. 16 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9coract.nsf/92e28fb9e2f1a35a88256a72006760cb/2c0ad9846 d8d31de88256ac50082b5b9/$FILE/Gibson%201 77%20+%2000.pdf

Additional Contacts : Gregory Honzay (Project Manager, Hazardous Waste Management Program, DTSC) (916) 255

- 6678, GHonzay@dtsc.ca.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 212 Site Information

Site Name: GNB Incorporated (now Exide Technologies)
EPA ID No.: CAD097854541
Address: 2700 S. Indiana St., Vernon CA 90023 County: Los Angeles

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The facility, formally known as GNB Incorporated, is a lead smelter which refines and recycles lead bearing scrap materials primarily from spent lead

- acid batteries. The reclaimed lead is used to produce marketable lead and lead alloys

. The facility has been operating since 1922

. Although some control measur es are reportedly being taken by GNB to reduce future releases, little has been done to identify the nature and extent of past releases or to remediate such releases

.

The most recent RCRA compliance evaluation inspection was done by California on May 31,
2005

. A compliance order was filed on June 30, 1999

. It is unclear whether a penalty was
associated with this order

. Currently, the facility has an operating permit with approved controls in place.

In 1990, California Department of Toxic Substances Cont rol (DTSC) completed a RCRA Facility Assessment

. In 2002, DTSC issued a Corrective Action Consent Order requiring Exide to implement corrective action, from characterizing contamination of 76 different units or areas of concern through to Corrective Measur es Implementation

.

In 2003, DTSC issued a Consent Order for the storage of used lead

- acid batteries at three off

- site
locations

. The Order assessed a $40,000 penalty, but delayed payment in light of Exide's 2002 petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

This site was never RCRA permitted.

Description of Contamination : Significant contamination is present in all media at the facility

. Lead levels in sediment from the stormwater retention basin (surface impoundment) were as high as 40 percent. There is also groundwater contamination, including trichloroethylene (TCE) at a maximum concentration of 2,600 ppb

. A rendering plant (meat packaging) is located next to the facility, which may receive airborne contaminants from GNB

. Additionally, it appears that thereAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 213 has been surface run

- off or discharges to surface water from the site which contains lead

. During facility operations, dust is generated from contaminated soil both indoors and outdoors.

Sources of Information : California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Docket HWCA 2005

- 0560 Stipulation and Order.” 15 November 2005. 16 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.go v/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&pageid=1100
73

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Docket No.: P3

- 01/02

- 010.” 16 January 2006. http://165.235.111.242/HazardousWaste/Projects/upload/Exide_ENF_coraction_hwm_03 1203.pdf

EPA Region 9. “Documentation of Determination: GNB Incorporated.” 2 May 1999. 16 January
2006

. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9coract.nsf/92e28fb9e2f1a35a88256a72006760cb/dfd67afce9 bbb9c288256ac50082d85e/$FILE/GNB%20541%20EI%2000.pdf

EPA Region 9. Email Cor respondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 22 November
2005

.

EPA Region 9. “RCRA Corrective Action Forms Addendum: GNB Incorporated.” 4 May 2000. 16 January 2006

. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9coract.nsf/92e28fb9e2f1a35a88256a72006760cb/dfd67afce9 bbb9c288256ac50082d85e/$FILE/GNB%20541%20+%2000.pdf

USEPA. “Exide Technologies Incorporated.” Envir ofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.)

. 16 January
2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000609921

USEPA. “GNB Incorporated.” RCRAInfo

. 7 November 2002

. 18 January 2006.

Additional Contacts : Thomas Wideman 323

- 262

- 1101 Penny Nakashima, 818

- 551

- 2900, pnakashima@dtsc.ca.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 214 Site Information:

Site Name: Grant Warehouse
EPA ID No.: ORQ000010405
Address: 3368 NE Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, Portland OR 97212 County: Multnomah

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Grant Warehouse is owned by Mr. Erwin Grant, who used the warehouse to recover precious metals from waste received from other facilities. Mr. Grant used various chemicals to recover precious metals from various liquids and
ores which contained trace amou nts of these metals. Large amounts of toxic and reactive chemicals, such as acids, cyanides, ether, and material containing heavy metals were stored in containers ranging from glass vials and jars to 55

- gallon drums. There was also a large amount
of debris such as carpet, paper, wood, cardboard, fiberglass insulation, and old industrial equipment.

Description of Contamination : Samples from debris and dust in the Warehouse show up to 6,000 parts per million of lead and other heavy metals, such as cadmium a nd chromium

. USEPA spent approximately $1.2 million cleaning up the site

.

Sources of Information : EPA Region 10. “Grant Warehouse, Portland, Oregon. 26 August 2005. 20 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/cleanup.nsf/4c5259381f6b967d88256b5800611592/82c9736 b1f1fe6ec882567060002af0e!OpenDocument

US EPA. “Consent Decree Civil No. 00

- 1536

- BR.” January 2004. 19 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/ CLEANUP.NSF/9f3c21896330b4898825687b007a0f33/82c 9736b1f1fe6ec882567060002af0e/$FILE/ATT0ONEX/Grant%20CD..pdf

USEPA. “USEPA Grant Warehouse.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 19 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110017344177

USEPA. “Superfund Fact Sheet Grant Warehouse Removal.” January 1999. 19 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/r10earth/offices/oec/grant2.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 215 USEPA. “Superfund Fact Sheet Grant Warehouse Removal.” January 2000. 19 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/CLEANUP.NSF/9f3c21896330b4898825687b007a0f33/82c 9736b1f1fe6ec882567060002af0e/$FILE/200grant.PDF

Additional Contacts : Jeff Rodin (OSC) (206) 553

- 6709 Krista Rave (Outreach Coordinator) (206) 553

- 6686Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 216 Site Information

Site Name: Griffin Pipe Products Company EPA ID No.: NJD0039519985 Address : 1100 West Front Street, Florence, NJ 08518 County: Burlington NPL Site: No In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Griffin Pipe Products Company site covers 293 acres, surrounded by land largely under industrial use

. Operations started onsite in the early 1900s, when the company was called the Florence Pipe and Foundry Company. In 1963, Griffin Pipe purchased the f acility to manufacture ductile iron pipe from scrap material, iron, coke and various alloy components.

Description of Contamination: Griffin Pipe manufactured ductile iron pipe from scrap material

. This process produced sludge containing lead and cadmium, which was deposited into an unlined landfill on the site until the mid 1980s, when the company began treating its sludge before disposal in the landfill

. The untreated sludge from Griffin Pipe’s manufacturing processes contaminated site soil and groundwat er

. However, due to the nature of the pollutants, which do not move readily through groundwater, the contaminants are contained mainly in the vicinity of
the landfill.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 2

- Waste. “Griffin Pipe Products Fact Sheet.” (n.d.) 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/Region2/waste/fsgriffi.htm

USEPA. “Amsted Industries Griffin Pipe Products.” Envirofacts Da ta Warehouse. (n.d.) 18 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000321633

Additional Contacts:
NJ DEP Division of Solid & Haza rdous Waste Records Center, (609) 777

- 3373 Clifford Ng (EPA Region 2 Contact) (212) 637

- 4113, ng.clifford@epa.gov Jonathan Berg (NJDEP Case Manager) (609) 633

- 0737Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 217 Site Information

Site Name: Halaco Engineering Incorporated
EPA ID No.: CAR000177709
Address: 6200 Perkins Rd., Oxnard, CA 93033 County: Ventura
NPL Site Final: 9/19/2007
In CERCLIS Database: 0901242

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : From 1965 to 2004, Halaco Engineering operated a secondary metal smelter, recovering aluminum, magnesium, and zinc from aluminum cans, metal waste from other smelters, and other scrap materials

. Between 1965 and 1977, Halaco received and processed an estimated 500 to 600 pou nds of radioactive magnesium thorium scrap per year

. The facility held a California Radioactive Materials License to handle magnesium

- thorium alloy from 1965 to 1974.

The Halaco facility was built on top of an open dump for the City of Oxnard

. The site in cludes
an 11

- acre parcel containing the former smelter and an adjacent 26

- acre area across the Oxnard
Industrial Drain where wastes were deposited

. Immediately adjacent to the site is a portion of the Ormond Beach wetlands, which are some of the few remain ing wetlands in the area and home to several endangered or threatened species

.

During its 40 years of operation, Halaco produced a large quantity of wastes, primarily non

target metals and metal salts remaining after the smelting process (i.e., slag or d ross)

. From approximately 1965 until 1970, Halaco discharged waste to an unlined earthen settling pond adjacent to the Oxnard Industrial Drain

. At some point, Halaco began depositing dried waste material on the area north of the unlined earthen evaporation pond, a 15

- acre area of disputed
wetlands

. In 1977, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued Halaco a cease

- and

- desist order for this dumping and, in 1980, the USEPA issued Halaco an enforcement order under the Clean Water Act stating that the disposal sit e was a wetland and required a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for operation

. The USEPA also obtained a preliminary injunction prohibiting further disposal to the area

. From approximately 1970 until 2002, Halaco deposited wastes to u

nlined earthen settling ponds east of the smelter

.

In June 2000, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) estimated that 430,000 cubic yards of waste material were present in the waste management unit at thicknesses varying between 20 and 40 feet

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 218 Numerous federal, state, and local agencies attempted to regulate Halaco’s operations, including the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Los Angeles), California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control, California Department of Health Services Radiologic Health Branch, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, USEPA, and the Army Corps of Engineers

. Halaco contested and/or litigated many of the regulatory efforts by these agencies

. The Ventura County District Attorney and the Environmental Defense Center, a nonprofit public interest organization, have also been in litigation with Halaco on environmental matters

.

In 2002, Halaco filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

. After Halaco ceased operations in 2004 , the bankruptcy was converted to Chapter 7 (liquidation) bankruptcy

. In 2006, Alpha and Omega Development LLC purchased the waste management area and assumed the lease to the former smelter property

. Future uses of the property remains uncertain

.

Description of Contamination : EPA entered into a Consent Agreement with the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) in mid

- 2006 to remove the containerized hazardous substances from the smelter facility, consolidate loose process solids in the smelter into one of the buil dings, and secure the smelter and waste management unit and place a sediment runoff control measure

. The PRP removal action, completed on February 7, 2007, successfully removed all containerized
hazardous substances

. This was followed in 2007 by U.S. EPA

- f unded efforts to stabilize offsite migration of wastes, including removal of 7,600 cubic yards of material from an adjacent wetland. U.S. EPA’s costs at the site had totaled $6.8 million as of June 2009.

An estimated 700,000 cubic yards of waste remains o nsite in the waste management area

. This includes 5,000 cubic yards of process solids stored at the smelter inside the smelter buildings, conex containers, and quancet huts

. Elevated levels of aluminum, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, m agnesium, manganese, nickel, thorium, and zinc are present in the
wastes and onsite soils

. Waste material has moved into the underlying groundwater and into adjacent soils and sediments

.

From March to June 2007, EPA and its contractors implemented measur es to stabilize and secure the site and to limit offsite migration of contaminated wastes

. The work included regrading the waste pile to reduce the steepness of the slopes, placing matting on the slopes to reduce erosion, moving waste material from the sme lter parcel to the waste management area, and improving site security

. Some of the Halaco waste material in the wetland area to the south of the smelter parcel was excavated and moved to the waste management area.

In June 2007, EPA discovered elevated lev els of radiation coming from waste materials buried in
the southeast corner of the former smelter

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 219 From 2007 through 2008, EPA began conducting a study of surface water and groundwater
movement at and near the site to better determine the extent and move ment of Halaco’s wastes

. EPA is also beginning assessments of human health and environmental risks posed by site contamination as part of the remedial investigation for the site

. The California Department of Human Health is also conducting a health risk as sessment

.

A public health study by the California Department of public Health determined that the site and surrounding recreational areas did not pose a public health concern unless the site was disturbed (e.g., by motorized vehicles kicking up dust on t he site), however the U.S. EPA is still investigating the extent of contamination on and off

- site, and its possible risk to wildlife.

Sources of Information:

1. USEPA. “Halaco Engineering.” On

- Scene Coordinator Profile . 11 November 2007. 3
March 2008. http://www.epaosc.net/site_profile.asp?site_id=2258

2. USEPA. “Halaco Engineering Incorporated.” RCRAInfo . 3 March 2008. 3 March 2008. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/rcris_web.report?pgm_sys_id=CAR000177709

3. USEPA. “Superfund Site Progress Profile for Halaco Engineering.” CERCLIS . 8 February 2008. 3 March 2008

. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0901242

4. USEPA Region 7. “

Halaco Engineering Co. Superfund Site: EPA Update .” PowerPoint Presentation. 24 Septembe r 2007. 6 March 2008. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/35
64b31569e3ec 818825786b00017892!OpenDocument

5. USEPA. Region 9, Superfund Site Overview. Halaco. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfu nd/r9sfdocw.nsf/ViewByEPAID/cad009688052?OpenDocu
ment#descr

6. USEPA. Superfund Information Systems. Cleanup Activities at Halaco Engineering Company. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.CleanupActs&i
d=0901242Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 220 7. USEPA. National Priorities List (NPL) Site Narrative. Halaco Engineering Company, Oxnard, California. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1760.htm

8. USE PA. Superfund (Cerclis). Query Results. Halaco Engineering Company. Accessed
Online. November 2011: http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/cerclis_web.report?pgm_sys_id=CAD009688 052

9. USEPA. Region 9. Action Memorandum. February 4, 2010. Request for Removal Action at Halaco Engineering Company Site, Oxnard, Ventura County, California. Accessed
Online. November 2011: http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/82 ddd1cd75ed6e04882576c500835b72/$FILE/Action%20Memo%202203704.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 221 Site Info rmation

Site Name: Hand in Hand Recycling
EPA ID No.:
Address: 206 E Floral, Centralia, WA 98531 County: Lewis

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Hand in Hand Recycling recycles scrap
metals such as aluminum.

Description of Contamination : An initial investigation was done in 2002

. It was listed on Washington’s hazardous site listing in 2003

. The soil is contaminated and it is suspected that the
water is contaminated

.

Sources of Information : Thurston County Department of Water and Waste Management

. “Where Should I Recycle My....?” 9 January 2006. 17 January 2006

. http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/wwm/Recycling/where_A_B.htm

.

Western Electronic Product Stewardsh ip Initiative

. “Recycle Your Computer: Washington.”
2001

. 17 January 2006

. http://www.recyclingadvocates.org/wepsi/wa

- business.htm

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 222 Site Information

Site Name: Harding Metals Inc. EPA ID No.: NHD018955641 Address: Rte. 4, Northwood, NH 03261 County: Rockingham NPL Site: No In CERCLIS Database: 0101098

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Though the privately owned property is 100 acres, four acres were used for day to day operations

. Harding Metals Inc. includes an office building, warehouse, precious metals reclamation building, incinerator building, sawdust disposal area, scrap metal area, discarded mixing tanks, a landfill area, and a transformer oil disposal area. The remainder of the property consists of undeveloped woodlands, a hayfield, and
a wooded wetland.

Since 1963, Harding Inc. has operated as a metals reclamation facility, processing and disposing
of industrial wastes. Numerous areas of environmental concern have been n oted throughout the property, including approximately 3,200 cubic yards of contaminated sawdust, which has been dumped into a landfill and a large pile; two areas where polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)

- containing transformer oils were allegedly dumped; 20 co ntainers (volumes unknown) of metal reclamation wastes containing cyanide and acid solutions stored throughout the property; a drainage ditch that carried copper washing away from the incinerator building; air releases of cadmium oxide and possibly PCBs fr om the incinerator; six old 5,000

- gallon mixing tanks with a layer of polyester resin; numerous 55

- gallon drums of unknown contents; and an unknown quantity of solder dross and solder pot dump.

Description of Contamination : USEPA investigations conducted at the site include a Preliminary Assessment in 1980, a Screening Site Inspection in May 1990, and a Site Inspection Prioritization in December 1996. Though the site was discovered in 1987; however, it is unknown exactly when the contamination occurred.

Analytical results of surface soil samples collected from the property in 1996 indicated the presence of PCBs, pesticides, 13 semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and metals at levels above background concentrations. G roundwater samples collected in 1990 from four on

- site monitoring wells indicated the presence of 12 VOCs

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 223 Sources of Information: EPA Region 1. “Waste Site Cleanup & Reuse: Harding Metals Inc.” 15 July 2002. 17 January
2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r1/npl_pad.nsf/0/6ffe37bffbfcd13785256b420060670c?OpenDoc

ument

McLuskey, Mike (EPA Official) (603) 271

- 2183, Interview 8 December 2005

USEPA. “Harding Me tals, Inc.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 17 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0101098

USEPA. “Harding Metals, Inc.” Envirofacts Data Warehous e . (n.d.)

. 25 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110007132290

Additional Contacts: Don Smith, Site Assessment Manager, (617) 918

- 1433, smith.donald@epa.gov Nancy Smith, SAM, (617) 918

- 1436Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 224 Site Name: Hassan Barrel Company Inc
EPA ID No.: IND078902202

Address: 1605 Summer Street, Fort Wayne, IN, 46857 County: Allen

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 509942

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : From 1954 to 2003, the Hassan Barrel Company in Fort Wayne, Indiana, operated as a barrel recycling facility that cleaned and repainted used industrial barrels. During its years of operation, the seven

- acre facility received barrels, many containing hazardous wastes, from at least 400 companies. The facility closed in 2003 and the facility owner abandoned thousands of barrels and other hazardous waste on the
site

. Manag ement of waste at the site included disposal in open pits and manmade lagoons, both in drums and discharges of liquids (l). The company did not have a RCRA Treatment, Storage and Disposal permit, and the State of Indiana had cited the company for a number of state violations between 1982 and 2003. Citations had been issued by the state for improper records, lack of emergency planning, and improper container marking or labeling, among other issues

. Description of Contamination:

The facility was located in a residential area, surrounded primarily by private homes and two schools only a few blocks away

. EPA’s site investigation found hazardous wastes at locations around the site, including wastes in leaking barrels, dumpsters, and open pits. EPA testing of so il and water in an onsite ditch that flowed to a nearby stream were contaminated with a number of hazardous materials including barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and traces of PCBs. EPA also determined from seized records that testing on the site while stil l in operation had found dichloroethene, tetrachloroethane and trichloroethene in soil. EPA commenced emergency cleanup of the facility under CERCLA authority, spending $1.7 million between 2004 and 2008, and removing 10,000 barrels, about half of which co ntained hazardous waste. As of 2008 EPA expected at least another $1.3 million to removing up to 10,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil
and other waste.

In 2008 Alan Hersh, the president of Hassan Barrel Company, pleaded guilty to one felony
RCRA violati on for the illegal storage and management of hazardous wastes on the site. This sentence included 15 months in prison and a $1.7 million dollar fine for the EPA for cleanupAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 225 costs. In addition, EPA is seeking additional funding for cleanup costs from about 400 companies that sent materials to the facility.

Sources of Information:

1. Iacone, Amanda. Waste has property over a barrel: County Not Jumping to buy Chemically Tainted Site . The Journal Gazette. May 24 2009. Accessed Online. May
2011: http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20090524/LOCAL/305249918/1002/LOCAL

2. Stockman, Dan. Used

- barrel business leaves Toxic L egacy. The Journal gazette. March 8
2009. A ccessed Online. May 2011: http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090308/LOCAL10/3030899
20

3. Fort Wayne Recycler Gets Jail Time

. Wane.com. March 3 2009. Accessed Online. May
2011: http://www.wane.com/dpp/news/local_ap_toxic_waste_sentencing_200903030725_rev1

4. USEPA

. Superfund Site Information. Hassan Barrel Site. Accessed Online

. May 2011: http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/cactinfo.cfm?id=0509942

5. USEPA. Region 5 Enforcement and Compliance. March 2009 Signif icant cases

. Accessed Online

. May 2011: http://www.epa.gov/region5/enforcement/cases/cases200903.html#fort

6. USEPA. “Permit Series List.” RCRAInfo. May 2011.

7. USEPA. On S cene Coordinator, Pollution Report Profile. Hassan Barrel Company.
Accessed Online

. May 2011: http://www.epaosc.org/site/polrep_profile.aspx?site_id=1136&counter=1846Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 226 Site Information

Site Name: Hayes Lemmerz International Inc. EPA ID No.: IND980904528 Address: 1870 Riverford Drive, Huntington, IN 46750 County: Huntington NPL Site: No In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Recycling activities at this facility involved reprocessing aluminum scraps and chips created when wheel castings are machined. The scrap metals are dried before being sent to a furnace for re

- melting, creating a fine aluminum dust. This byproduct dust fro m the scraps was conveyed into a dust collector just outside the building.

Description of Contamination : An explosion and fire at the Hayes Lemmerz International facility occurred on Oct. 29, 2003, causing fatal burns to a mechanic working near an aluminu m melt furnace, injuring a second mechanic nearby, and causing lesser burns to a third worker. Four other workers suffered minor injuries.

An October 5, 2005 report by the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board found the fire was caused by a fi

ne powdered aluminum dust which had accumulated in the dust collection system from inadequate housekeeping in the foundry area and insufficient maintenance of chip processing equipment

. Dust collector filters were infrequently cleaned, some eroded ducts le aked dust, maintenance workers were not wearing flame

- retardant clothing, and the company did not have formal written maintenance procedures or employee training in place for the dust collector system

. In addition, the company failed to address why the chi p drying system was releasing excess dust, and did not identify or address the dangers of aluminum dust ignition, despite having a history of small dust fires inside the factory.

Sources of Information: Indiana Department of Air Pollution Control

– Pe rmit Records. “Hayes

- Lemmerz International.” 29 June 2005. 16 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r5/in_permt.nsf/0/34d98faae9f10be68625702f00715f77 ?OpenDo

cument

US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Information Report. "Hayes Lemmerz Dust Explosions and Fire." 29 October 2003. 25 January 2006. http://www.csb.gov/index.cfm?folder=current_investigations&page=info&INV_ID=44Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 227 USEPA. “Hayes Lemmerz International Inc.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 16 January
2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110001235752

Additional Contacts: Janet Mobley (317) 232

- 8369 jmobley@dem.state.in.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 228 Site Information
Site Name: Helms Drum Service
EPA ID No.:
Address : 1764 State Road 655, Auburndale, FL 33823 County: Polk
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Helms Drum Service is approximately 4.5 acres containing five buildings and an access road. Structures on

- site are the Helms residence, a greenhouse and three buildings associated with the drum cleaning operation

. The facility, owned by Mr. Leroy Helms, began operations in the mid

- 1970s and continued until July 1984. General operations consisted of purchasing and reconditioning spent oil drums and

open

- top drums from the citrus industry. On a typical day an estimated 40 drums and up to 300 gallons of spent oil were treated. Drum reconditioning consisted of a seve n

- step process utilizing kerosene to remove oil residues and a caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) rinse. Spent caustic soda was neutralized with acid (HCl or H 2 SO 4 ) and the process wastewater was discharged to a percolation pond. The percolation pond was a naturally occurring surface depression enlarged to
accommodate the volume of wastewater it received

.

In early 1982, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) discovered that the Helms facility was discharging to groundwater without a perm it

. In April 1982, FDER sampled effluent from the drum washing operation

. The analysis revealed elevated levels of lead,
chromium and zinc

. Consequently, Helms applied to FDER in August 1982 for a discharge permit

. FDER did not issue the permit

. In Februar y 1984, following sampling by both FDER and a consultant representing Helms Drum Service, the enforcement section of FDER issued an order to cease all operations and remediate the soil adjacent to the drum reclamation area, the percolation pond and associa ted groundwater

. Helms agreed to comply with the order

.

Description of Contamination: By July 1985 all drum reconditioning equipment was removed from the site and the percolation pond bottom was excavated under the direction of Helms’ consultant during J uly

. Twenty cubic yards of contaminated sediment was also removed

. Sample results have indicated that natural attenuation has been an appropriate remediation strategy for groundwater, following the cleanup of contaminated soils

.

The primary concern a t the facility was off

- site groundwater migration of contamination toward the adjacent wetland and potentially Lake Juliana. Groundwater analyses detected lead, chromium, mercury and sodium concentrations above primary drinking water standards, and zincAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 229 le vels were above secondary drinking water standards. Additionally, several organic compounds and cyanide had been detected.

The FDEP Hazardous Waste Cleanup Section spent a total of approximately $145,000 for site investigation activities

. There are no re cords of the costs incurred by the property owner for excavation/disposal costs

. FDEP delisted the site from the State Action List in January 1995

.

Sources of Information: Don Harris (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) Email 1/22/2005.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. “Publications: Helms Drum Service.” 22 May 1990. 20 January 2006

. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_to pics/publications/wc/sites/summary/098.pdf

Additional Contacts: Don Harris (Environmental Manager, Hazardous Waste Cleanup Section, Florida Department of Environmental Protection) Don.Harris@dep.state.f l.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 230 Site Information

Site Name: Heritage Environmental Services EPA ID No.: IND093219012 Address: 7901 W. Morris St., Indianapolis, IN 46231 County: Marion NPL Site: No In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Heritage Environmental Services was founded in 1970 as Industrial Liquid Waste Disposal in Columbus, Indiana. The first processing facility was designed to reclaim waste oils to produce a fuel that could be burned in the company's hot mix asphalt plants. In the early 1970s, the plant added additional capabilities and facilities to meet the business’s demand. The expansion included treatment for hazardous and

non

- hazardous wastes from several industrial, individual and government customers. Heritage
Environ mental Services continues to recycle waste materials, which are then shipped for use as fuel in the company’s cement kilns and other permitted facilities. Hazardous wastes which cannot be fuel blended are collected and shipped to other facilities that can store or treat these

wastes.

In 1989, Heritage reported that one of its leachate collection tanks had overflowed into underlying and adjacent soils

.

Heritage received a RCRA Part B permit in March 1993; however, the permit has since expired

.

Descript ion of Contamination: In October 2002, Heritage Environmental Services LLC entered a consent decree agreeing to pay a penalty of $360,000 to the United States for violations of section 113(b) of the Clean Air Act and RCRA

. A complaint was filed in connecti on with two of Heritage's hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities located in Indianapolis, Indiana and Lemont, Illinois.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 5. “Statement of Basis/ Final Decision and Response to Comment Summary:
Herita ge Environmental Services.” 23 January 1995. 25 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/sbs2/pdfs/in3890.pdf

Missouri Department of Natural Resources. “News Releas e No. 334.” 18 August 2005. 16 January 2006. http://www.dnr.mo.gov/newsrel/nr05_334.htmAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 231 USEPA. “Heritage Environmental.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 16 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000397393

USEPA. “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Site Progress
Profile: Herit age Environmental Services.” (n.d.). 16 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/rcra_profile.getmain?p_handler_id=IND093219012

USEPA Region 5. “Finding of Viol ation.” 18 June 1999. 16 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r5/ardcorre.nsf/0/c79dad6e32bdac1f8625679e006ced7e/$FILE/H eritFOV.pdf

USEPA Regio n 5. “Statement of Basis/Final Decision and Response to Comments Summary.”

23 January 1995

. 25 January 2006. www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/sbs2/pdfs/in3890.pdf

USEPA. “Heritage Environmental Services.” RCRAInfo . 15 September 2005. 20 January 2006.

Additional Contacts: Mike Karpinski, Quality Manager at Heritage Environmental Services (317) 486

- 2785Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 232 Site Information:

Site Name: High

- Tech Now
EPA ID No.: Unknown
Address : 2338 NW Reed St., Portland, OR County: Multnomah
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and/or Description of Recycling Operation: High

- Tech Now processed computer equipment by shredding it prior to sending it off site for metals recovery

. The site was incorporated as High

- Tech Now, Inc. in March 2001

. In April 2001, the site was moved to a warehouse in Portland, which was rented fro m the Freeman Group

. The warehouse had two shredders to break down electronic devices into their various components for recycling

. The site accepted everything that could be plugged in or had batteries except for white appliances such as stoves and refrige rators

. The site negotiated contracts with large corporations, schools, and municipalities to pick up and recycle their electronics

. In February 2002, the site began accepting computer screens that contained cathode ray tubes (CRTs), charging customers bet ween $5 and $10, based on size

. High

- Tech Now intended to pulverize the glass and transport it to Encycle, a glass recycler

.

Description of Contamination: A major fired occurred at the Hightech Now Inc. facility on June 8, 2002, destroying hundreds of co mputer monitors and other computer

- related components that were stored at the building for the company’s recycling operation. Hightech Now and its president, Ryan Henry Kell, leased the building from its owners, The Freeman Group

. Kell failed to follow up on hazardous waste determinations after the fire, eventually abandoning the property and forcing the owners to arrange and pay for the proper disposal of about 112 tons of
toxic hazardous waste

. On Nov. 20, 2003, the Oregon Department of Environmental Qual ity (DEQ) issued Kell and Hightech Now Inc. a total of $71,962 in penalties. The majority of the total ($52,385) was for storing hazardous waste at the facility from June 9, 2002 through Oct. 17, 2002 without a hazardous waste storage facility permit

. In m any cases, wastes were left on the ground or in open containers before being cleaned up and disposed in October 2002

. DEQ fined Kell another $9,600 for failing to perform a hazardous waste determination at the facility after the fire occurred, and $9,977 f or failing to file a hazardous waste generation report with DEQ

. In March 2004, Kell was sentenced to 30 days in jail and $5,000 for second degree unlawful disposal, storage or treatment of hazardous waste.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 233 Lead from the computers and computer component s shredded at the site was present in the
wastes left behind after the fire

. DEQ alleged six hazardous waste streams in the High

- Tech Now warehouse after the fire from the lead in the CRTs in three different brands of computer monitors, in the dust from under the grinder and near the door, and in the shredded circuit
boards

. Testing of these substances revealed unsafe levels of lead

.

Sources of Information: Bachman, Jeff (Oregon DEQ). (503) 229

- 5950, Interview 12/19/2005

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. “DEQ Issues $71,962 in Penalties to Vancouver Man for Hazardous Waste Violations at Portland Computer Recycling Business.” 11 December 2003. 18 January 2006. http://www.deq.state.or.us/news/prDisplay.asp?docID=1441

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. “DEQ Issues $71,962 in Penalties to Vancouver Man for Hazardous Waste Violations at Portland Computer Recycling Business.” 11
December 2003. 18 January 2006. http://www.deq.state.or.us/news/prDisplay.asp?docID=1441

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. “Man Sentenced to 30 Days in Jail for Unlawful Disposal, Storage of Hazardous Waste after June 2002 Computer Recycling Warehouse Fire.” 25 March 2004. 22 January 2006. http://www.deq.state.or.us/news/prDisplay.asp?docID=1519

Additional Con

tacts: Jeff Bachman (Oregon DEQ) (503) 229

- 5950Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 234 Site Information

Site Name: Holloway Waste Oil
EPA ID No.: FLD980798946
Address : 6626 Guthrie Rd, Jacksonville, FL 32205 County: Duval
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0406399

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: This site operated as a waste oil recycling facility for approximately 20 years by Mr. Floyd Holloway. The exact process employed to recycle the wastes is unknown

. The facility operated until 1995, when the U.S. Internal Revenue Service temporarily seized the property for nonpayment of taxes at which point the property was abandoned

. In 1998, Mr. Holloway was indicted by the state of Florida for improper storage of hazardous waste

. His whereabouts are cur rently unknown

.

Description of Contamination : In 1995, the USEPA conducted an emergency removal action at the site after discovering numerous drums, tanks and containers, most of which were in poor
condition

. There was evidence of prior attempts of remov al including areas where surface soils were heavily stained by waste oils

. A surface impoundment was observed to be leaking oily waste into a drainage ditch. Elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls, volatile organic compounds, and metals were detected in samples collected from various containers. Elevated levels of some contaminants were discovered in groundwater, including chlorobenzene, methyl tertiary

- butyl ether (MTBE), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD), and var ious inorganics.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) recommended further action at the site in April 1996, and the USEPA conducted a limited excavation of visibly stained soils. A total of 756 cubic yards of soil was removed from the site and transported to the Springhill Landfill in Graceville, Florida. The excavated areas were then backfilled with clean fill material and seeded to prevent erosion.

On December 14, 1999, this Superfund settlement was finalized. The settlement, pursu ant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, provides for the reimbursement by 100+ generators of waste oil of $1,289,852 in response costs incurred by USEPA. The total costs at the site were $1,719,803, however USEPA determined that the site was eligible for the Orph an Share Policy and compromised 25 percent of past costs in recognition of the insolvency of the owner/operator.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 235 The Holloway Waste Oil site was approved as a state funded cleanup site in September 2001. In May 2003, the FDEP issued a work assignment to Arcadis Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (AG&M) for an Initial Site Assessment Work Plan. During development of the Work Plan, AG&M discovered that the adjacent property owner had purchased the former Holloway site thereby making them potentially responsible for cl eanup.

FDEP delisted the site from state cleanup on January 31, 2005 and returned the site to the Northeast District for potential enforcement actions and possible additional assessment via the Bureau of Waste Cleanup’s Site Investigation Section.

Sour ces of Additional Information: EPA Region 4. “Fiscal Year 2000 Enforcement & Compliance Assurance Accomplishments. Report.” 20 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/Region4/ead/attachments/2000_accomplishments_report.pdf

Florida State Department of Environmental Protection. “Publications: Holloway Waste Oil.”(N/D). 20 January 2006. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publications/wc/sites/summary/126.pdf

Kat West (Brownfield and Land Revitalization Legal Coordinator), Interview 11/21/2005.

USEPA. “Holloway Waste Oil.” CERCLIS

. 27 October 2005

. 20 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0406399

USEPA. “Holloway Waste Oil.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.). 25 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110002541991

Contacts:
Ted

- Osc Walden (RPM) Theresa Pepe (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) Kathleen (Kat) West (Associate Regional Counsel, Brownfield and Land Revitalization Legal Coordinator) 404

- 562

- 9574, 404

- 562

- 9486Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 236 Site Name: Horsehead Corporation
EPA ID No: PAD004372363, PAD981110570
Address: 300 Frankfort Road, Monaca, PA 15061 County: Beaver
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database PAD981110570 (Archived site)

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Horsehead Corporation’s facility in Monaca, Pennsylvania, operates as a secondary zinc smelter. Located 28 miles north of Pittsburgh, the electrothermic zinc smelter at this facility began operation in the 1920's to produce zinc metal and zinc oxide, including recycling materials containing zinc. For several years to the present, this facility only uses secondary zinc materials such as dross and skims from galvanizing operations as well as recycled K061 electric arc furance dust as feedstock for zinc

s melting. In 1996, PADEP clarified that these zinc secondary materials would be classified as coproducts under the current PADEP waste regulations. At present, those secondaries that might exhibit a hazardous characteristic for lead or cadmium leachability would be classified as by

products being reclaimed (40 CFR 261.2(c)(3)). Horsehead’s zinc secondaries outdoor storage area has been subject to periodic wind dispersal and contaminated run

- off problems.

Description of Contamination : On July 22, 2010, ther e was an explosion at the zinc refinery resulting in the death of two people. No fire or offsite contamination has been documented as result of this incident. The cost of repairs and cleanup totaled $6.8 million for the refinery explosion. Following the ex plosion, the zinc refinery was shut down for repairs and an investigation and assessment of the da mage. OSHA citations following the explosion (which was not directly related to the recycling operation), included a lack of emergency response plan to
handle emergencies . Each of the ten columns used to produce zinc oxide and refined zinc metal in the refining facility have since been redesigned and rebuilt, and production resumed in the fourth quarter of 2010 until early 2014, when the plant closed. As state d above, Horsehead’s zinc secondaries storage area has had periodic wind dispersal and run

- off problems.

Sources of Information:

1. Horsehead Corporation. Monaca, PA. Retrieved May 24, 2011, from http://www.horsehead.net/facility_content.php?ID=12

2. SEC Filings. (2011, March 16). Horsehead Holding Corp. Retrieved May 24, 2011, from http://www.se c.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1385544/000095012311025813/l42109e10vk.ht

mAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 237 3. WTAE. (2010, July 26). Explosion at Horsehead Zinc Plant Kills 2; Victims Identified.
WTAE.com. Retrieved May 24, 2011, from http://www.wtae.com/r/24357952/detail.html

4. OH&S (2011, Jan 21). OSHA Files $45,000 in Penalties in Horsehead Corp. Explosion

. Ohsonline.com Retrieved November 21, 2014, from http://ohsonline.com/articles/2011/01/21/45000

- in

- penalties

- filed

- in

- horsehead

- corp

explosion.aspx

5. Pittsburg Business Times (2013, Dec 31.) Hor sehead prepares for closure of zinc facility

. www.bizjournals.com Retrieved November 21, 2014, from http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/blog/morning

- edition/2013/12/horsehead

prepares

- for

- closure

- of

- zinc.html

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 238 Site Information

Site Name: Horseshoe Road EPA ID No.: NJD980663678 Address: Sayreville, NJ 08872 County: Middlesex NPL Site: Final: 9/29/1995 In CERCLIS Database: 0200781

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The former chemical processing site includes three areas: (1) the Horseshoe Road Drum Dump; (2) the former Atlantic Development Corporation facility; and (3) the Sayreville Pesticide Dump. These three areas have been grouped together as one site on the National Priorities Lis t (NPL) based on their close proximity, and the assumption that the contaminants are commingled and threatening the same resources. The former Atlantic Resources Corporation site is also located on Horseshoe Road and has been
included in the site remedial investigation.

The site was discovered in 1981, when a brush fire at the Horseshoe Road Drum Dump exposed approximately 70 partially filled drums containing acetonitrile, silver cyanide and ethyl acetate. The Horseshoe Road Drum Dump was used for disposal from 1972 into the early 1980s. The Sayreville Pesticide Dump was also used for disposal, from about 1957 into the early 1980s.

The Atlantic Development Corporation facility contained three buildings that were owned or leased by many companies during the years of operation. Historical aerial photography indicates that the area was developed in the early 1950s and operated into the early 1980s. The operations included the production of roofing materials (coal tar and asbestos), sealants, polymers, urethane and epoxy resins, resin pigments, wetting agents, pesticide intermediates and recycled
chlorinated solvents.

The Atlantic Resources Corp. recycled precious metals and perhaps solvents between 1972 and
1985

. Twice during the winter of 1986

- 87, mercury spilled onto the ground. In March 1987, EPA used CERCLA emergency funds to remove 70 pounds of mercury and contaminated soil to a hazardous waste facility regulated under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. USEPA also removed 30 5

- gal lon containers of sodium cyanide, which was used in the metal recycling process.

Description of Contamination: In 1989, the USEPA analyzed the site soils and found that the soils contained volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi

- VOCs, base

- neutral compoun ds, heavy metals, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The sediments and surfaceAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 239 water on

- site are contaminated with VOCs, heavy metals and pesticides. The site contains wetland areas, and there are additional off

- site wetlands that have been impacted by site contaminants. The Horseshoe Road drum dump contained approximately 70 drums, many corroded and some labeled cyanide.

Atlantic Development Corp. owned the land where several companies manufactured, processed,
and blended various chemicals . During 1975

- 82, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) took numerous legal actions against the companies. In mid

- 1980, NJDEP removed over 1,000 drums from the area after the companies failed to do so. NJDEP analyses of soil samples in 1985 detected volatile organic compounds (including toluene), semivolatile organic compounds, and heavy metals. USEPA soil analyses in 1989 detected similar hazardous substances, plus pesticides and PCBs. In an April 1991 onsite inspection, USEPA found 400 5

- gallon containers holding solids and semisolids of various colors. Most containers were open, and many were crushed as a result of a fire in 1983.

Sayreville Pesticide Dump is an abandoned property now in the custody of the State. In the April
199 1 inspection, USEPA found at least 160 corroded or crushed drums, many containing a white powder. NJDEPE's 1985 analyses detected benzene, ethylbenzene, and toluene in soil, and USEPA's 1989 analyses detected 1,2,4

- trichlorobenzene, copper, and mercury. Su rface water and sediments in a small stream originating near the Sayreville Pesticide Dump contain heavy metals (copper, lead, and mercury), phenol, bis (2

- chloroethyl) ether, methoxychlor, lindane, chloroform, and 1,2

- dichloroethane, according to USEPA's 1989 analyses. Hard clams are harvested from Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, coastal tidal waters within 15 miles
downstream of the site. Wetlands on and off the site are also threatened.

Since 1987, the USEPA has removed 70 pounds of mercury and contami nated soil and 30 5

- gallon containers of sodium cyanide, used in the metal recycling process. To date, the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) have either declined to perform any of the work required at the site, or have been financially incapable of do ing so; therefore, most of the work has been conducted using Federal funds

. The September 1, 2000 Record of Decision estimates that the selected remedy costs will be $863,890 for the Atlantic Resources Corporation site and $522,021 for the
Horseshoe Road s ite, for a total of $1,385,911.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 2. “NPL Fact Sheet: Horseshoe Road.” (n.d.) 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/0200781c.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 240 USEPA. “Superfund Cite Progress Profile: Horseshoe Road.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 18 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0200781

USEPA. “

NPL Site Narrative for Horseshoe Road.” 29 September 1995. 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1373.htm

USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Horseshoe Road.” 1 September 2000. 18 January
2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0200510.pdf

Additional Contacts: Peter Capitano (On

- Scene Coordinator) (908) 321

- 6621
John Osolin (Remedial Project Manager) (212) 637

- 4412Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 241 Site Information

Site Name: Hudson Technologies Inc. EPA ID No.: NY0001392463 Address : 25 Torne Valley Rd, Hillburn, NY 10931 County: Rockland NPL Site: Proposed: 5/11/2000 In CERCLIS Database: 0204251

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Approximately 3 acres in size, the Hudson Technologies Inc. (HTI) site is an active freon recycling facility engaged primarily in the purification of spent refrigerant

. HTI began operations on the site in 1994. The site property is currently owned by Ramapo Land Co. Inc and cleanup efforts are ongoing

. Hudson Technologies did not hold a RCRA permit while conducting operations

.

To date, USEPA has spent over $1 million on cleanup efforts.

Desc ription of Contamination: Groundwater is contaminated with Freon 11

. A 1995 inspection revealed that floor drains were connected to a dry well

. HTI closed off its drains to prevent discharge to the dry well and abandoned its on

- site septic system where the highest concentration
of Freon 11 was detected

. In 1999, a failed connection hose to one of HTI’s outdoor storage tanks resulted in a spill of approximately 8,000 pounds of Freon 11 to the ground surface

. HTI immediately began excavation of the soil impac ted by the spill

. Groundwater was once again contaminated and two supply wells were taken off line

. HTI installed a ground water remediation system which consists of a recovery well, air stripping tower and recharge gallery which
removes the Freon 11 from the impacted well water prior to distribution

. An air stripping treatment system, completed in March 2001, removes the Freon 11 from the impacted well water prior to distribution. In the past, these releases forced United Water of New York to close some

we lls in its public drinking water system

.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 2

- Newsroom. “EPA Proposes Site in Rockland County Linked to Groundwater

Contamination for the Federal List of Hazardous Waste Sites.” 11 May 2000. 19 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/Region2/news/2000/00085.htm

Malcolm, James (PM) (518) 402

- 9669, Interview 17 November 2005Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 242 New York State Department of Health. “Public Health Assessment: Hudson Technologies.” 25

Jan uary 2002. 19 January 2006. http://nysl.nysed.gov/uhtbin/cgisirsi/zK37W99vE1/64460137/523/4721

Trocher, Sharon (RPM) (212) 637

- 4261, Interview 17 November 2005

USEPA. “Superfund Site Progress Profile: Hudson Technologies.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005.

19 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0204251

USE PA. “NPL Site Fact Sheet: Hudson Technologies.” (n.d.) 19 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/Region2/superfund/npl/0204251c.pdf

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Hudson Technologies, Inc.” 11 May 2000. 19 January 2006.

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1590.htmAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 243 Site Information

Site Name: Huff Battery Salvage EPA ID No.: SCD987566908 Address: 134 Warner Road, Bowman, SC 29018 County: Orangeburg NPL Site: No In CERCLIS Database: 0405416

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The 10.8 acre site is the location of a
former lead

- acid battery cracking operation and lead recovery process that operated from the late 1970's until approximately 1984

. The facility's owner and operator collected old car and tractor
batteries from across the State

. During operations, the batteries were cut open and the lead plates were recovered, smelted, and sold of f site

. Various processes including smelting, washing and shredding were performed on site

. These processes resulted in several waste streams including battery casings, chipped battery casings, waste battery acid, and lead

- acid contaminated rinse

water

. Th e chipped casings were initially left in the operations area

. Later, both chipped and fully intact casings were land filled in another portion of the site

. The battery acid and waste water flowed along a concrete pad and into two partially buried tanks

. Mr . James Huff passed away in 2001, leaving Ms. Huff as the sole resident and caretaker of the property. Also, in 2001, the property was sold for a sum of $5.00 to Ms. Huff's son, Cecil Marion Ayers, Jr. of Barnwell,
South Carolina.

Response costs at this site were around $1.2 million

. This includes direct contractor costs for the site clean up and assessment and does not include USEPA overhead

.

Description of Contamination: Recycling operations resulted in residual lead contaminated
soils and debris ons ite

. Behind the residence were the remnants of the lead

- acid battery cracking operations area

. This area was enclosed within a barbed wire fence

. The former process equipment was still on site

. Additionally, several waste piles (battery casings and chips) were located throughout the operations area

. A separate area of battery casings and chips was identified across the road from the former operations area

. This area was used as a landfill for the chipped casings and tractor battery casings which were not ch ipped.

Sources of Information: Misenheimer, Kevin (On

- Scene Coordinator) misenheimer.kevin@epa.gov, Email 12 December
2005.

USEPA. “Huff Battery Salvage.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 20 January 2006.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 244 http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0405416

USEPA. “Huff Battery Salvage.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.) 20 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110013797757

USEPA. “Huff Battery Salvage.” On

- Scene Coordinator Profile. (n.d.) 20 January 2006

. www.epaosc.net/HuffBattery

Additional Contacts: Kevin S. Misenheimer (OSC) (404) 562

- 8922 misenheimer.kevin@epa.gov Wilda W. Cobb (Region 4) (404) 562

- 9530Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 245 Site Information

Site Name: Hydromet Environmental USA Incorporated
EPA ID No.: ILD984766279
Address: 2475 East US Highway 36, Newman, IL 61942

- 2037 County: Douglas

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Hydromet is a hazardous waste reclamation company

. Five of its former company officials have been indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly hiding piles of toxic sludge and pretending it had been processed properly

. The indictment claims Hy dromet Environmental (USA) Inc. and the five key employees engaged in a criminal conspiracy to illegally transport, store and dispose of hazardous wastes at its Newman facility Douglas County from 1999 through February 2003

.

In addition to the Hydromet, those charged include: William A. Morgan, former chairman of the board and chief executive officer; John E. Pugh, former plant manager; Julianna H. Bauter, former environmental compliance official; Douglas Bennett, former chemist; and Ronald I. Martin, for

mer warehouse supervisor.

According to the indictments, Hydromet's Newman facility was unsuccessful from the outset because it did not have any viable processes for reclaiming metals from some 3.8 million tons of hazardous wastes it accepted for processing between 1995 and 1998. The company suffered severe financial setbacks and shutdown in January 1998, leaving tons of dangerous wastes containing poisons like cyanide, arsenic, lead and cadmium stored in on

- site tanks.

The state of Illinois began enforceme nt action against Hydromet that resulted in an injunction in May, 1999, requiring the company to process the materials correctly or dispose of them at a permitted site by May 31, 1999.

Rodger A. Heaton, United States Attorney for the Central District of I llinois, claims the defendants illegally shipped the wastes to a rundown warehouse in East Chicago, Ind., and also
hid them on

- site at their Newman plant to try and fool the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency that it was complying with the court inju nction. Heaton also alleges the defendants used false documentation to ship the waste to a non

- hazardous landfill in Indianapolis.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 246 Heaton claims the aim was to win permission to start up operations again, and the company was given permission to do so in No vember of 2002.

If convicted, each defendant could face up to five years in prison on each count as well as a fine of up to $50,000 per day of violation or $250,000, whichever is higher.

The case has been investigated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Criminal Investigation Division, the Illinois EPA and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.

Description of Contamination : The company shut down in 1998 leaving tons of dangerous wastes containing poisons like cyanide, arsenic, lead and c admium stored in on

- site tanks.

Sources of Information: Herald & Review. “Federal charges filed against Newman firm for hiding piles of toxic Sludge.” 23 January 2006

. 15 February 2006. http://www.herald

- review.com/articles/2006/01/25/news/state/1012625.txt

Region 5

- Regional Counsel. “Enforcement Action Summary FY 2006

- January.” 6 February 2006

. 15 February 2006.

US EPA. “Hydromet Environmental USA Incorporated.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.) 15 February 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin =110000772343Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 247 Site Information

Site Name: Hydromex EPA ID No.: None Address: P.O. Box 1514, Yazoo City, MS, 39194 County: Yazoo NPL Site: No In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Hydromex, Inc. operated a pilot recycling plant in Yazoo, Mississippi

. In June 2001, U.S. Technology Corporation in Canton, Ohio, licensed Hydromex, Inc. to use its spent blast media (SBM) to manufacture 18”x18”x48”
blocks which were to be used on levies. (Shipments of SBM were made prior to this agreement beginning in 2000)

. The SBM is comprised of plastic, aluminum oxide, garnet, silica and glass bead media, as well as, paint chips which may contain lead, cadmium, chromium and barium

. Shortly after manuf

acturing the levy blocks Hydromex started to manufacture smaller blocks for a demonstration home and concrete pads and trenches on the property

.

On November 14, 2002, the USEPA, investigative agencies within the Department of Defense, Mississippi Departm

ent of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation executed a search warrant at the Hydromex facility

. Also, on November 14, 2002, the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality issued a cease and desist order in which Hydrom ex was cited for operating a hazardous waste facility without a permit

. According to information from USEPA and Mississippi DEQ, Hydromex is reported to have accepted over 11,000,000 lbs (25,273 drums and 2,156 super sacks) of spent blasting media from lat e 2000 to November, 2002. In November 26, 2002, USEPA cited Hydromex for operating an illegal hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility

.

On July 17, 2003, MDEQ and U.S. Technology entered into an agreed order were U.S. Technology agreed t o operate the Hydromex facility to make split face construction blocks with the SBM in drums and super sacs, and to recycle the products Hydromex produced

. U.S. Technology received a variance for needing a permit for the storage of hazardous waste at Hydro mex, but was prohibited from receiving SBM or shipping SBM offsite

. In late 2007, U.S. Technology had recycled all the containers of SBM and blocks that were located at Hydromex into split face concrete blocks

. U.S. Technology is pursuing a RCRA closure fo r the concrete pads, which will consist of a cap over the site.

Description of Contamination: The bricks produced by Hydromex crumbled on contact and were soft, and the slabs would not support the weight of a person; therefore, neither materialAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 248 could be u sed in construction

. An indictment of the facility operator alleged that the products produced at the Hydromex plant were useless and made only to create the illusion that the company was legitimately recycling hazardous waste in accordance with federal an d state
environmental laws.

Hydromex buried millions of pounds of hazardous waste (PMBs and the soft bricks and slabs) contaminated with heavy metals, cadmium, chromium, and lead in trenches

. The waste leached heavy metals into the surrounding soil and gr oundwater.

On June 17, 2004,U.S. Technology agreed to pay a $150,000 civil penalty to Ohio EPA for operating an unpermitted hazardous waste storage facility for 2000, 2001, and 2002 in Canton,
Ohio

. This is the period of timeU.S. Technology shipped SBM t o Hydromex.

On November 15, 2007, Hydromex operator Dennie Eugene Pridemore pleaded guilty to a six

count federal indictment that charged him with operating a sham hazardous waste recycling facility

. Mr. Pridemore admitted to illegally storing and disposi ng of hazardous waste at the Hydromex site and to making false statements to regulatory officials and investigators to conceal the illegal disposal

. On February 7, 2008, the U.S. District Court sentenced Mr. Pridemore to 41 months in prison and three years probation.

Sources of Information:

Bailey, Steve (Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality). Digital photos to Nyall McKenna (Ohio EPA). 23 August 2002.

Environment News Service. “Sham Mississippi Hazwaste Operator Jailed.” 7 February 2008. 6
March 2008. http://www.ens

- newswire.com/ens/feb2008/2008

- 02

- 07

- 095.asp

FreePatentsOnline.com. “Process for the treatment of waste products.” (n.d.) 6 March 2008

. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5630785.html

McKenna, Nyall (Ohio EPA). Letter to Raymond Williams ( President,U.S. Technology Corporation). 1 May 2003.

McKenna, Nyall (Ohio EPA). Letter to Raymond Williams (President,U.S. Technology Corporation). 17 December 2002.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 249 McKenna, Nyall (Ohio EPA). Letter to Raymond Williams (President,U.S. Technology Corporat ion). 21 May 2002.

Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality. Agreement between Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality andU.S. Technology Corporation (Order No. 4614_03). 18 July 2003.

Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality. Cease and Desist order issued to Hydromex (Order No. 4510_02). 14 November 2002.

Ohio EPA. Director’s Final Findings and Orders, agreement between Ohio EPA andU.S. Technology to resolve past violations and a civil payment of $150,000.00. 17 June 2004.

Supply and Recycle Agreement betweenU.S. Technology Corporation and Hydromex, Inc. (n.d.).

The Clarion

– Ledger. “Federal, state agencies probe waste recycler.” 15 November 2002.

United States Attorney’s Office Southern District of Mississippi. “ Yazoo City Hazardous Waste Operator Pleads Guilty.” 15 November 2007. 6 March 2008

. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/mss/november15b2007.html

Williams, Raymond (President,U.S. Technology Corporation). Lette r to Nyall McKenna (Ohio EPA). 19 June 2001.

Additional Contacts:

Jeffrey T. Pallas (EPA Region 4 RCRA Enforcement and Compliance Branch) (404) 562

- 8616 Steve Bailey (Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality) (601) 961

- 5171 Nyall McKenna (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency) (330) 963

- 1272Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 250 Site Information

Site Name: Industrial Pollution Control
EPA ID No.: MSD985972983
Address: 810 Poindexter, Jackson, MS 39207 County: Hinds

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0406903

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Industrial Pollution Control (IPC) site is a former used oil recycling facility that began operations September 1, 1991 and operated until filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1997

. The facility appears to have been u sed to recycle oil under previous ownership predating September of 1991

. Under IPC ownership, the facility received, stored, treated, and processed various petroleum waste products, wastewater, and waste
oils

. Oil and water were separated in a treatment pr ocess on

- site and then reconditioned for
future sale and re

- use

. The water continued to undergo treatment until it met the criteria for discharge as specified in the facility’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit

. IPC’s list of a cceptable waste waters included petroleum

- based oils, coolants, groundwater (from underground storage tank remediation activities), bilge water, spent mineral oil, fuel oils, unrefined crude, salt water, and process water containing polymers

. The facility also operated a parts washing service

. The spend solvents were included in the acceptable

wastewaters

.

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality contacted the USEPA in November 1998 to evaluate the site for a possible removal action. The site i s abandoned and contains evidence of trespasser entry. On December 11, 1998, USEPA On

- Scene Coordinator (OSC) John McKeown met with Ken Whitten and Eric Dear of MDEQ to conduct an initial assessment of the facility

. During the assessment it was noted that numerous drums (some empty and some with contents) were stockpiled on

- site in a storage shed

. Some of the drums were in very poor condition and obviously contained corrosive materials

. The storage tanks containing the waste oil were in poor
condition and t

he secondary containment was not sufficiently impervious should a rupture of the
tanks occur

. Wastewater with a thick oily sheen was found in all secondary containment and overflowing at some locations on

- site

. The slope of the facility was toward the nort heast in the direction of a small stream located across Terry Road approximately 70 meters away

. The asphalt/concrete/soil ground surface was stained in many locations and an obvious black strain led from the tank storage area toward the northeast corner o f the site

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 251 Description of Contamination: In 1999, removal plans were announced

. During the week of January 25, 1999, USEPA and Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START)
conducted a Removal Assessment at the IPC Site which included collect ing soil, tank and drum samples, conducting an inventory of tank and drum contents, performing limited hazardous categorization of specific drums based on appearance and Photo

- Ionization Detector readings and interviewing previous employees and potential v endors for future disposal of the on

- site
waste oil

. The most likely contaminated soils could not be accessed due to the volume of wastewater contained within the secondary containment

. Some of the hazardous substances detected in surface soil sampling inc lude: pyrene, fluorene, anthracene, benzene, xylene, and ethylbenzene

. Additional contaminants include: ethylbenzene, phenanthrene, toluene, 4

- methyl

2

- pentanone and waste oil that is classified as ignitable under RCRA. The hazardous substances
found in s oils are believed to have been released from the contents of the tank farm and loading and unloading of trucks in the area

. It was also noted that the sides of the tanks and the inside of secondary containment walls were strained where the oil may have rea ched during previous spills or while being utilized for additional storage space.

The removal plans included inventory, analysis, and preparation of the contents of drums and containers, transportation and disposal of waste oils/water and disassembly of tanks; and excavation and disposal of contaminated soils

. The removal was expected to be completed at an estimated cost of $1,821,000 according to a March 30, 1999 estimate

.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 4. “Administrative Record Index for the Indus trial Pollution Control Site.” 23 March 2000. 17 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/Region4/waste/errb/ipcar.pdf

EPA Region 4

- Environmental News. “EPA Superfund Removal to Begin at Industrial Pollution Control Site, Jackson, Hinds County, Mississippi.” 4 April 1999. 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/Region4/oeapages/99press/040299.htm

USEPA. “Industrial Pollution Contro l.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 25 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110001472273

USEPA. “Industrial Pollution Control.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 17 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0406903

Additional Contacts: Steve Sp urlin (OSC) 404

- 562

- 8723 Sherryl A. Carbonaro (Community Relations Coordinator) 404

- 562

- 8742Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 252 Site Information

Site Name: Industrial Solvents and Chemical Co.
EPA ID No.: PAD098732118
Address : Box 212, Steven Road, York Haven, PA 17370 County: York
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Industrial Solvents and Chemical Company (ISCC), an 8.9

- acre site, stored, repackaged and sold products; reprocessed solvents; transported, stored and distributed recycled solvents; recycled and distributed used and new oil; and transported and stored haz ardous wastes

. The Aerosol Company (Aerosol) owned and operated the site for an unknown period of time prior to ISCC

. Aerosol went bankrupt by 1974 and the property was acquired by the York County Industrial Development Authority (YCIDA)

. At this time, ISCC began leasing from YCIDA

. A supply well was drilled in 1974 and was discovered to be contaminated with volatile organic compounds

. However, in 1969, complaints reportedly already began regarding potentially contaminated groundwater in the vicinity of the site. In June 1990, ISCC and its owners filed for bankruptcy and operations were ceased in May

June 1990

. When ISCC abandoned the site, there were approximately 194 aboveground storage
tanks and thousands of 55

- gallon drums, 5

- gallon carboys and other assorted containers of smaller volumes present at the site. The site did not have a RCRA permit

.

Description of Contamination: Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

. The contamination affected several residential and commerci al wells. The abandoned drums and tanks, totaling more than 600,000 gallons of wastes (the majority being hazardous), were successfully removed from the Site between December 1993 and August 1995

. As of 1998, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Qualit y had paid $3.3 million for clean up costs at ISCC with a final remedy at the site likely to cost another $1 to $1.3 million

. As of 1998, PA DEQ had entered into approximately 40 consent decrees and consent order and agreements with over 600 potentially re sponsible parties for a total cost recovery of $4,384,120

.

Sources of Information: Bilash, Kevin (EPA Project Manager) (215) 814

- 2796, Interview 18 November 2005.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality. “Office of Chief Counsel 1998 Annual Report.” 1998. 23 January 2006. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/chiefcounsel/1998_annual_report.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 253 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality. “Cost Recovery Efforts at Industrial Solvents Prove Successful.” 5 December 1997. 23 January 2006. http://www.de p.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/polycomm/update/12

- 05

- 97/12059714.htm

USEPA. “Region 3 GPRA Baseline RCRA Corrective Action Facility Industrial Solvents & Chemicals Co.” 30 June 2005. 23 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/pa/pdf/pad098732118.pdf

USEPA. “Industrial Solvents & Chemicals Co.” RCRA Info. 13 September 2000. 18 January
2006.

USEPA. “Industrial Solvents & Chemical Company.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 23
Janua ry 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000701964

Additional Contacts: Kevin Bilash (EPA Project Manager) (215) 814

- 2796
Susan Frank (PA DEP Community Relations Coordinator) (717) 540

- 5013Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 254 Site Information

Site Name: Intermountain Waste Oil Refinery
EPA ID No.: UT0001277359
Address : 995 South 500 West, Bountiful, UT, 84010 County: Davis
NPL Site: Final: 5/11/2000

In CERCLIS Database: 0801545

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Intermountain Waste Oil Refinery occupied 2 acres and operated for about 35 years

. Operations ceased in 1993 when the company forfeited its permit to operate

. This site, however, was not abandoned because there was still an operator at the time the site ceased operations

. Operators re

- refined waste oil on site and sent the product to area cement facilities for use as fuel

. Local landfills took the waste sludge that was

pro duced

. This site was not RCRA permitted. The selected remedy at this site combines dual phase extraction and groundwater pump and treatment to optimize the cleanup

. Additionally, the containers in the garage would be disposed of properly so they do not pre sent a risk in the future

. The duration of the cleanup is 4 years

. Total capital costs are estimated at $156,400

. The total annual treatment system O&M cost for the first year is estimated at $181,200 and for the second year through duration $254,027

. The period cost estimate is $18,324

. The total estimated worth therefore is $598,200 with the addition of the container disposal, which will add little to the
overall cost

.

Description of Contamination : Contamination at this site likely occurred both before and after
1982

. Neighbors associated odors and health problems with the site

. Contaminants including solvents were discovered on site and have also contaminated the groundwater beneath the site

. EPA removed and disposed of the chemicals in the lab building , various drums and containers, 2 trailer tanks, and one underground storage tank and its contents.

Sources of Information: Lloyd, Lisa (EPA Region 8 RPM), Interview 7 November 2005

.

USEPA

. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Intermountain Waste Oil Refinery.” CERCLIS

. 5 August 2004

. 21 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0804587.pdf

.

USEPA

. NPL Site Narrative for Intermountain Waste Oil Refinery.” 7 October 2004

. 21 January
2006

. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1579.htm.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 255 USEPA

. “Superfund Site Progress Profile : Intermountain Waste Oil Refinery .” CERCLIS

. 27
October 2005

. 21 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0801545

.

Utah Department of Health under a Cooperative Agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

. “Public Health Assessment: Intermou ntain Waste Oil Refinery.” 30 September 2003. 21 January 2006

. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/intermountain/int_toc.html.

Additional Contacts: Lisa Lloyd (RPM) (303) 312

- 6537Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 256 Site Information

Site Name: International Processing Specialists (IPS)
EPA ID No.: FLD982109761
Address: 1859 East Adams Street, Jacksonville, FL 322020 County: Duval

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: International Processing Specialists (IPS) operated a used oil processing facility until June 2001

. The operation included storage and treatment of used oil, oily wastewater and non

- hazardous industrial wastewater in over 11 tanks with a total capacity of approximately 1.3 million gallons

. The company abandoned the site, leaving over 1 million gallons of used oil and other waste after IPS suspended its operation

.

Violations at the facility were first uncovered during an inspection in 1995. Following the discovery, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) entered into a Consent Order with IPS to resolve violations while allowing the company to continue to operate. However, four subsequent inspections in 1998 and 1999 revealed repeat violations including operating unpermitted units on and off site; failing to comply with permit conditions; failure to remove used oil from secondary containment and failure to clean up spills. As a final remedy, FDEP issued an order to revoke the company’s permit o n March 15, 2002.

Description of Contamination : In summer 2005 EPA completed a major clean up to remove waste from the tanks and stop leakage from the tanks.

Sources of Information : Florida State Department of Environmental Protection

– Press Office. “S tate Revokes Waste Permit.” 10 May 2002

. 20 January 2006. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/secretary/news/2002/02

- 051.htm

Posner, Augusta. (State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection)

. Email Correspondence to Dave Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 17 March 2005

.

USEPA. “International Processing Specialists.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 25 January
2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110002562879Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 257 Additional Contacts: Augusta Posner (FDEP) (850) 245

- 2282, augusta.posner@dep.state.fl.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 258 Site Information:

Site Name: Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO) EPA ID No.: ALD041906173 Address: 1247 Borden Avenue SE, Leeds, AL 35094 County: Jefferson
NPL Site: Final: 06/10/86 In CERCLIS Database: 0404344

Description of Recycling Operation : The ILCO facility operated as a secondary lead smelter and lead battery recycling facility from 1970 to 1992 at which time the site was abandoned. From approximately 1970 to 1984, the company reportedly used lead

- contaminated materials such as blast furnace slag, b attery casings, and wastewater treatment sludge as fill material at seven satellite sites in and around the City of Leeds which are known as the: ILCO Parking Lot, Gulf/BP Service Station (currently operated as a BP Service Station), J & L Fabricators,
Fle mmings Patio, the Connell Property, the City of Leeds Landfill, and the Church of God of Prophecy in Acmar, herein referred to as the Acmar Church of God

. The Interstate Lead Company ceased operations in March 1992 and declared bankruptcy shortly thereafte r

. Shortly after this abandonment, USEPA issued Records of Decision (RODs) for each of the three operable units comprising the site

.

This site was never RCRA permitted

.

Description of Contamination : ILCO's battery cracking and recycling operations have resulted in extensive lead and cadmium contamination on and near the ILCO main facility in soil, surface water, and groundwater. Monitoring by the company in January and February of 1985 detected lead and cadmium in ground water underlying the facility. T he state has measured elevated levels of lead in Dry Creek and an unnamed tributary to Dry Creek adjacent to the facility. The Jefferson County Department of Health in 1983 and 1984 measured elevated lead concentrations
in ambient air south and southwest o f ILCO

. USEPA collected surface water, sediment, and biota samples during 1994 from the unnamed tributary, Dry Creek, and the Little Cahaba River and analyzed them for lead and other chemicals

.

The estimated cost of implementing selected remedies was app roximately $60,000,000

. As the state of Alabama did not have sufficient resources to fund the state cost share, a fund

- lead cleanup was not an option. Based upon ILCO's operating records, USEPA identified approximately 979 PRPs who sent spent batteries or other lead bearing waste material to the site. USEPA issued notice letters to these PRPs in the fall of 1993. Special Notice Letters were issued to large quantity generators in the fall of 1995. On September 30, 1996, the Region requestedAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 259 DOJ to concur in a settlement with 20 generator PRPs at the ILCO site. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the settling defendants will conduct RD/RA for the entire site including all seven satellite sites, and will reimburse the United States for $1,823,644 of $16 ,683,773 in past response costs. Also, the ILCO PRPs will reimburse the United States for future oversight costs related to the Consent Decree in excess of $300,000. Under the guidance on orphan share compensation dated June 3, 1996, the region, with headq uarters concurrence, has agreed to compensate the settling defendants by giving them a credit of $14,860,125 against outstanding past costs which represents 25 percent of the estimated future cleanup costs. This settlement is one of the first to provide fo r compensation to settlers under the orphan share reform in accordance with the recently issued guidance. In addition, proceeds from de minimis settlements will be split between USEPA and the settling defendants 50

- 50 with USEPA's share to be applied again st outstanding past costs. Based upon de minimis settlements totaling over $1.8 million, the PRPs were wired over $900,000 in May 1999.

Total cleanup expenditure as of September 2004 was $13,596,768.92

.

Sources of Information : USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Interstate Lead Co.” 29 September 1995. 16 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0495243.pdf

USEPA. Integr ated Financial Management System (IFMS)

. 30 September 2004

. 15 January
2006

.

USEPA. “Interstate Lead Co.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005

. 24 January 2006

. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0404344

USEPA. “Interstate Lead Co.” EPA Envirofacts Warehouse

. (n.d)

. 24 January
2006

. http://oaspub.epa. gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110017418007

USEPA. “Interstate Lead Co.” RCRAInfo . 2 September 2000. 18 January 2006.

USEPA. “NPL Fact Sheet: Interstate Lead Co.” 12 December 2005. 16 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/nplal/ilcoal.htm

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Interstate Lead Co.” 10 June 1986. 16 January 2006. http://www.epa.g ov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0404344.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 260 Site Information

Site Name: Island Recycling
EPA ID No.:
Address: 20014 Hwy 525, Freeland, WA 98249 County: Island

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Island Recycling recycles personal computers, circuit boards, peripherals, faxes, and televisions.

Description of Contamination : An initial investigation was done in March of 2003

. The soil and surface are contaminated and it is suspected that the drinking water and groundwater may
also be contaminated

.

Sources of Information : Western Electronic Product Stewardship Initiative

. Recycle Your Computer: Washington.” 2001

. 17 January 2006

. http://www.recyclingadvocates.org/wepsi/wa

- business.htm

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 261 Si te Name: J Pitt Melt Shop

EPA ID No.: ILN000508169
Address: 3151 S. California, Chicago, IL 60608 County: Cook
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0508169

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: In 1918, the owner of the site, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC) leased the property for 99 years. The lease was subsequently assigned to California Auto Reclamation Co., a majority of which is owned by M S Kaplan Co mpany. Kaplan has been subleasing the property to various companies processing steel billet and blooms from scrap steel. The most recent company on the site, J Pitt Steel, ceased operations in 1996 and its parent company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1997.

Description of Contamination: On April 5, 2001, the City of Chicago Department of Environment (CDE), discovered abandoned artillery shells and observed oil releasing from the site into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. CDE referred the site to U SEPA, and received assistance of the U.S. Army to address the munitions. Subsequent USEPA assessment activities determined hazardous materials had contaminated the site including, up to 54,000 ppm polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); electric arc furnace dust (K061); lead, chromium, and cadmium dust and ash; drums and containers with acids, caustics, and solvents; cesium

- 137 in mold level control devices, and; friable asbestos.

On April 10, 2001, Kaplan and the MWRDGC stated that they would perform the work and pay for all site cleanup costs under an AOC to be negotiated with the USEPA.

Sources of Information: USEPA. “J Pitt Melt Shop.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 16 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0508169

USEPA. “J. Pitt Melt Shop.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.)

. 25 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110006819416

USEPA Region 5

– Regional Council. “Enforcement Action Summary FY 2001 I

- L.” http://www.epa.gov/region5/orc/enfactions/enfactions2001/name

- itol.htmAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 262 Additional Contacts: Brad Benning (OSC) (312) 353

- 7613 Stuart P. Hersh (Multi

- Media Branch I) (312) 886

- 6235Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 263 Site Information:

Site Name: J.C. Pennco Waste Oil Service
EPA ID No.: TXD982164162
Address : 4927 Higdon Road, San Antonio, TX County: Bexar
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0604940

Description of Recycling Operation : The site was operated from May 1984 until April 1992. During its eight years of operation, the site received an unknown quantity of used barrels and various chemicals, including used oil, antifreeze, and solvents. Most of the oil and other chemicals were sold to recyclers, and the d rums were sold for use as animal feeders, trash barrels, and barbeque pits. Pollution at the site resulted from spills and discharges from the oil storage tanks and from the barrel

- cleaning activities

. The site did not have a permit at any time.

Descripti on of Contamination : In 1991, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) investigators discovered that the same types of solvents spilled on the ground at the J.C. Pennco site were present in one of the nearby residential water wells. In May 19 92, the owner filed bankruptcy, and the site was abandoned

. Contaminates include : chlorinated and non

chlorinated solvents, metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, xylene, and tetrachlo ride

. From 1995 to 1996, in cooperation with the TNRCC and the San Antonio Water System, USEPA extended city water lines into the area. Additionally, USEPA removed approximately 4,000 drums, 120 cubic yards of soil and debris, 31,500 gallons of liquid wast es, and 23 tanks from the site to eliminate potential sources of surface and groundwater contamination. In November 1996, the USEPA
referred the J.C. Pennco site back to the state for further remedial action

. While material was sold to recyclers, poor hous ekeeping practices led to contamination.

On February 24, 2005, a legal notice of citation by publication was published in the Eagle Pass News Guide identifying 21 of 52 parties responsible for waste at the J.C. Pennco Waste Oil Service Superfund site.

Sources of Information : Boucher, Carol (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) (512) 239

- 2501, Interview 9
December 2005.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 264 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

. “J.C. Pennco Waste Oil Services.” 9 January
2006

. 20 January 2006

. http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/superfund/state/jcpennco.html.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

. “Community Relations Plan for the J.C. Waste Oil Recycling Superfund Site Bexar County, Texas.” November 1999

. 20 January
2006

. http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/remediation/superfund/ register/pdf0134.pdf

USEPA

. “J.C. Pennco Waste Oil Svc: Multisystem Report.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. 20 January 2 006

. 20 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110005194146

.

USEPA

. “Site Information: J.C. Pennco Waste Oil Svc.” CERCLIS

. 27 Oc tober 2005

. 20 January 2006

. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0604940.

Additional Contacts: Carol Boucher (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) (512) 239

- 2501 cboucher@tceq.stat e.tx.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 265 Site Information

Site Name: Jack Goins Waste Oil
EPA ID No.: TND981022395
Address: 801 15 th St. N.E., Cleveland, TN 37311 County: Bradley

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0406904

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Jack Goins Waste Oil site was an oil collection and recycling facility between 1985 and 1999

. Although the facility is closed, the owner/operator, Mr. Jack Goins, continues to perform some activities on site, such as vehicle
maintenance and oil filter crushing

. The facility includes three buildings, a warehouse, and an
office

. The garage was used for vehicle maintenance and equipment storage

. The warehouse contains the oil filter press and also provides storage space for equipment, tools, and supplies

. The warehouse contained 20 to 30 55

- gallon drums

. Many of these drums contained crushed and uncrushed oil filters, while other drums contained lubricating oils or were empty

. Eleven above

ground storage tanks (AST) are also located on the facility propert y and the adjacent property

.

Description of Contamination: In 1999, as a result of serious contamination at the site from years of inadequate waste oil storage and handling practices, USEPA conducted a clean

- up action during which 105,000 gallons of cont aminated waste oil, 85,000 gallons of wastewater, and 224 cubic yards of contaminated soil were removed and shipped offsite for proper disposal

. The site is contaminated with lead and benzene

.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 4. “Administrative Record Index: Jack Goins Waste Oil Removal Site.” 30 November 1999. 20 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/Region4/waste/errb/goinsar.pdf

EPA Region 4. “Fiscal Year 2002 Enforcement & Compli ance A ssurance Accomplishments Report.” (n.d.) 20 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/Region4/ead/attachments/2002_accomplishments_report.pdf

USEPA. “Jack Goins Waste Oil.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.) 20 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110004982626

USEPA . “Jack Goins Waste Oil.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 20 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0406904Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 266 Additional Contacts: Jack Goins (RCRA) (615) 555

- 1212 Mary C. Johnson (Associate Regional Counsel USEPA, Region 4) 404

- 562

- 9526Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 267 Site Information

Site Name: JG Grant & Sons Inc.
EPA ID No.: MAD071707301
Address: 60 Garden Park, Braintree, MA 02184 County: Norfolk

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0100567

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Prior to the early 1970s, this property was an undeveloped wetland located within Cedar Swamp. In the early 1970s, Antonellis Transportation company developed the property by filling in the northern portion with shredded auto parts and sand.

In 1977, Grant began operating a scrap metal salvage yard on the property. The on

- site operations have involved receiving, sorting, cutting, and processing scra p metal that is subsequently shipped to smelters for recycling. Scrap processed at the property included iron, aluminum, brass, copper, steel, computer parts, junked automobiles, machinery parts, tanks of many sizes, drums, and other miscellaneous items. S ome of the scrap metal processed at the facility may have contained hazardous coatings of paint, solvents, and/or fuel oil. Between 1977 and 1986, Grant accepted approximately 20 to 30 truckloads of metal scraps per day; the primary
client at the time was General Dynamic Shipyard. For an unknown period of time, Grant personnel have stored waste oil in a 500

- gallon underground storage tank located on site.

In 1984, four fires occurred at the Grant property. While investigating the fires, the Braintree
Fire Department observed illegally stored marine paints on the property and notified the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and USEPA of possibly hazardous conditions on the Grant property. A 1986 site inspection revealed ripped bags of asbest os, 20 full drums with unknown contents, and an abandoned 600

- gallon waste oil tank.

Current operations at the property are unknown; however, in 1995, Grant had continued accepting approximately one truckload of scrap metal per day from General Electric, and
additional items from other clients on an intermittent basis.

Description of Contamination: Approximately 10.75 miles of wetland frontage, fisheries, and a Clean Water Act (CWA)

- protected water body occur along the 15

- mile surface downstream water pathway. Analytical results of surface water pathway samples collected from Cedar Swamp and the Mona tiquot River in 1986 and 1987 indicated the presence of 13 metalsAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 268 including barium, chromium, lead, and nickel; three volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene and toluene; fuel oil; 12 semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs); three pesticides; an

d four polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Based on these results, a CWA

- protected water body, a fishery, and a wetland have been impacted.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 1. “Waste Site Cleanup & Reuse in New England: JG Grant & Sons Inc.” 15 July 2002. 17 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r1/npl_pad.nsf/0/8 dc91d312e0ff5a085256b4200604a77?OpenDo

cument

USEPA. “JG Grant and Sons, Inc.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 25 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multi sys2.get_list?facility_uin=110009289787

USEPA. “JG Grant and Sons Inc.” CERCLIS . 27 October 2005. 17 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0 100567

Additional Contacts: Daniel Keefe (617) 292

- 5940 Daniel.Keefe@state.ma.us Nancy Smith (Site Assessment Manager) (617) 918

- 1436Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 269 Site Information :

Site Name: Joe Sikes Oil Service, Inc

. EPA ID No.: GAD981262470
Address: 3551 Athens Highway, Jefferson, GA 30549 County: Jackson

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0409809

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Joe Sikes Oil Services is a used oil dealer that collects, bulks, and distributes used motor oil

. The facility has 10 oil storage tanks (varying from 2,000 gallon to 18,000 gallon capacity) in one tank farm

. A second tank farm contains three diesel tanks for fueling. A third tank farm contains eight tanks for storing coolant

water

. Two additional tanks containing oily slu dge sit in the back of the facility. According to the foreman of Sikes Oil Service, oil has not been processed at the facility since fall of 1999; however, the facility still receives various types of waste oil for storage from industrial (nonautomotive) s ources until it can be transported to processing facilities

. The facility was granted a solid waste handling permit for storage of municipal solid waste until it is transported off site for disposal

.

Description of Contamination : Contamination resulted f rom the transportation of used oil directly connected to recycling practices

. At approximately 11:15 PM on June 19, 2005, a tanker
truck off

- loading used oil at the facility exploded

. The driver was killed instantly and the
contents of the tanker truck eit her burned with the truck or were released to the ground surrounding the facility

. The tank purportedly contained used motor oil. The cause of the explosion is unknown

. The building sustained significant damage

. Approximately 200 to 300 gallons were releas ed to the ground

. The spill was contained and cleaned up over a period of five hours by the responsible party, with oversight by EP

. The contaminants of concern at this facility, based on the nature of operation, are VOCs

. At Sikes Oil Service, releases of VOCs to air could have occurred through the following activities: (1) the heating of the oil without the use of, or with faulty, emissions equipment; (2) the storage and transfer of oil products, (3) routine vehicle maintenance, and (4) the storage of sol id waste

.

Sources of Information : EPA Region 4

. Email Correspondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste)

. October 2005.

Georgia Department of Human Resources under a Cooperative Agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

. “ Petitioned Health Consultation: Sikes OilAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 270 Service.” 16 January 2002

. 20 January 2006. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/sikesoil/sos_toc.html

USEPA. “Joe Sikes Oil Services.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.)

. 25 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110001420230

USEPA

. “Sikes Oil.” CERCLIS

. 27 October 2005

. 20 January 2006

. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0409809

.

USEPA. “Sikes Oil Services.” On

- Scene Coordinator Profile. (n.d.). 20 January 2006

. http://www.epaosc.net/site_profile.asp?site_id=1683.

Additional Contacts : David Dorian (USEPA Region 4) On

- Scene Coordinator, Environmental Engineer, (404) 562

- 8767, dorian.david@epa.gov John Kroske (USEPA Re gion 4) Environmental Engineer (404) 562

- 8613Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 271 Site Information

Site Name: Joel C. Patterson and AC
EPA ID No.: FLR000012955
Address: 2919 S. Street, Fort Myers, FL 339160 County: Lee
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Joel C. Patterson and AC was an AC and mercury lamp recycler

. It violated hazardous waste, storage tank, petroleum cleanup, solid waste, air, freon, and TSCA regulations.

Description of Contamination : 2,800 waste tires, 1,000

- gallon tank of used oil, and several
unmarked 55

- gallon drums were removed by the property owner

. Cleanup costs ranged from $500,000

- $1,000,000.

Sources of Information : Posner, Augusta. (State of Florida Department of Environmental Protectio n)

. Email Correspondence to Dave Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 17 March 2005

.

USEPA. “Joel C. Patterson.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.)

. 25 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110005633485

Additional Contacts: Augusta Posner (FDEP) (850) 245

- 2282, augusta.posner@dep.state.fl.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 272 Site Information

Site Name: John Alexander Research
EPA ID No.: CAD980887350
Address: 1753 Sierra Highway, Rosamond, CA 93560 County: Kern
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Dr. John Alexander recycled nickel catalysts at this 5

- acre site

. The site was on the state superfund list and was part of the Rosamond Cancer Cluster Investigation

. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) conducted an onsite inspection and inventory of waste in 1988, and in the years th at followed conducted additional site inspections.

USEPA issued an Administrative Order to Alexander Research in January 1990. The Order required: securing and repackaging all leaking drums; chemically characterizing all drummed materials; transporting o ffsite for disposal or treatment of approximately 2,300 drums; cleaning out the onsite acid pits; and applying a polymer sealant to the soil. This work was completed in June 1990. DTSC issued an Imminent or Substantial Endangerment/ Remedial Action Order ( I/SE & RAO) for this site in April 1991. A remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) were completed in May 1992. Bench scale treatability studies were conducted to determine the site specific viability of soil washing for remediation of heavy me tal contaminated soil. The results of this work did not support use of soil washing; therefore, the remedial option proposed in the Draft Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is to consist of on

- site consolidation and capping.

DTSC sued for response cost recovery in 1998

. The 2002 court judgment in favor of DTSC was appealed

. In 2003 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision

. DTSC and Dr. Alexander negotiated the final settlement amount of $405,000 which covers DTSC costs through September 30, 2000, attorney fees of the Attorney General's office and the CERCLA post judgment interest

.

Description of Contamination : The site is contaminated with heavy metals, in waste piles, debris and spillage on soils

. The property was reported to have appr oximately 500 drums containing nickel catalyst onsite

. An onsite sump contains hazardous levels of nickel (Ni), lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn). Copper (Cu), Ni and Pb were found at high concentrations in soil and waste samples obtained from the site. Arsenic (As) , barium (Ba), beryllium (Be), cadmium (Cd), antimony (Sb), selenium (Se), thallium (Ti), vanadium (V) and Zn were also found at hazardousAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 273 levels. A preliminary assessment with soil and groundwater sampling was done by DTSC in August 1988.

Sources of Inf

ormation: California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “$405,000 Settlement Reached with Dr. John Alexander.” 21 October 2003. 16 January 2006. http ://www.dtsc.ca.gov/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&pageid=5317
3

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “John Alexander.” Site Cleanup

– Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database . (n.d.). 16 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/Calsites/CALP001.CFM?IDNUM=15330004

EPA Region 9. Email Correspondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste). 22 November
2005.

USEPA

. “John Alexander Research.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 24 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110006468811

USEPA. “Re source Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Site Progress Profile: John Alexander Research.” 10 December 2005. 16 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ rcris_web.report?pgm_sys_id=CAD980887350Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 274 Site Information

Site Name: K & D Salvage Yard
EPA ID No.:
Address: 600 South Union Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93307 County: Kern
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: From 1958 through 1989, the site was used as a metal recycler and storage facility. The site encompasses approximately 10 acres of fenced, vacant land, and is located in an area of town that houses light industrial, commercial businesses, and so me residences. Directly south of the site is the abandoned Benham and Johnson/Double “D” metal recycling facility. Though the sites are adjacent, they are being dealt with as two separate projects due to the different industrial activities that occurred at each
of them.

The site was used for storage and recycling of metal from 1958 until 1989, when it was abandoned by its owners. For the next 10 years the site was subject to unauthorized dumping and occupied by transients. In October 1998, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) removed debris, such as household items and furniture, in preparation of conducting preliminary soil sampling in the winter of 1999.

Description of Contamination : On June 7, 1990, DTSC received an anonymous phone call indicating that wastes from old transformers and old cars were disposed of at the property. On August 15, 1990, the Department inspected the property and collected two soil samples. Field inspections showed the presence of waste materials spread ing over the property and into an old pit. Soil samples collected at the site were found to contain elevated levels of copper, lead, and zinc. Samples were not analyzed for other chemicals such as PCB. On April 19, 1996, the Kern County Environmental Healt h Services Department (Kern County) notified the Department that soils at the former K&D Salvage Yard may have been contaminated with elevated levels of
PCBs because PCBs were detected in the soils removed from the site

. Analyses of the sampling
in 1999 co nfirmed that site soil is contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and heavy metals, including lead and zinc.

A remedial investigation report was completed in June 2000, a Risk Assessment was completed in May 2001 and an Alternative Evaluation (AE) was completed in November 2001

. The AE indicated a removal action could be completed for around $1 million.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 275 Sources of Information: California Department of Toxic Substances and Control. “K & D Salvage Fact Sheet.” February 2003. 23 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Projects/upload/K&DSalvage_FS_DRAW.pdf

California Department of Toxic Substances and Control. “K & D Salvage Site Cleanup.” (n.d.). 23 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/CalSites/CALP001.CFM?IDNUM=15500001

Additional Contacts: Maria Gillette, DTSC (916) 255

- 3953, MGILLETT@dtsc.ca.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 276 Site Information

Site Name: Kempton Brothers, Inc.
EPA ID No.: FLR000054353
Address: 14525 N. Florida, Tampa, FL 33613 County: Hillsborough

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Kempton Brothers was in the business of recovering and cleaning used automobile parts. In the process, between the years 1976 and 1994, solvents and other pollutants were illegally flushed into a gravel

- lined pit. At various times, the defendants excavated sludge containing hazardous waste from the pit and illegally disposed of it by placing it in automobiles destined for the scrap yard

. On September 18, 1998 Kempton Brothers pleaded guilty to two counts of knowingly disposing of haz ardous waste

. Robert Bruce Kempton, president of the salvage operation and auto parts business, pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly disposing of hazardous waste and one count of willfully making a false statement to a law officer

. Kempton faces a maxi mum term of 10 years in prison and fines of $50,000 a day per violations, which occurred daily between September 1992 and May 1994

.

Description of Contamination : Solvents illegally disposed in gravel

- lined pit.

Sources of Information: Daily Environment al Report No. 191, “State, Federal Officials Crack Down on Criminal Violators in Tampa Bay.” BNA, Inc. 2 October 1998

. 21 January 2006. http://pubs.bna.com/NWSSTND/IP/BNA/den.nsf/SearchAllView/6EA088D64F5BF8AD 85256691000BC1D9?Open&highlight=RECYCLER

USEPA. “Kempt on Brothers Porsche Parts.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.) 20 January
2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110005655362Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 277 Site Name: Leeds Metal
EPA ID No.: MEN000103584
Address: Blue Rock Road, Leeds, ME, 04263 County: Androscoggin
NPL Site: Proposed, September 2011
In CERCLIS Database: MEN000103584

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The 36

- acre Leeds Metal site is located in a mixed residential/industrial area in the southeastern Maine community of Leeds. The site is bounded to the north by a former concrete manufacturing facility, a sand and gravel operation, and by Blue Rock Road; to the east by the Rumford Branch of Pan Am Railways; to the south by wetlands and residential properties; and to the west by Route 106.

Operations at the Leeds Metal site date back to the mid

- to

- late

- 1800s, however little is known about specific site activities prior to 19 69 other than it was known as Libby’s Pit and was a sand and gravel mine. From 1969 to1984, scrap metal recovery processes took place, performed by a series of site operators including Michael Schiavone & Songs, Lucas Salvage Company, and
Leeds Metal. The scrap material was separated into ferrous and non

- ferrous material, and the

non

- ferrous material was discarded as waste suitable to be used as fill material. Junk automobiles were shredded onsite, where non

- recyclable material, known as auto fluff, was sto ckpiled. Gasoline and other fluids from junk cars were dumped directly onto the ground, and as many as 100 drums were staged along the tree line in the southern part of the site. The Leeds Fire Department has responded to numerous fires at the site. Availa ble information indicates that the last operations on the Leeds Metal property were conducted by a private individual, who operated a scrap metal recovery facility on the property for a portion of 1984. The site is currently inactive and unoccupied, and ap pears to have remained abandoned since operations
ceased in 1984

.

Description of Contamination: Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of auto fluff waste is present at the site and fully exposed and uncontained. Another source of contamination, the former

ope rations area, has no fence or other containment features to limit access or exposure to site wastes. Hazardous substances include polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), and metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium and lead). A groundwater plume of VOCs is documented onsite and has extended southward, contaminating seven drinking water supply wells at concentrations exceeding health

- based benchmarks. Metals associated with site operations have also
contaminated wetlands onsite.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 278 Contamination at the site has been known to environmental authorities since the early 1980s. On June 2, 1983, personnel from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (ME DEP) responded to a complaint of a leaking transformer at the Leeds Metal property. ME DEP noted the presence of five transformers and 27 drums, some of which were leaking. In addition, as part of the investigation, ME DEP personnel collected two soil samples, one from around a leaking

tran sformer and one from around leaking drums

. Analytical results of the soil samples indicated the presence of two PCBs in both of the soil samples

.

On June 30, 1983, ME DEP personnel mobilized to the Leeds Metal property to collect 13 drum samples, and one sludge sample from a lagoon located on the property. Analytical results of the 13 drum samples did not indicate the presence of PCBs above the analytical detection limit. Analytical results of the sludge sample indicated the presence of Aroclor

- 1260 at an estimated concentration of 3.6 mg/Kg

.

On April 30, 1987, ME DEP personnel responded to a report of abandoned drums at the Leeds Metal property

. The ME DEP investigator indicated that the drums on the property had not been disposed of, although the prope rty owner had stated that the drum disposal had been completed

. The property owner subsequently hired a contractor to remove 1,045 gallons of drum contents as well as an additional 19 drums from the property.

On October 24, 1997, ME DEP personnel collecte d 15 surface soil samples to determine if a release of hazardous substances to soils had occurred. PCB analytical results of the surface soil samples indicated the presence of two PCB Aroclors, Aroclor

- 1248 and

- 1260, above laboratory reporting limits (RLs ). Additionally arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead were detected above laboratory RLs. Fuel Oil analysis indicated the samples contained diesel range organics (DRO)

a nd total petroleum hydrocarbons.

Seven private drinking water supply well s serving 17 r esidents were contaminated by VOCs (PCE and TCE) from the site. The drinking water contamination exceeded health

- based benchmarks, and there was no alternative public drinking water supply wells in Leeds. The M E
DEP removed drummed was te and an abandoned t ransformer ; sampled soil; sampled nearby private drinking water wells to identify possible off

- site migration of wastes; oversaw a series of investigations to assess the site and groundwater in the area; and installed carbon filtration
devices at five home s with VOC contamination exceeding state health benchmark. U.S. EPA completed removal investigations in 2010 that documented significant contamination on site, impacts to nearby private drinking water supplies, and the need for response actions to addressAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 279 imminent hazards posed by the uncontrolled wastes on site. In addition, a U.S. EPA removal action designed to limit access to on

- site wastes was planned for fall 2011

.

Sources of Information:

1. USEPA. National Priorities List (NPL) Site Narrative. Leeds M etal. Accessed Online.
November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1849.htm

2. USEPA. Waste Site Cleanup & Reuse in New England Leeds Metal. Accessed Online.
November 2011: http://yosemite.epa.gov/r1/npl_pad.nsf/8b160ae5c647980585256bba0066f907/b1c9a222 1ed8fe1985257918004d739f!OpenDocument

3. USEPA. H azardous Ranking System Documentation Record Leeds Metal. Accessed
Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/region1/superfund/sites/leeds/475949.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 280 Site Information

Site Name: Lighting Recyclers, Inc.
EPA ID No.: ORQ000005629
Address: 651 N. Russell St., Portland, OR 97227 County: Multnomah

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Lighting Recyclers was a permitted (solid waste permit) lamp facility operating in northeast Portland from 1997 to 1999

.

Description of Contamination: During a complaint investigation in 1999, it was found that the facility had exceeded its permit hazardous waste storage limits

. Hazardous waste was found stored in an uncovered dumpster

. Waste from the dumpster was found entering nearby storm
drain

. The company was also found to be mishandling mercury powder, some of which was blowing out through the door of the facility

. Also, the company imprope rly accumulated and stored more than 13,000 pounds of glass contaminated with mercury at the site

. Emission control equipment had been removed from the lamp crusher

. Lighting Recyclers received a $62,340 civil penalty on April 20, 2000 for violating hazard ous waste management laws and the company’s solid waste permit

. Required financial assurance was not available to assist cleanup when facility
closed

.

Sources of Information : Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. “DEQ Levies Penalties Totali ng $367,286 During
March

- April.” 25 May 2000. 22 January 2006. http://www.deq.state.or.us/news/prDisplay.asp?docID=434

US Army Corps of Engineers. “HTRW Center of Expertise Informatio n

– TDSF.” (n.d.). 22 January 2006. http://www.environmental.usace.army.mil/library/pubs/tsdf/sec6

- 3

- 4/sec6

- 3

- 4.html

Additional Contacts : Les Carlough (Enforcement Program Manager) (503) 229

- 5422Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 281 Site Information

Site Name: Lightman Drum Company
EPA ID No.: NJD014743678
Address: Route 73, Winslow Township, NJ 08009 County: Camden

NPL Site: Final: 10/22/1999
In CERCLIS Database: 200280

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Lightman Drum Company acquired the site in 1974 and recycled both full and empty drums until operations ceased in 1988

. The facility sometimes received full drums which required emptying before they could be cleaned and recycled; an on

- site pit was used to dispose of the contents

. After a complaint and legal action, the company agreed to upgrade its disposal technique and a 1977 inspection revealed the presence of two 5000

- gallon underground storage tanks on t he property. The facility accepted chemical powders, pesticides, waste oils, emulsions, oil sludges, paint, pigment, ink residues, ketones, alcohols, mixed solvents, acids and alkalis.

Recycling operations ceased at the site, following a 1988 Administrat ive Order which found significant contamination of hazardous substances as a result of the company’s operations

. Though these recycling operations no longer occur, United Cooperage is currently buying and selling used drums at the location.

In March 2000, USEPA sent out 32 letters to potentially responsible parties (PRP) who may have contributed to the contamination at the Site and may be liable for costs of the response actions. In November 2000 sixteen PRPs signed an Administrative Order on Consent to pe rform the remedial investigation and feasibility study at the site. USEPA expects that the ongoing remedial investigation and feasibility study will be completed in late 2006.

Description of Contamination : Between 1987 and 1988, both NJDEP and Lightman Dr um Company conducted sampling that revealed the soil at the site was contaminated with various
volatile and semi

- volatile organic compounds, metals, and pesticides

. Lightman Drum Company subsequently conducted a Remedial Investigation that revealed the gro und water at the site was
also contaminated.

Sources of Information : Mitchell, Tanya. (212) 637

- 4362, Interview 21 November 2005.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 282 USEPA. “Lightman Drum.” CERCLIS . 27 October 2005. 18 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0200280

USEPA. “NPL Site Fact Sheet: Lightman Drum Company.” (n.d.) 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/Region2/superfund/npl/0200280c.pdf

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Lightman Drum Company.” 22 October 1999. 18 January
2006

. http ://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0200280.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 283 Site Information

Site Name: Liquid Chemical Corp.
EPA ID No.: CAD990769465
Address: 10585 Industrial Avenue, Hanford, CA 93230 County: Kings

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0900394

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Liquid Chemical Corporation (LCC) is a former fertilizer manufacturer. The site was operational from 1970 until the late 1980's and produced liquid and dry zinc sulfate fertilizers utilizing hazardous waste (RCRA was te code K061) dust from the primary production of steel as a raw material

. Mineral King Minerals (MKM) has leased the facility from LCC

. MKM continues to produce zinc sulfate fertilizer and other organic fertilizers utilizing non

- hazardous waste raw materi als.

LCC was near bankrupt in 2001 and the current lessee, Mineral King, was under no obligation to
collect environmental data or remediate the site

. Although not obligated to do so, the lessee has voluntarily conducted extensive soil excavation at the s ite

. MKM has been working voluntarily with USEPA to address the contaminated surface soils by consolidating them into the former disposal lagoons and capping them. They have verbally agreed to collect additional groundwater samples to determine if groundwa ter is impacted.

This site was not RCRA permitted.

Description of Contamination : Soils at the facility have been heavily impacted by metals contamination consisting of lead (at concentrations up to 7%), zinc, cadmium, chromium, arsenic
and others

. Soils contamination is believed to occur primarily in surficial soils down to two to three feet below ground surface

. Several large disposal ponds exist on site and contain waste sludge (now dry granular waste) with high concentrations of metals. Results from g round water monitoring data are inconclusive; however, older data is of poor quality, but suggests that metals have leached to groundwater at concentrations of concern

. Additional data is needed to determine if LCC has impacted ground water. The primary contaminated media of concern in terms of human exposures is soil.

Elevated lead blood levels in site workers were noted in 1985

. Surface impoundments were not closed in 1984 because facility was intending to reclaim at the sludges

. The product contained 10 percent zinc, 2

- 3 percent lead, along with levels of copper, cadmium, and chrome.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 284 Potential sources of contamination (ponds with insufficient freeboard, K061 waste pile without wind controls) were observed after the effective date of RCRA

.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 9. “Documentation of Determination: Liquid Chemical.” 5 February 1999

. 17 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9coract.nsf/0/22acf29f5bba333688256acc00752419/$FILE/Li quid%20Chemical%20465%20EI%2000.pdf

EPA Region 9

. Email Correspondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 22 November
2005.

USEPA. “Liquid Chemical Corp.” CERCLIS

. 27 October 2005

. 24 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0900394

USEPA. “Liquid Chemical Corp.” RCRAInfo 27 June 2002

. 18 January 2006.

US EPA. “Mineral King Minerals, Inc.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.)

. 24 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110020489719

USEPA. “RCRA Cleanup Reforms Success Stories: Liquid Chemical Corporation

– Rapid Site Characterization and Contaminant Reduction.”
11 October 2001

. 17 January 2006

. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9coract.nsf/0/CF60DA596A96ACBD88256ED100569379?O penDocument

USEPA. “RCRA Corrective Action Environmental Indicator Forms Add endum: Liquid Chemical Corp.” 26 March 1999. 17 January 2006

. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9coract.nsf/0/22acf29f5bba3336 88256acc00752419/$FILE/Li quid%20Chemical%20465%20+%2000.pdf

Additional Contacts : Jere Johnsone (Site Assessment Manager) (415) 972

- 3094 Matt Mitguard (SAM) (415) 972

- 3096 Barry Cofer (RCRA inspector) 415

- 972

- 3303Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 285 Site Information
Site Name: Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.
EPA ID No.: CAD029295706
Address : 1515 S 10 th St., San Jose, CA 95112 County: Santa Clara
NPL Site: Final: 10/04/89
In CERCLIS Database: 0901287

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co. recycled drums at a plant in San Jose

. It began receiving barrels in 1947

. Many of the drums contained residual aqueous wastes, organic solvents, acids, oxidizers, caustic residues, and oils

. Between 1950 and 1978, a drainage ditch carried process wastes t o a large sump in the northern corner of property, and other ponded areas existed on site. Wastes from the sump were discharged to a storm drain system. Sometime between 1968 and 1971, the discharge was diverted to a sanitary sewer; investigations indicate that this discharge occurred until 1983 or 1984. After this time, liquid wastes were reportedly evaporated, drummed, and disposed of as hazardous waste along with incinerator ash, residual liquids, and sludge

. Surface runoff was collected and recycled in a drum wash.

The plant received Interim Status under Subtitle C of RCRA concurrently with the company’s filing of Part A of the permit application

. This site was removed as a treatment, storage, or disposal facility because it was deemed not to engage in hazardous waste activities

. The facility never properly managed the residuals from its drum

- refitting operation

. Ultimately, it stored residuals in drums that it was unable to refit; before that, it had been known to store residuals in pits and merely dra in them down the gutter

. Thus, over the course of its life, there were many potential paths along which the Lorentz contamination could be pinned

. The facility was shut down in Feb 1986 and in July 1987 the owner was sentenced to 2 years in jail and fined $2.04
million.

Description of Contamination : Monitored wells are contaminated with trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, 1

- 1 dichloroethylene, and tetracholoroethylene (PCE) due to the overflowing of sumps and spills

. The California Department of Health Ser vices (CDHS) discovered more than 300 drums contaminated by phenols, methylene chloride, and PCBs stored on the property.

In 1988, CDHS and the USEPA capped the site and removed 26,000 drums and 3,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil

. Also, the site was fenced, and most of the site area was paved

. In 1994, USEPA removed 1033 tons of industrial wastes, 15 tons of HW liquids, and 1200 containers including 150 drums of solvents, 23 drums of ash, and over a ton of asbestos

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 286 Groundwater cleanup remedies were selected in 1988 that included building an on

- site groundwater extraction and a treatment system which uses an ozone/ultraviolet process for organic removal with discharge of treated water to a local creek. In early 1991, a group of potentially responsibl

e parties completed optimization studies. In late 1992, construction of the system was completed, and full

- scale operation and maintenance project began. Groundwater treatment is expected to continue for 30 years.

In 1993, the USEPA completed an investiga tion to determine the extent and type of contamination at the site. Based on the results from this investigation, the USEPA selected a remedy that includes a soil vapor extraction system to clean contaminated soil and an asphalt

concrete cap to contain soi l contaminated with heavy metals

. The estimated cost of this cleanup was $1,970,000

. In 1996, the remaining underground conduits and contaminated sumps were removed and the contaminated soil and building debris was disposed off site

. By 1998 all
remedial a ction construction for the site was complete

.

Sources of Information: California Department of Toxic Substances Control

. “Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.” Site Cleanup

– Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database. (n.d.) 17 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/Calsites/CALP001.CFM?IDNUM=43300026

USEPA

. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.” 26 August 1993

. 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0993094.pdf

USEPA. “Five

- Year Review: Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.” 27 September 2000

. 17 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f00

- 09008.pdf

USEPA. “Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.” CERCLIS . 7 December 2005

. 24 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0901287

USEPA. “Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.)

. 24 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110002641954

USEPA. “NPL Fact Sheet: Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.” 4 October 1989. 17 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/sup erfund/sites/nplsnl/n0901287.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 287 USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.” 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplfs/fs0901287.pdf

Additional Contacts:
Shiann

- Jang Chern (RPM) Jere Johnson (SAM) (415) 972

- 3094 Chris Weden (OSC) (415) 972

- 3041Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 288 Site Information

Site Name: Lubrx Products, Inc
EPA ID No.: MAD985278654
Address: 342 East Washington Street, North Attleboro, MA 02761 County: Bristol

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0102150

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Between 1975 and 1994, Lubrx Products Inc., owned the 0.72

- acre site and manufactured and recycled lubricating oils. The property is currently occupied by a canvas products manufacturing company, a brick recycling business, and an automobile repair business

. The site has been occupied by companies with a history of blending and containerizing oil for distribution since 1914; a tank farm was once
located on

- site and a number of aboveground storage tanks with unknown contents are currently
at the location.

Description of Contamination: At the time of facility closure, known hazardous waste sources included, tanks and totes of varying volumes conta ining virgin and waste oil, an abandoned gasoline underground storage tank, the former tank farm location, and a debris pile containing used tires, automobile parts, wood debris, and empty plastic oil containers.

Analytical results of surface soil and was te oil samples collected from the property in October 1996 indicated the presence of three volatile organic compounds (VOCs), eight semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), three pesticides, and eight metals, including elevated levels of
chromium and lead

. Groundwater samples collected in 1989 also indicated the presence of several chlorinated VOCs, including vinyl chloride. Based on the direction of groundwater flow and the proximity of nearby groundwater drinking water supplies to the property, potential
i mpacts to groundwater drinking water sources are unknown

.

Finally, sediment samples collected in October 1996 from along the Tenmile River indicated the presence of 13 SVOCs, four pesticides, and 11 inorganic elements, including chromium, lead,
and mercu ry. Several of the substances detected in the sediment samples were also detected in

on

- site surface soil and waste oil samples.

The Lubrx property is classified by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) as a Tier 2 site and is currently in Phase II (Comprehensive Site Assessment) of theAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 289 five phase Massachusetts Contingency Plan. The MADEP has recommended that this site be assigned state lead status.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 1. “Waste Site Cleanup & Reuse in New England: Lubrx Products, Inc.” (n.d.). 17
November 2005. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r1/npl_pad.nsf/0/a3a8d7 c5e251dafd85256b4200604fd1?OpenDo

cument

USEPA. “Sanborn Inc dba Lubrx,” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 17 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110003420940

USEPA. “Lubrx Products Inc.,” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 17 January 2006. http://oas pub.epa.gov/enviro/cerclis_web.report?pgm_sys_id=MAD985278654

Additional Contacts: Nancy Smith (SAM) (617) 918

- 1436 smith.nancya@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 290 Site Information

Site Name: Lyon Property
EPA ID No.: TX0001861731
Address: London, TX County: Kimble

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : This property covers 6 acres in an area adjacent to the Llano River. A small wire burning operation was conducted at the site for metal recovery. The burn site encompassed an area of 75 feet by 60 feet. TNRCC first investigated the site in 1996 after receiving a complaint about burning.

Description of Contamination: The soil at the site was contaminated with barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and TPH

. Clean up at the site was completed August 31, 2004

. The cost of remediation was $60,717.33.

Sources of Information:

Dye, Carol (Project Contact) (512) 239

- 1504, Interview 7 December 2005.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

. “Lyon Property.” 26 March 2004

. 20 January
2006

. http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/superfund/state/lyonproperty.html

.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

. “Lyon Property Proposed State Superfund Site Kimble County, Texas: Community Relations Plan.” September 2002

. 20 January
2006

. http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/remediation/superfund/ register/pdf0 211.pdf

Additional Contacts:

Carol Dye, Project Contact, (512) 239

- 1504 or (800) 633

- 9363Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 291 Site Information

Site Name: Malone Services Company

- Swan Lake Plant

EPA ID No.: TXD980864789
Address: Loop 197, South Texas City, TX 77590 County: Galveston
NPL Site: Final: 6/14/2001
In CERCLIS Database: 0602922

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Malone Services Company (MSC) site covers approximately 150 acres. Approximately 100 acres in the northeastern portion of the site were developed for the storage, processing and disposal of industrial hazardous wastes. The facility operated from 1964 until 1996 or 1997. MSC was originally permitted as a waste oil reclamation facility, but later added hazardous waste underground injection/disposal wells. Wastes were received by the facility from a variety of industries. Wastes from the reclamation

proce ss were disposed of in the onsite deep injection wells. The original operation, which began in 1964, consisted of two earthen unlined pits which received incoming wastes. The larger pit, which served as a settling pond, was used for wastes with high solids and/or water content. The oil fraction would rise to the surface of the large pit where it was skimmed off and pumped to a smaller oil pit. Oils in the oil pit were then pumped to one of several tanks for treatment. The oil
was then resold as waste oil fo r energy recovery. American Petroleum Institute (API) separators were installed in 1979 and 1987 to replace the settling pond and oil pit; however the pond and pit were never cleaned/removed, hazardous liquid wastes and solids still remain in the open larg e pit and closed small oil pit. Oils separated in the two API units were pumped to holding/treatment tanks; waste water was pumped to the injection wells for disposal and the solids were sent to an offsite hazardous waste landfill for disposal. The site ha d its operating permit revoked by Texas and has been in bankruptcy since July of 1988.

Description of Contamination: The two sources of contamination on the site are the settling basin surface impoundment/earthen impoundment and the oil pit

. The wastewate r settling pond, the waste collection pond and the stormwater pond were excavated through the shallow channel sand aquifer and into the underlying clay layer, and therefore, the wastewater ponds supply/supplied contaminants to the shallow ground water. Gro undwater sampling results indicate that groundwater has been impacted by hazardous wastes in the area of the inactive 5

- acre impoundment and the 100 Unit Separator. The principal contaminants of concern at this site are the myriad of organic and inorganic chemical wastes in the form of liquids, sludges and solids present in the above ground storage tanks, the API separators, the settling pond, and the surface soils of some of the secondary containment areas on the site. Some hazardous substancesAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 292 such as chl

orinated solvents, phenols, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chromium, and lead have contaminated the underlying groundwater, adjacent wetlands and the bay which is a National Estuary and a major fishery

. The groundwater pathway appears to be the only ong oing active release of hazardous substances occurring at the site.

Sources of Information: Texas Department of Health under a Cooperative Agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

. “Public Health Assessment: Malone Services Comp any

– Swan Lake Plant.” 30 January 2002

. 20 January 2006

. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/malone/msc_toc.html.

USEPA

. “Malone Service Company Fact Sheet.” 10 January 2006

. 20 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6sf/pdffiles/0602922.pdf

.

USEPA. “

Malone Services Co

– Swan Lake Plant Facility Detail Report.” Envirofacts Data
Warehouse

. (n.d.). 20 January 2006. http://oaspu

b.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=1100093
13484.

USEPA

. “NPL Site Narrative for Malone Service Company Inc.” 7 October 2004

. 20 January
2006

. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1611.htm.

USEPA

. “Superfund Site Progr ess Profile : Malone Service Co

- Swan Lake Plant .” CERCLIS

. 27 October 2005

. 20 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0602922

Zehner, Warren. E

PA On

- scene coordinator. Pollution Report to Director, OERR

. 25 September
2001

. 20 January 2006

. http://yosemite1.epa.gov/r6/polreps.nsf/0/6f449ba1bbed17be86256c7800603cb9?OpenD
ocument,

Additional Contacts: Charles David Abshire, Remedial Project Manager (214) 665

- 7188 Alan Etheredge (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) Project Manager Superfund Cleanup Section (512) 239

- 2139 Donn Walters (CIC) (214) 665

- 6483 Anne Foster (Site Attorney) (214) 665.2169
I

- jung Chiang, (214) 665

- 2160Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 293 Karen Bond (State Coordinator) (214) 665

- 6682 Arnold Ondarza (Region 6 Public Liaison) (800) 533

- 3508 or 303

- 312

- 6777 Warren Zehner, (On

- scene Coordinator) 281

- 983

- 2229Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 294 Site Information

Site Name: Many Diversified Interests *
EPA ID No.: TXD008083404
Address: 3617 Baer Street, Houston, TX 77020 County: Harris

NPL Site: Final: 1/19/1999
In CERCLIS Database: 0605008

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Steel casting operations began at the
36

- acre site in 1926 under the company name Texas Electric Steel Casting Company (TESCO)

. Primary operations included manufacturing specialty molds and casting specialty steel parts. During the 1980s, the southern por tion of the site was leased to Can

- Am Resources Group (Can

Am) to operate a spent catalyst recycling operation. Can

- Am reportedly purchased 4,236 drums of spent catalyst material from refineries and chemical plants, and stored the drums on the leased porti on of the site. By 1988, the catalyst recycling operations ceased, and the stored drums were abandoned on site. In February 1991, TESCO ceased operations. Many Diversified Interests (MDI) foreclosed on the site and later reopened as the San Jacinto Foundry (SJF), a subsidiary of MDI. MDI filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy on May 20, 1992, and SJF ceased facility operations on approximately June 1, 1992. The on

- site facilities were demolished as a salvage operation under order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court between Ma rch 1995 and January 1996

. USEPA is currently performing a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the Site.

Description of Contamination : Poor housekeeping practices and site abandonment led to environmental damage

. In the north and south drum storage areas, 5,355 drums, reportedly containing spent catalyst from chemical companies and refineries, were found to be deteriorating and leaking. In 1994, soil samples taken revealed elevated concentrations of arsenic, chromium, cobalt, copper, le ad, and nickel in the drum storage areas. (Other damage not related to recycling included elevated concentrations of arsenic, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, and nickel in the landfill located in the southern portion of the site, which reportedly received inorganic slag and foundry sand; approximately 41 acres of contaminated soil located within the MDI property boundary; and contaminated soil at 64 nearby residences.)

In 1998 and 1999, the PRPs performed an extensive drum removal action under EPA oversig ht. The action included removal of more than 4,000 drums containing spent refinery and petrochemical catalysts from the Can

- Am operation and visibly contaminated soils

. Following removal, EPA undertook remediation activities

. According to the Record of Dec ision (ROD) for the site, remediation of the site was estimated to cost EPA more than $6.6 million, whichAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 295 includes costs for remediation of contaminated on

- site soils and ground

- water due to recycling and landfilling activities

.

Sources of Information: USEPA. “Many Diversified Interests Inc Fact Sheet.” 13 January 2006. 20 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6sf/pdffiles/0605008.pdf

USEPA. “Many Diversified Interests.” On

- Scene Coordinator Profile

. n.d. 20 January 2006

. http://www.epaosc.net/site_profile.asp?site_id=06FE.

USEPA. “

Many Diversified Interests Facility Detail Report.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.). 20 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=1100050
37361

USEPA

. “Record of Decision: Many Diversified Interests, I nc.” 30 July 2004. 25 February 2008

. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0604098.pdf

USEPA

. “Superfund Site Progress Profile : Many Diversified Interests Inc .” CER CLIS

. 11 September 2006

. 23 October 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0605008Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 296 Site Information

Site Name: Maralco
EPA ID No.: WAD053825352
Address: 7730 S. 202 nd , Kent, WA 98032 County: King

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Maralco operated an aluminum recycling/refinery business at the site from 1980

- 1986

. The site filed for bankruptcy in 1983 and has not been cleaned up since. Aluminum alloy ingots from aluminum cans and other aluminum metal scrap were produced at the site

. The aluminum scrap was melted and processed in rotary barrel and reverberatory furnaces

. The rotary barrel furnace was charged with salt to act as a flux to remove impurities and preve nt oxidation of the aluminum

. The salt and impurities separated from the aluminum, resulting in a waste black dross that was stored in a waste pile on

site

. There are presently about 20,000 cubic yards in the pile. Wastes produced included black dross, fur nace slag, and baghouse dust, most of which were stored on

- site

. Although the technology used for recycling was considered old even at the time they started business, it was considered a legitimate recycling process.

The dross designates as hazardous wast e in Washington as state

- only hazardous waste due to the salts, which are toxic to rats, and some of the dross has copper which is toxic to fish

. The waste pile has yet to be fully characterized and portions of the pile may need to be disposed as
hazardous waste

. A developer is currently sampling the site to characterize the waste and, depending on the results, may conduct the cleanup in order to purchase the property.

Description of Contamination : Groundwater, surface water, sediment, and soil all have

co nfirmed priority pollutant metal contamination.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 10. Email Correspondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste).
20 November 2005.

MK

- Environmental Services

. “Phase 1 Remedial Investigation Report.” February 1991.

USEPA. “Safety Kleen Systems 315401 Facility Detail Report.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 297 (n.d.). 18 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=1100053
22310

Washington Department of Ecology

. “Facility/Site Detail.” (n.d.). 18 January 2006

. http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/fs/detail.asp?FS_ID=2067

Additional Contacts: Norm Peck, Toxics Cleanup Program, Washington Department of Ecology, (425) 649

- 7047Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 298 Site Information

Site Name: Marine Shale Processors
EPA ID No.: LAD981057706
Address: Route 5, Box 756, Amelia, LA 70340 County: St. Mary
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0604037

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Marine Shale, located in Morgan City, was permitted by the state of Louisiana in 1985 to process non

- hazardous oilfield wastes

. The company then began to burn hundreds of different hazardous wastes, and attempted to sell the
metal

- laden residue as fill ma terial to the public for $1 a ton

. In 1990, the federal government and Louisiana sued Marine Shale over whether the company could distribute its combustion residue as a recycled product

. The federal and state governments alleged that Marine Shale's recycli ng claim was a sham, and that the facility had no permit to treat hazardous waste

. They also alleged Marine Shale violated federal clean air and clean water laws as well as hazardous waste regulations

. After a string of rulings by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Co urt of Appeals upholding the federal government's arguments, the Environmental Protection Agency shut down Marine Shale's Morgan City incinerator.

The Marine Shale Processing, Inc. (MSP) processes solid and hazardous wastes to produce aggregate for sale. The aggregate has been used in construction as a road cover and as a fill
material. On

- site buildings on site house administrative, maintenance, laboratory, and process control functions. Other portions of the facility are used for waste material handling, storage, and preparation for feeding to the process kiln. Process aggregate is also stored on site. MSP has operated at its current location since 1985. MSP burns solid and hazardous materials and pumpable high BTU (high heat value) liquids to produce a r esidue. That residue can be sold as is, if certain criteria are met, or it can be further processed at high temperatures to produce a slagged (molten) aggregate. Solid and hazardous materials fed to the process kiln are weighed and screened before being em ptied and mixed in the holding feed tanks. About 10 percent of incoming feed materials are sampled to verify their shipping manifests. Incoming shipments are screened for gamma radiation

. Shipping containers are shredded and also processed in the kiln.
All process residue and slagged aggregate is chemically analyzed by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) procedure before being released for sale. If the residue or slagged aggregate exceeds 80 percent of the USEPA TCLP standards, it is repro cessed in the slagging furnace. Fly ash, captured by the plant's air pollution control devices, is also processed with aggregate in the slagging furnace

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 299 The primary combustion chamber used in the process is a 275

- foot

- long rotary kiln furnace operated a t a minimum of 1,600o F. According to MSP, the flue gas remains in the chamber for 9 seconds. Combustion products from the rotary kiln are further reacted in two "oxidizer sections" or afterburners. The slagging furnace is located between the oxidizers and is operated at 2300o F to 2700o F. The flue gas residence time of the oxidizers is about 10 to 12 seconds. From the oxidizers, the hot exhaust gases pass through a wet quench system to cool them before gas cleaning. After cooling, dry powdered hydrated li me is sprayed into the gas stream to neutralize acid gases produced during the combustion process. Finally, the exhaust gases are passed through fabric filters (baghouses) before release to the environment. MSP reports the combustion system has a number of safeguards intended to minimize the severity and duration of process
breakdown conditions. Those conditions could disturb the balance of combustion reactions and ultimately lead to excessive air emissions from the process stack. Automatic waste feed shuto ff (AWFSO) devices are used in conjunction with the monitoring of critical operating temperatures, pressures, and exhaust gas quality. If such operating conditions exceed or fall below acceptable limits, waste feed to the kiln is automatically stopped by t he AWFSO/feed interlock. A related safeguard is the continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS). Monitored parameters include hydrogen chloride (HCl), sulfur dioxide, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and argon; there are also provisions for monitoring carbon mono xide and total hydrocarbons.

A RCRA permit was issued to GTX in February 1999

.

Description of Contamination: On September 12, 1997 Marine Shale Processors agreed to pay more than $10 million to settle federal and state allegations it incinerated hazardo us waste without a permit and planned to sell the contaminated ash as fill material to the public

. A second company, GTX Inc., is spending $25 million to buy and upgrade the incinerator, and clean up the contaminated ash that remains in Morgan City, near t he central coast of Louisiana

. As part of the agreement, GTX Inc., will purchase Marine Shale's incinerator and clean up about 350,000 tons of contaminated ash remaining in Morgan City, at an estimated cost of $15 million

. GTX will be allowed to reopen the facility as long as it obtains all of the environmental permits required to operate a hazardous waste incinerator

. GTX also will invest $10 million to upgrade the plant's pollution control equipment, which will result in cleaner air and water in the area

. Once GTX reopens the incinerator, it will bring all of the combustion ash it produces to a new state

- of

- the

art disposal facility

. The settlement barred the former owners of Marine Shale, who are part owners of GTX, from controlling the new company or ha ving any control over operation of the
incinerator

. Marine Shale's former top managers also are prohibited from participating in any environmental compliance or permitting matters.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 300 Sources of Information: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. "Petitioned Public Health

Assessment, Marine Shale Processors, Inc. Amelia, St. Mary Parish, Louisiana." 17 October 1994. 20 January 2006. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/marinesp/msp_toc.html

US Department of Justice. "US, Louisiana secure $35 million settlement with two companies to

clean up hazardous waste and reopen incinerator." 12 September 1997. 20 January
2006

. http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1997/September97/379enr.html

USEPA. “GTX, Inc.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.)

. 25 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000700563

USEPA. “GTX Inc.” RCRA Info. 2 September 2000. 18 January 2006.

USEPA. "Marine Shale Processors." CERCLIS . 27 October 2005. 20 January 20 06. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0604037

Additional Contacts: Philip Ofosu (SAM) (214) 665

- 3178 Jon Rinehart (SAM) (214) 665

- 6789 Susan Webster ( OSC) (214) 665

- 6784Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 301 Site Information

Site Name: Martin Aaron, Inc.
EPA ID No.: NJD014623854
Address : 1542 South Broadway, Camden, NJ 08104 County: Camden
NPL Site: Final 8/23/1999
In CERCLIS Database: 0200278

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Martin Aaron, Inc. site has been used by a variety of companies for more than 100 years

. Kifferty Morocco Manufacturing Co. operated a tannery at the site from 1887 until 1908

. The site was bought by Castle Kid Co. and
manufactured glazed leathers until it was seized for tax delinquency in 1940

. The site was then bought by Benjamin Schmerling and leased to H. Preston Lowden Co. for wool and hair blending and to American Chain and Cable Co. for manufacturing

. Martin Aaron purchased t he property in 1968, and operated a drum reconditioning facility onsite until 1987

. Martin Aaron purchased solvent

- contaminated drums, reconditioned the drums, and then resold the clean drums. Rhodes Drum and Westfall Ace (WADCO) bought the business in 198 5, while Martin Aaron maintained ownership of the property, and ran similar drum reconditioning businesses that operated separately onsite

. WADCO ran its drum reconditioning operation from 1985 through 1994 when it was liquidated in bankruptcy proceeding; Rhodes Drum ran its operation from 1985 through 1998

. All three companies were RCRA

- permitted facilities

.

During these various reconditioning operations “empty” drums were turned upside down and allowed to drain into tanks, after which the drums were pre ssure washed, steam

- rinsed and dried,
sand

- blasted, inspected for integrity, and repainted. The residues from drum contents, rinsate,
and steam blow

- down were drained from tanks and floor drains into skimming basins. Sludge
was skimmed from the basins for off

- site disposal, and the acidic water was neutralized and reused in the plant. The process also generated baghouse dust (from sand

- blasting) and spray paint wastes.

USEPA announced on October 24, 2005 that it plans to clean up contamination in the soil and ground water at this site

. Under the plan, USEPA will excavate contaminated soil, treat it if necessary, and dispose of the excavated soil off of the site

. Some of the site will be covered with a cap, and future uses of the site will be restricted to e nsure that the capped area is not disturbed

. Ground water will be pumped to the surface, cleaned up and then discharged into the sewer
system.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 302 In July 2005, USEPA developed a proposed plan for the Martin Aaron Site

. They developed
several remedial alterna tives for soil and groundwater at the site as seen below

. The costs for
each alternative are below.

As of September 30, 2004, cleanup expenditure at this site was $2,127,078.29.

Description of Contamination : From 1981 through 1995, NJDEP and USEPA cited operators for numerous violations, including unpermitted discharges, non

- notification of spills and releases, and improper handling, storage, and disposal of drums. Site operators used the outdoor paved and unpaved areas of the property for drum stor age

. Holes were dug throughout the property for the disposal of wastes

. Between 200 and 1,000 containers of waste were buried
onsite

. According to NJDEP, chemical wastes were illegally disposed of as late as March 1999

.

In 1997, NJDEP initiated a remedia l investigation (RI) , using state funds, for both soil and groundwater to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site

. The NJDEP RI soil results showed that both surface and subsurface soil contamination including chlorinated and
aromatic volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi

- VOCs consisting mainly of poly

- aromatic hydrocarbons, metals, pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were widespread throughout the Martin Aaron property

. The RI found groundwater contamination in both shal low and some of the deeper monitoring wells installed on the property

. In 1999, NJDEP requested that USEPA take the lead in completing studies of the contamination on the site

. USEPA’s findings revealed that soil contaminated with VOCs and arsenic is conta minating ground water

. The onsite and offsite damage is extensive, resulting from improper handling of solvent

contaminated drums, improperly designed drum drainage systems, leaking and dumping of solvents into soil, groundwater, and wastewater streams, an d illegal burial of contaminated
drums onsite.

Sources of Information Austin, Mark (RPM) (212) 637

- 3954, Interview 20 June 2005.

EPA Region 2

- News. “EPA to clean up superfund site in Camden county.” 24 October 2005. 18 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/region02/news/2005/05120.htm

EPA Region 2. “Superfund Program Proposed Plan for Martin Aaron Superfund Site.” July 2005. 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/martin_aaron_proposal2005.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 303 USEPA. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). September 30, 2004. 18 January
2006.

USEPA. “Martin Aaron Inc.” CERCLIS

. 27 October 2005. 18 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0200278

USEPA. “NPL Fact Sheet: Martin Aaron.” (n.d.). 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/0200278c.pdf

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Martin Aaron, Inc.” 22 July 1999. 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1559.htm

USEPA. “Superfund Redevelopment Program: Martin Aaron.” July 2000. 18 January 2006.

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pilot/facts/r2_12.htmAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 304 Site Information

Site Name: Master Metals Inc.
EPA ID No.: ODH097613871
Address: 2850 West 3 rd St., Cleveland, OH 44113 County: Cuyahoga

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0504506

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Master Metals was a secondary and refining smelting facility of nonferrous metals, which accepted lead dross, lead acid batteries, scrap and baghouse dust

. NL Lead Industries Inc. operated the facility f rom 1933 until 1979

. Master Metals Inc. bought the facility and continued operations until 1993 when Ohio EPA shut the facility down after a long history of air quality and other violations

. The site did not have a RCRA permit.

Description of Contaminati on : Contamination is due to storing wastes in piles on the ground

. Lead contamination was found in their soil as well as in a residential neighborhood where the
residences had contracted with Master Metals for fill dirt

. This contamination occurred in the early 1990s

. As of September 2004, cleanup expenditures at this site amounted to $309,300.98.

Sources of Information : USEPA. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). 30 September 2004. 20 January 2006.

USEPA. “Final Cleanup Begins at Master Metals Site.” EPA Region 5. 24 March 2003. 22 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/Region5/news/news03/03opa043.htm

USEPA. “Master Metals Incorporation .” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 22 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0504506

USEPA. “Master Metals Inc.” RCRA Info. 15 September 2000. 18 J anuary 2006.

Additional Contacts : Bri Bill (CIC): (312) 353

- 6646 Robert Buckley (OSC): (734) 692

- 7662 Rosanne Ellison (OSC): (734) 692

- 7689 Gwenn Massenburg (RPM): (312) 886

- 0983Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 305 Site Information:

Site Name: Matteo Iron and Metal
EPA ID No.: NJD991304072
Address : 1708 Route 130, Thorofare, NJ 08086 County: Gloucester

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0204061

Description of Recycling Operation : A scrap metal recycling facility currently operates at the northeast portion of this site. Prior to its purchase by Matteo & Sons, the property was a farm. NJDEP has conducted numerous inspections of the site dating back to the early 1970s. During these inspections it was noted that portions of the property had been used to landfill domestic and industrial waste. In addition, it has been reported that at one time the current operator recycled vehicle batteries and landfilled the battery casings near Hessian Run. Reviews of historical aerial photographs have confirmed that significant disturbances occurred at this area during the past

.

Funding sources for the site include the 1986 Bond Fund ($87,000) and the Corporate Business Tax ($1,102,000)

.

Description of Contamination : A site inspection conducted by NJDEP in1991 revealed partially crushed 55

- gallon drums containing various materials that appeared to be waste petroleum product. Preliminary sampling has confirmed that the soil and ground water at the site and the sediments in Hessian Run are contaminated with organic compounds and lead

. Conta minates in the soil included petroleum hydrocarbons, lead, arsenic, and PCBs.

Sources of Information : New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. “ NJ Publicly Funded Cleanups Site Status

Report 2003 : Matteo Iron & Metal.” 2003. 15 January 2006. http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/publications/site_status/2003/pdf/gloucester.pdf

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. “Site Remediation and Waste Management: Matteo Iron & Metal.” 5 October 2004. 18 January 2006. http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/community/sites/pi/026178.htm

USEPA. “Matteo & Sons, Inc.” CERCLIS

. 27 October 2005. 18 January 2006

. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0204061Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 306 Site Information:

Site Name: McBay Oil and Gas
EPA ID No.: None
Address : Farm Road 1272, Grapeland, TX County: Houston
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Description of Recycling Operation : From 1941 to 1959, the McBay Oil and Gas site was the location of an oil refinery. It then became a waste oil reclamation plant until all operations
ceased in 1987. At that time, site facilities included approximately 30 above

- ground tanks, six earthen disposal pits, three concrete pits, and one saltwater injection well. More than 30 drums were scattered across the site. In January 1987, the site was listed on t he Texas Superfund Registry.

On May 9, 2003, the Texas Attorney General published a legal notice in the Texas Register, (28 TexReg 3857) proposing resolution of an environmental lawsuit against a potentially responsible party in accordance with §7.110 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, and inviting public written comment on the determination that the potentially responsible party has satisfied the terms and condition of the administrative order as to his divisible share of the waste, and providing for a
release from the administrative order.

Description of Contamination : Contaminants from the drums onsite included arsenic, barium, benzene, chromium, ethylbenzene, hydrocarbons, lead, naphthalene, and xylene

. Soil on the site was contaminated, and a remed ial investigation found groundwater contamination

. Cleanup is still underway.

Sources of Information : Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

. “McBay Oil and Gas.” 15 October 2004

. 21 January 2006

. http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/superfund/state/mcbay.html

.

Additional Contacts : Alan Etheredge (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) (512) 239

- 2139, aethered@tceq.state.tx.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 307 Site Information

Site Name: Melton Kelly Property
EPA ID No.: TX0000852111
Address: NE County Road 3250 S. of FM 85, Ennis, TX County: Navarro
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0605204

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Melton Kelly Property is 13 acres of privately owned property

. The property was used by the owner (now deceased) to conduct metal salvaging operations. On or before February 1, 1994, salvage materials (insulated copper wire, tubing, electrical parts, switches, and circuit cards, etc.) were transported to the site, placed in piles, and burned using automobile tires to ignite the debris

. Recoverable metals were removed from the ash piles and presumably sold for salvage value

. Remaining scrap and ash

- like wastes were left in place

. The site consists of three burn areas containing eight ash piles. The
total burn area is almost an acre in size

. In 2001, the site was listed on Texas’ Superfun d registry and the site was deleted in February 2004 after cleanup of the site was deemed complete.

Description of Contamination: The soil and groundwater at the site were polluted with cadmium, copper, chromium, inorganics, semi

- volatiles, and pesticides

.

Sources of Information: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

. “McBay Oil and Gas.” 26 March 2005

. 21 January 2006

. http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/superfund/state/melkelly.html.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

. “Notice of Final Deletion of Melton Kelly Property from the Texas Superfund Registry as published in the Texas Register (29 TexReg 1439

- 1440).” 13 February 2004

. 21 January 2006

. http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/remediation/superfund/register/pdf0261.pdf

.

USEPA. “

Melton E Kelly Deceased Facility Detail Report.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 21 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.d isp_program_facility?p_registry_id=1100172
79452

.

USEPA. “

Melton Kelly Property Facility Detail Report.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 21 January 2006.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 308 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=1100093
12715

.

USEPA

. “Site Information: Melton Kelly Property.” CERCLIS

. 27 October 2005

. 20 January
2006

. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0605204

.

Additional Contacts: Barry Lands (Project Contact) (512) 239

- 6547 or (800) 633

- 9363, blands@tceg.state.tx.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 309 Site Information

Site Name: Mercury Refining, Inc.
EPA ID No.: NYD048148175
Address : Railroad Ave., Colonie, NY 12205 County: Albany

NPL Site: Final: 9/8/1983
In CERCLIS Database: 0201552

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Mercury Refining, Inc. reclaimed mercury from batteries, thermometers, electrical switches and other mercury

- bearing materials from 1955 to 1998 when the operations were sold to Mercury Waste Solutions who currently operates on the site

. Operations beginning in 19 55 included (1) receiving hazardous waste from
off

- site; (2) storing this waste on

- site; (3) reclaiming silver and other precious metals; and (4) reclaiming metallic mercury from off

- specification metallic mercury, mercury batteries and other

mercury

- beari ng wastes

. The mercury was reclaimed using retort (condensation) furnaces at the facility

. This facility was a commercial hazardous waste facility because hazardous waste was
received from off

- site for on

- site storage

. The 0.5

- acre property was a “dumping area” covered with thousands of battery casings at depths of at least 3 feet

. Mercury Refining had a RCRA permit to store mercury, and also had a Corrective Action permit

. It received its RCRA B permit on December 31, 1996; however, it expired on December 31, 2001

. Currently, the site serves as a facility for the recovery of precious metals

. This reclamation process is exempt from RCRA regulation

.

As of September 30, 2004, clean up costs amounted to $2,615,392.88

.

Description of Contamination : Site oper ators dumped waste batteries behind an on

- site building until 1980

. After 1980, these wastes were stored in drums or on wooden pallets on pavement

. USEPA required the operators to add a container storage facility rather than dumping

waste

. Groundwater, sed iments, and soils on

- site are contaminated with heavy metals not limited to mercury, zinc, and lead; PCB contamination also exists

.

A majority of the contamination at the site is due to two fires which occurred on September 14, 1989 and April 10, 1999

. T hese fires caused mercury to mobilize into the environment causing runoff into a nearby tributary of the Hudson River

. Additionally, atmospheric deposition of mercury is an issue in the buildings on

- site

. The company failed to comply with NYSDEC orders
and corrective action permits leading to USEPA intervention in 1999

. USEPA cannot excavate to remove all the mercury because of a railroad track that runs near the site

. Studies are beingAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 310 performed by Mississippi State University to explore the use of electo

- kinetics to assist in site cleanup

.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 2

- Superfund. “Mercury Refining Company, Inc.” February 2004. 19 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region02/waste/fsmere co.pdf

USEPA. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). 30 September 2004. 19 January
2006.

USEPA. “Mercury Refining.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 19 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0201552

USEPA. “NPL Fact Sheet: Mercury Refining, Inc.” (n.d.) 19 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/Region2/superfund/npl/020155 2c.pdf

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Mercury Refining, Inc.” 8 September 1983. 19 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0201552.pdf

Additional Contacts:

Tom Tac cone (RPM) (212) 637

- 4281Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 311 Site Information

Site Name: Metals Recycling, LLC
EPA ID No.:
Address: 89 Celia Street, Johnston RI 02919 County: Providence

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Metals Recycling LLC is an 18

- acre site which purchases and recycles old cars, appliances and scrap metal

. When vehicles arrive on site, they are dismantled and shredded, leaving behind one of three types of by

- products: iron,

non

- iron metals and auto shr edder residue (ASR)

. From the late 1980s to January 1999, ASR was used as a daily cover at the Central Landfill until a joint state and federal investigation resulted in a cessation of shipments to the Central Landfill.

Description of Contamination: In 1999, USEPA testing revealed that auto shredder residue was improperly storing lead which had caused contamination

. The auto shredder residue also contained PCBs in excess of 50 parts per million

. In November 2001, Metals Recycling LLC
entered into 2 a dministrative consent orders with USEPA for violations of RCRA

. The company agreed to pay $200,000 in penalties and reduce lead contamination in piles of improperly stored,
nonmetallic hazardous waste at its 18

- acre site

. Metals Recycling violated regulati ons regarding operation, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous waste and in December 2003, Metals Recycling was ordered to pay $250,000 into the state’s environmental response fund

.

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management also iss ued three air pollution violations in 2000 and 2001 for objectionable odors resulting from their process water holding basin going septic and causing hydrogen sulfide odors throughout the neighborhood. Metals eventually modified their process to prevent la rge amounts of process water with organics (ASR residues) going into the pond. Metals paid DEM $32,500 in penalties on these cases.

Metal Recycling was also forced to pay a $25,000 penalty and perform clean ups which amounted to $500,000 for water violat ions stemming from processing and storing auto shredder residue on their process which was the result of contamination that was initially discovered in
1993

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 312 Sources of Information: Daily Environment Report No. 220. “Rhode Island Recycler to Pay $200,000 Fine.” BNA, Inc. 16 November 2001. 23 January 2006.
h ttp://pubs.bna.com/NWSSTND/IP/BNA/den.nsf/SearchAllView/C6E1709CF80A976D8 5256B06001098A9?Open&highlight=RECYCLER

Mastrati, Gail (Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

– RI DEM) gail.mastrati@D EM.RI.GOV , Email 18 January 2006.

USEPA. “Metals Recycling, LLC.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 23 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_lis t?facility_uin=110002370470

Additional Contacts: Mark Merchant (Office of the Regional Administrator, EPA New England) (617) 918

- 11013 Gail Mastrati (RI DEM) 222

- 4700 ext. 2402 Stephanie Powell (RI DEM) 222

- 4700 ext. 4418Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 313 Site Name: Metro Container Corporation
EPA ID No.: PAD044545895
Address: 2nd & Price Street, Trainer, PA, 19061 County: Delaware
NPL Site: Yes
In CERCLIS Database: PAD044545895

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Metro Container Corporation (Metro Container) site is a 10.4 acre property located approximately 20 miles south of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in a mixed industrial/commercial/residential area along the Delaware
River.

The site has a long industrial history. At the close of the 19th century, the site was occupied by the Delaware Oil Works. From 1920 until 1959, the Stauffer Chemical Company, Inc. (Stauffer) operated a chemical manufacturing plant on the property. Historical site maps and aerial photo graphs indicate that Stauffer constructed a waste disposal lagoon in the 1950s in the southwest corner of the site, adjacent to Stoney Creek. In April 1963, the property was purchased by the Joseph A. Reis Company and converted into a steel drum reconditio ning facility. The Joseph A. Reis Company filed for bankruptcy sometime prior to January 1969, when the Universal Container Corporation (Universal Container) took ownership of the property from a bankruptcy trustee

. After several changes in ownership, in 1 983, the property was sold to the Metro Container Corporation. This company was the last in the series of owners who conducted drum reconditioning operations at the site. Drum reconditioning ended in December 1987 when Metro Container filed for bankruptcy. The site is currently owned by Trainer Industries, an industrial painting company. The site is used mainly for storage as most of the painting takes place offsite

. No industrial activities are currently conducted at the site.

At the height of its industrial operations, Metro Container received approximately 450,000 to 500,000 drums per year, many filled with hazardous materials, paints, solvents, petroleum products, and other substances. The drums would arrive at the facility and be stored in stack ed rows on the western end of the facility just north of the converted drum reclaiming building. The drums would be moved into the building via a conveyor where they were emptied into two different types of product tanks/vessels and pre

- flushed prior to ca ustic being applied to the exterior to strip off the paint. The outside of the drums were then rinsed before interior cleaning using caustic. Following the caustic cleaning, interior metal stripping was performed using hydrochloric acid followed by cold ri nsing. After phosphatizing, siphoning, drying, de

- denting, short blasting, and leak testing were performed, the drums were dried, repainted, baked, andAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 314 moved to the warehouse before shipment to customers

. Storage tanks were distributed throughout the prope rty to support treatment of the generated rinsate water and the recovering of product and sludges from the drums themselves, including storage of acid, alum, caustic, toluene, No. 5 fuel oil, waste oil, spent caustic , dissolved air floatation sludge, waste water, chemicals, and paints.

The contents of the drums and the fluids generated in the drum cleaning process were reportedly treated to remove oil and grease, and then underwent pH adjustment and flocculation through the
addition of aluminum sulfate and a polymer. The treated wastewater was decanted and reused as rinse water in the drum cleaning operations. During each day of operation, about 10% of the reused rinse water was removed and replaced by fresh water to control the build

- up of chlorides

. This r emoved wastewater was reportedly discharged to the Delaware County Regional Water Quality Control Authority (DELCORA) sewer system after additional treatment and pH adjustment. Sludge from the wastewater operation was thickened with lime and transported of f

site to the Sumptor Landfill in Sumptor, Michigan, although site investigations have shown that sludge was also buried on site.

The site is composed of two sources and releases of hazardous substances to surface water

. The
sources include the former was te disposal lagoon (Source 1), and contaminated soil (Source 2) in the facility area. These sources contain hazardous substances, including polyaeromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), cadmium, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

. Contamination, as a resul

t of releases of hazardous substances via overland flow migration and direct deposition, has been documented in sediment within Stoney Creek and the Delaware
River

. This contamination threatens the Delaware River human food chain fishery and sensitive
envi ronments.

In July 1991, the owner/operators of Metro Container plead guilty in Federal court to charges of violating Federal environmental statutes and with conspiracy to violate the statues during Metro Container’s ownership of the facility. Violations i ncluded dumping of hazardous waste and discharge of contaminated water into Stoney Creek, storing hazardous waste illegally, disposing of hazardous waste on the property illegally, particularly burying the waste outside, dumping it
inside the former drum r econditioning building and covering it with concrete to conceal the waste; and walling

- up a room where hundreds of drums containing hazardous chemicals were stored. In addition to discharging polluted water into Stoney Creek, violations included dischargin g wastewater into the sewers of DELCORA that exceeded pollution effluent limits specified in the facility permit, and for sabotaging DELCORA’s effluent monitoring devices so that Metro Container could pump untreated wastewater into the DELCORA system witho utAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 315 detection

. After DELCORA shut off the facility’s access to the sewer system (which occurred in December 1987), Metro Container operators dumped waste directly into Stoney Creek.

Description of Contamination : The main source of contamination remaining o n the property is a backfilled industrial waste lagoon which is about 0.5 acres in size. This lagoon was used for disposal of drum contents and wastewater until a wastewater treatment system was constructed on site. The unlined lagoon was eventually filled in with soil and artificial fill materials and is no longer accessible. Additionally, site soils are contaminated. This contamination has been traced to the tidal flats adjacent to the Delaware River. Although PCBs are the main contaminants of concern, th

e site is also contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), PAHs, and inorganics.

The tidal flats along the Delaware River are contaminated, and fishing occurs in this area. There is a fishing advisory along the Delaware from Trenton, New Jersey to the C&D Canal in Delaware for the consumption of finfish due to PCBs, dioxin, mercury, and chlorinated pesticides associated with releases at the site.

In December 1987, a site inspection and sampling were performed by EPA Emergency Response
and Techni

cal Assistance Tea m personnel to determine if an immediate threat existed at the site. The following observations were made during the inspection: (1) approximately 60,000 preconditioned drums were on site; (2) shutdown of the facility’s wastewater treatme nt system resulted in the build

- up of untreated sludge, which was stored in the concrete holding tank and thousands of unsecured drums throughout the facility; and (3) the property was unfenced and drums containing sludge were in extremely poor condition, many of which were leaking. Results from sampling showed a variety of contaminants in the sludge, including benzene, toluene, several chlorinated hydrocarbons, phenols, and lead; however, none of the characteristics exhibited an immediate threat to public health and so U.S. EPA determined that a Removal
Action was not warranted at that time.

In February 1988, the U.S. Coast Guard, due to material migration from the Metro Container facility into the Delaware River, requested U.S. EPA Emergency Response to a ssess the potential threat of this migration. U.S. EPA initiated a Removal Action in September 1988 to secure and stabilize the site. Removal Action activities included installing a fence around the perimeter of the property to limit public contact with on

- site materials. Also, a 300

- foot long plywood retaining wall was constructed along Stoney Creek to serve as a barrier to material migration into Stoney Creek in the event of a catastrophic release of wastewater, oil, and sludge from the concrete holding t ank or its secondary containment, both of which had overflowed and impactedAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 316 Stoney Creek on previous occasions. In addition, 136,700 gallons of oil

- contaminated rain water from the concrete holding tank and its secondary containment was removed for off

- sit e disposal.

Between June 1989 and January 1990, under an U.S. EPA consent letter, a contractor (MK Environmental) disposed of approximately 6,000 tons of waste, including sludge, tanks, drums, and contaminated soil. The concrete holding tank was decommis sioned and closed, which included removal of the liquids and sludge from the holding tank and secondary containment

. The walls of the holding tank were power

- washed, the upper one foot of soil within the secondary containment area was removed, and the area was backfilled

. Visually impacted soils in the areas west and northwest of the drum reconditioning building were scrapped down to an approximate depth of 1 to 1.5 feet, resulting in approximately 6,500 cubic yards of soil being
excavated

. Additionally, th e response action included the removal of approximately 58,000 drums, removal of all accumulated sludge and decommissioning of the lagoon.

Sources of Information:

1. USEPA. Facility Registry System. Metro Container Corporation. Accessed Online.
November 201 1: http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=PAD0 44545895&pgm_sys_acrnm_in=CERCLIS

2. US EPA. Hazardous Ranking System Documentation Record Metro Container. Accessed
Online. November 2011 : http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/docrec/pdoc1852.pdf

3. USEPA. Mid

- Atlantic Superfund Site Summary Metro Container Corporation. Accessed
Online. November 2011 : http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/npl/PAD044545895.htm

4. USEPA. National Priorities List (NPL) Site Narrative. Metro Contai ner Corporation.
Accessed Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1852.htmAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 317 Site Information

Site Name: Miami Battery
EPA ID No.: FLD004119426
Address: 1110 NW South River Drive, Miami, FL 33178 County: Miami

- Dade

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Miami Battery is a battery manufacturing operation including smelting

.

Description of Contamination : Lead contamination is the result of leaking batteries and filter, acid holding tanks, rinsing water from sludge collection tanks, and washdown water

. The site is being cleaned up under a state consent order

.

Sources of Information : Posner, Augusta. (State o f Florida Department of Environmental Protection)

. Email Correspondence to Dave Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 17 March 2005

.

USEPA. “Miami Battery Manufacturing Company.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 20 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000872878

Contacts: Augusta Posner, FDEP, august a.posner@dep.state.fl.us , 850

- 245

- 2285Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 318 Site Information

Site Name: Midwest Guardian
EPA ID No.: ODH048782049
Address: 100 Keller Drive, Wapakoneta, OH 45895 County: Auglaize

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Midwest Guardian was a lead acid battery reclamation facility, which released lead laden battery acid from the storage of lead acid batteries in tractor trailers and from chipped battery casings stored in containers

. Chipped battery

ca sings also littered the parking lot

. The site did not have a RCRA permit.

Description of Contamination : Contamination of the site occurred in the mid

- 1990s

. The Ohio EPA has recently approved a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for Midwest Guardian, but th ey have not started the work so the extent of contamination is presently unknown

.

Sources of Information : Hale, Karen (Ohio EPA). Email correspondence to David Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste).
24 June 2005.

USEPA. “Midwest Guardian Inc.” RCRA Info. 15 September 2000. 18 January 2006.

Additional Contacts : Donald E. Miller Jr. (419) 738

- 8185 Karen Hale (Ohio EPA) (614) 644

- 2927, karen.hale@epa.state.oh.us

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 319 Site Information

Site Name: Missouri Electric Works
EPA ID No.: MOD980965982
Address: S Highway 61 2 Mile S Highway K, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701 County: Cape Girardeau

NPL Site: Final: 2/21/1990
In CERCLIS Database: 0701474

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Missouri Electric Works operated on
this 6.5

- acre site from 1954 until 1992. Missouri Electric Works sold, serviced, and reconditioned electric motors, transformers, and transformer controls

. In addition, it recycled transformer oil and copper wire; more than 16,000 transformers were repaired or scrapped at the site during its time of operation.

The transformer oil was filtered and reused, with about 90 percent of the total salvaged. Facility business records indicate the total amount of transformer oil that was not recycled was estimated to be 28,000 gallons. The remaining waste oil was sold to local residents for dust control purposes, disposed of by a contractor, or disposed of on

- site. Ind ustrial solvents were used to clean the electrical equipment being repaired or serviced. Solvents were reused until they were no longer effective. Spills and disposal of spent solvents on the MEW property were described by past employees during USEPA

- condu cted interviews.

The facility was issued an order in 1988, prohibiting further incoming shipments of electrical equipment containing oil with polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) levels in excess of 1 part per million (ppm).

Description of Contamination : The USEPA found PCBs from site operations in on

- and off

site air sampling during 1987. The soils in the area are somewhat permeable, and the bedrock is highly fractured. These conditions have made it easier for PCBs and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as trichloroethene (TCE) to migrate into the groundwater. VOCs, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and PCBs have been found in the groundwater below the site. Sediments in channels draining the site and areas off site contain PCBs. PCB contamination of the soil is widespread and occurs to a depth of at least 5 feet.

The estimated present worth cost for the selected remedial action included in the September 28, 1990 Record of Decision is $9,130,000

. This estimate includes an estimated annual O&M cost of $64,010 for 15 years.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 320 Sources of Information:
USEPA. “Missouri Electric Works.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. 25 January 2006

. 25 January
2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110009294361

EPA Region 7

. “Missouri Electric Works Site Profile.” 22 November 2005. 17 January 2006.

http://www.e pa.gov/region7/cleanup/npl_files/mod980965982.pdf

USEPA. “Missouri Electric Works.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 17 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csiti nfo.cfm?id=0701474

USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Missouri Electric Works.” 28 September 1990.

17 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/superrods/rodinfo.cfm?mRod=0 7014741990ROD038

EPA Region 7

. “First Five Year Review Report for Missouri Electric Works.” September 2004. 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f04

- 07010.pd f

Additional Contacts: Pauletta France (Remedial Project Manager) (913) 551

- 7701 Debbie Whitaker (Community Involvement Coordinator) (913) 551

- 7598Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 321 Site Information

Site Name: Mobile Smelting
EPA ID No.: CAD050096163
Address: United Street and Reed Road, Mojave, CA 93501 County: Kern
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Mobile Smelting began operations in 1961 doing automobile restoration

. These operations ended in 1970

. Beginning sometime in the 1960s, operations expanded to include aluminum and copper recovery ending in 1983, resuming in 1986, and concluding in 1992

. Part of the Rosamond Cancer Cluster Investigation, the site operated sporadically through 1990

. The Mobile Smelting site consis ts of a fenced 11

- acre parcel

. Copper and aluminum were recovered from insulated wire and scrap metal via an incinerator. Airborne incinerator ash is recovered in the bag house air pollution equipment. Following collection, the ash is placed in plastic bag s and then inside burlap bags which are then
stored in a trailer located on

- site. The furnace/bottom ash is collected at the base of the furnace and deposited in piles outside the building. Past ash handling practices are unknown.
Contamination was discov ered in 1988

.

Description of Contamination: In March 1994, the smelter was dismantled and decontaminated. Receipts obtained from the facility operator have identified approximately 250 contributors as potentially responsible parties (PRPs). The first pha se of the potential responsible party search consisted of verifying those PRPs identified from receipts and sending information request letters in order to obtain the source of material and further records of transactions. The first phase of the PRP search was completed in May 1993, consisting of a compilation of information obtained from the PRPs. The second phase of the PRP search consisted of sending information request letters to additional contributors identified from site records and generators
identi fied by contributors. This phase 2 PRP search report was completed in May 1994

. The PRPs will conduct the site investigation and cleanup and pay past costs incurred.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) cleanup and removal expenditure s have exceeded $1.6 million

. Soil/ash samples indicate dioxin/furan (2378 TCDD, TEF) contamination as high as 323,000 parts per billion (ppb) in the bag house ash, and 20 ppb in the ash piles outside the building

. Also detected in the bag house ash was ca dmium as high as 840 ppm, copper at 120,000 ppm, and lead at 64,000 ppm

. A polymer coating sprayed on the contaminated ash and soil was completed in November 1990

. In March of 1993, ash materialAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 322 contaminated with heavy metals and dioxins was removed from o utside the southern boundary of
the site. Residents in a near

- by apartment complex may be subject to exposure via wind or direct
contact with contaminated ash or soil

. The California Department of Health Services ( DHS) obtained a court approved stipulation agreement for the purpose of obtaining access to the site and preventing future operation of the onsite incineration. A polymer coating sprayed on the contaminated ash and soil was completed in November 1990. In 1998 a polymer sealant was applied to site soils and ash piles to eliminate the potential offsite movement of dust and
contained runoff

. The coating will serve as a dust suppressant. DTSC conducted further sampling in August of 2001

. There is no known groundwater contamination onsite

.

In 2000 DTS C entered into a settlement with Herman Berkovics for $75,000

. The settlement included $50,000 in insurance proceeds and $25,000 from Mr. Berkovics

. DTSC settled with Mr. Berkovics after reviewing his financial status and determining that he had insufficie nt funds to contribute more than the settlement amount for site cleanup

.

Sources of Information: California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Mobile Smelting.” Site Cleanup: Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database Profile Report (n.d.) 17 January
2006

. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/Calsites/CALP001.CFM?IDNUM=15330011

California Department of Toxic Substances Control

– Work Notice. “DTSC to Resume Sampling Around Mobile Smelting, United Street and Reed Avenue.” August 2001. 17 January
2006

. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Projects/ upload/MobileSmelting_fs_WorkNotice_08 01.pdf

USEPA. “Mobile Smelting.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.)

. 17 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2. get_list?facility_uin=110008262030

Additional Contacts: Ruben Medina (Project Manager) (559) 297

- 3908, rmedina@dtsc.ca.gov Nathan Schumacher (Public Participation Specialist) (916) 255

- 3650, nschumac@dtsc.ca.gov Ron Baker (Media Contact) (916) 324

- 3142Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 323 Site Information:

Site Name: Moreco Energy, Inc.
EPA ID No.: IA0001993799
Address : 1925 East Madison, Springfield, IL 62703 County: Sangamon
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0703085

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Pierce Waste Oil facility began operations in 1932 collecting, storing, and recycling used oil and petroleum refinery wastes

. MORECO Energy, Inc. purchased the facility in the 1980s and continued operations until the Illinois EPA (IEPA) sealed the site on August 16, 1989, due to numerous RCRA and permit
violations

. USEPA reports that the site was abandoned with the machinery still running when it
was scheduled to be closed

. As a result of enforcement action, a Consent Order between IEPA
and MORECO was entered into in April 1991 (No. 91

- CH

- 265)

. After entering into the Order, MORECO declared bankruptcy, and the Springfield facility and MORECO facilities in Oakwood
and Rock Island were abandoned

.

Description of Contamination : In addition to numerous above ground st orage tanks, drums and exposed wastes at the Springfield site, it was reported that the neighboring property, approximately 100 feet away, observed oil seeping into an area that was being excavated for the installation of footings for a new conveyor belt

. Nearly 60 percent of this 5

- acre site is covered in
oil

. Subsurface contamination at the site continues to exist

. Soon after the USEPA completed testing of the aboveground hazards, they dug 14 test pits throughout the site

. A number of the test pits indica ted free product (oil), some as much as one foot thick

. Analytical results indicated
semi

- volatiles and PCBs in the soils and groundwater collected from the pits

. USEPA suspects that as it neared its end, MORECO was accepting a wide variety of wastes inclu ding lab
chemicals

. Analytical results in 1999 indicated volatile, semi

- volatile and metal contamination still remains in the groundwater

. The Illinois EPA continues to restrict access to the site, however no further cleanup actions have been conducted sin ce the USEPA removal in 1993

. The current owner uses the site for truck storage

.

Sources of Information: DeYong, Maura E. “Public Health Assessment and Risk Assessment for MORECO, Inc. Site Springfield Illinois.” University of Illinois at Springfield T hesis.

USEPA. “Moreco Energy Company.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 16 January 2006.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 324 http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0703085

USEPA. “Moreco Energy Com pany.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 16 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110001289551

Additional Contacts: Greg Dunn, 217

- 785

- 235Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 325 Site Information

Site Name: Myers Drum
EPA ID No.: CAD009123217
Address: 6549 San Pablo Ave, Oakland, CA 94608 County: Alameda
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: This facility operated as a drum recycling facility from 1939 through 1991

. As late as 1989, twenty thousand drums were stored in the yard awaiting reconditioning, ninety

- five percent on their sides

. Ninety

- nine percent of all drums accepted at the facili ty for reconditioning previously held hazardous materials

. The facility exhibited evidence of very poor housekeeping including spillage, sump overflow, and structural failure of underground sumps and pipelines resulting in massive releases of mobile
hazard ous compounds under the facility

. Potential/confirmed hazardous waste include adhesives, alkaline and aqueous solutions with metals, arsenic, baghouse waste, contaminated soil, halogenated organic compounds, hydrocarbon and oxygenated solvents, lead, metal dust & machining waste, metal sludge, off specification, aged, or surplus inorganics and inorganics, organic liquids with metals, organic solids with halogens, pesticide containers, solids or sludges w/ halogenated organic compounds, unspecified alkaline solutions, unspecified organic liquid mixtures, other sludge waste, waste oil & mixed oil.

Description of Contamination This site is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil and groundwater and heavy metals in soil

. In 1989 a completed p reliminary assessment indicated that soils at the site were contaminated with metals (lead, zinc, and arsenic), volatile organic compounds (toluene, xylene, and propanol), semi

- volatile organic compounds (naphthalene and phenol), and total petroleum hydroc arbons. Two localized groundwater plumes were identified

. Clay soil was added in 1999 to minimize vapor releases, residential development proposed in 2003

.

Sources of Information: California Department of Toxic Substances Control

. “Myers Drum.” Site Cle anup

– Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database

. (n.d.). 21 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/Calsites/CALP001.CFM?IDNUM=01340111

EPA Region 9. Email Correspondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste)
22 November 2006

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 326 USEPA. “Myers Drum.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.)

. 24 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110002635131

Additional Contacts: Ted Park (PM) (510) 540

- 3805, tpark@dtsc.ca.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 3 27 Site Information

Site Name: National Oil Services
EPA ID No.: CTD162235782
Address: 16 Elm Street, West Haven, CT 06516

- 3806 County: New Haven
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: National Oil Services Inc. operated as a former waste oil storage, treatment, transfer, recycling and disposal facility from 1982 to 1997 at
which time it was abandoned

. In 1997, after a number of years of attempting to bring the company into compliance, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection ordered operations to cease. The property owner evicted National Oil Services and its subsidiary business, Atlantic Environmental Laboratory. Prior to vacating, National Oil Services filed for bankrupt cy

.

Description of Contamination: A 1997 investigation found methylene chloride and other halogenated solvents in waste oils, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, chromic acid, sodium hydroxide and ether at the site. Contaminated wastewater, sl udge, debris, drums, and
waste oil have been removed from the site

. EPA spent approximately $1.5 million to clean up the
site

. In 2001, EPA settled with 750 businesses, municipalities and government agencies who sent
waste oil to National Oil Services

. Nin ety three percent of the parties involved in the settlement are being asked to pay no more than $3,000

. EPA intends on paying $275,000 of the clean up costs to cover those companies which sent waste oil to the site and are either insolvent or
defunct.

Sou rces of Information: Bazenas, Ted (OSC) (617) 918

- 1230, Interview, 12/07/2005

USEPA. “National Oil Services.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 17 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110003019126

USEPA. “Waste Site Cleanup & Reuse in New England: National Oil Services.” 15 July 2002. 17 January 2006

. http://yosemite.epa.gov/R1/npl_pad.nsf/51dc4f173ceef51d85256adf004c7ec8/bdd036037 1edebab85256b4200603554?OpenDocume nt#topAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 328 USEPA

– EPA New England Press Release. “EPA Lodges Consent Decree for National Oil Services Site in CT.” 18 September 2001

. 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/ne/pr/2001/sep/010908.html

Additional Contacts: Ted Bazenas (OSC) (617) 918

- 1230 bazenas.edward@epa.gov
Gerardo Millan

- Ramos (SAM) 918

- 1377
Alice Kaufman 617

- 918

- 1064Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 329 Site Information

Site Name: New England Container Co.
EPA ID No.: RID048976732
Address: 455 George Washington Hwy, Smithfield, RI 02917 County: Providence

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0101242

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : This property was owned by Air Park Industrial Development Corporation until 1968 and Goodyear Realty until 1970. The New England Container Co. has occupied the property since 1970. Since 1971, the New England Container Co. has engaged in the reconditioning and recycling of used 55

- gallon metal drums.
There are tw o large buildings on site: the open head drum plant and the closed head drum plant

. Most areas of the property were paved between 1975 and 1981. Wastes generated at the property between 1987 and 1991 were composed of paint sludge, solvents, flammable liqui ds, and sandblasting grit mixed with paint sludge

. Waste was disposed of to the ground surface and to catch basins on the property. The New England Container Co. has been cited by Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management for hazardous waste viol ations including lack of secondary containment, failure to label containers, and failure to maintain documentation of employee training.

Description of Contamination: Contaminants of concern detected in groundwater beneath the property include lead, chlo rinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and non

- chlorinated VOCs. Soils beneath the asphalt on the property are suspected to be a source of VOCs, including tetrachloroethene (PCE) and 1,1,1

- trichloroethane. Chlorinated VOCs have been detected in private drinking water wells located 0.25 miles north and east of the property. Contaminants detected in the private drinking water wells include tetrachloroethene, trichloroethane, 1,2

- dichloroethane, 1,1

- dichloroethane, dichloromethane, and chloroform at concen trations as high as 17 parts per billion (ppb). Impacts to nearby groundwater drinking water supply sources have
been documented.

Sources of Information: Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. “Waste Management Board
Enforcement Action Order by Consent Issued to New England Container d/b/a Richmond Barrel & Box.” 2003. 25 January 2006. http://www.deq.virginia.gov/enforcement/finalorders/richbarbox.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 330 USEPA. “New England Container Co.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 23 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0101242

USEPA. “New England Container.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 23 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000819936

USEPA. “Waste Site Cleanup & Reuse in New England New England Container Co.” 3 February 2003. 24 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r1/npl_pad.nsf/0/474b4a3be4843e2285256b4200606d7e?OpenD

o cument

Additional Contacts:

Gerardo Millan

- Ramos (EPA SAM) (617) 918

- 1377, millan

- ramos.gerardo@epa.gov Nancy Smith (EPA SAM) (617) 918

- 1436 Cynthia Gianfrancesco (401) 222

- 2979 x7126, Cynthia.Gianfrancesco@dem.ri.gov Margaret Bradley (401) 222

- 2979 x7105Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 331 Site Information

Site Name: Newark Processing
EPA ID No.: TRI ID: 43055NWRKP1367E; No RCRA ID
Address: 1367 E. Main Street, Newark, OH 43055 County: Licking
NPL Site No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : In 1980, Newark Processing began operating a secondary aluminum recycling facility at the 66

- acre East Main Street facility adjacent to the Licking River. The facility ceased operations due to bankruptcy in late 1996

.

Newark Processing processed aluminum dross from several aluminum smelting companies

. Dross, a by

- product of primary and secondary aluminum smelting, consists of varying concentrations of aluminum, aluminum oxides, free metals, and salts. Newark Processing received two types of dross on a tolling basis: (1) white dross, which contains a high enough aluminum content to be fed directly into a rotary furnace for smelt ing, and (2) black dross, which must be processed through a wet mill to concentrate aluminum before smelting.

Newark Processing’s furnaces and wet mill generated saltcake and dross fines as byproducts of the recycling process

. The facility screened the we t mill waste by size and recovered and reprocessed the larger particles. The smaller particles flowed to a series of cement

- lined settling ponds, accumulating as a sludge called “dross fines.” Newark Processing periodically removed
these dross fines and st ockpiled them on

- site, claiming that the dross fines would either be re

processed or sold.

At the time of its bankruptcy, Newark Processing estimated that approximately 374,000 tons of dross fines and 175,000 tons of aluminum dross remained at the site

.

Description of Contamination : I n 1980, Newark Processing analyzed the material stockpiled on site at the request of Ohio EPA. Despite the detection of metals and ammonia in the sample, Ohio EPA concluded that the stockpiled material did not require regulat ion.

On February 28, 1991, Newark Processing sampled the dross fines for total metals, pH, percent solids, and chlorides. Results indicated relative high metal content with a pH of 9.6; however, no
conclusions were drawn from this data. On January 8, 1992 , Newark Processing sampled the aluminum dross fines for organics and metals using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) and found all organics to be below detection limits and barium, cadmium, chromium,Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 332 lead to be below the TCLP regulatory limit. On April 29, 1994, Newark Processing sampled
dross fines for total metals. The results indicated high metal content; however, no conclusions
were drawn from this data.

In May 1999, at the request of Ohio EPA, Newark Processing contracted URS Greine r Woodward Clyde (URS) to conduct an investigation of the stockpiled material and ground water

. URS installed eight direct push borings, collected surface and subsurface dross samples, and collected a composite dross sample of the West Dross Pile. Analysis for metals indicated high metal content in the waste material but all concentrations were below the TCLP regulatory
limit. High concentrations of ammonia and chloride were detected, and the pH range was 7.9

- 10.5. URS analyzed the ground water samples for total and dissolved metals, pH, ammonia, chloride, and fluoride. Ground water samples indicated arsenic, barium, cadmium, nickel, selenium, and fluoride were above their respective maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water. Also, high ammonia an d chloride concentrations were detected.

In 2004, the city of Newark contracted Civil and Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) to complete a Phase II investigation of the property using the $300,000 in bankruptcy funds that
had been awarded to Ohio EPA. I n addition, Ohio EPA contributed resources (personnel, direct push technology, and monitoring well installation) through a grant from USEPA

. CEC and Ohio EPA collected samples of soil, dross, dross fines, ground water, surface water, and sediment

. Ohio EPA also assessed macroinvertebrate communities in the Licking River and Shawnee
Run. All environmental media were analyzed for metals, ammonia, nitrate

- nitrite, and volatile organic compounds and all dross stockpiles were analyzed for dioxins.

The sample re sults were compared to the Ohio EPA Voluntary Action Program generic standards, and it was determined that (1) no contaminant detected in soil, dross, or surface water/sediment exceeded generic standards; (2) ground water exceeded unrestrictive potable use standards for ammonia, selenium, and nitrate

- nitrite; (3) multiple chemical adjustment indicated the dross and soil exceeded property

- specific applicable standards for some complete pathways (e.g., direct contact with ground water and direct contact, inha lation, and ingestion of dross and impacted soil); and (4) no biological impairment was indicated in the Licking River and
Shawnee Run

. Ohio EPA also evaluated sediment in terms of freshwater quality and found that
the metal concentrations in the dross are much higher than the threshold effect concentration (TEC, the concentration in sediment below which harmful effects will not likely be observed) and probably effect concentration (PEC, the concentration above which harmful effects are likely
to be observe d)

. Ohio EPA determined that continued erosion of the waste dross will increase the overall metallic concentration in the sediment and adversely affect sediment dwelling organisms.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 333 Ohio EPA is currently working with theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) concerning the
erosion of the dross. A memorandum of agreement was signed between Ohio EPA and USACE on December 14, 2006, and a support agreement on March 14, 2007. On April 16, 2007, Ohio EPA provided USACE $2.8 million dollars for the stabilization proj ect. The project will stabilize about 1,600 feet of river bank.

Sources of Information:
Ohio EPA

. “Division of Emergency and Remedial Response Site Cleanup Summary: Newark Processing.” May 2007

. 6 March 2008

. http://www.epa.state.oh.us/cdo/newark_processing.html

USEPA. “Newark Processing Co Inc.” Envirofacts Multisystem Report

. (n.d.) 6 March 2008. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110001628212Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 334 Site Information:

Site Name: Nooksack Valley Disposal
EPA ID No.: WAD057315624
Address: 250 Birch Bay

- Lynden Rd., Lynden, WA 98264 County: Whatcom

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Nooksack Valley Disposal recycles paint, paint thinner, solvents, pesticides, fuels, engine oil, car batteries, and cleaners

. Nooksack Valley Disposal & Recycling services over 8,000 county customers including the cities of Lynden, Everson, Nooksack, and Sumas.

Description of Contamination : The site was initially investigated in July 2000 and listed on Washington’s Hazardous Site Listing in Feb ruary 2001

. The soil on site is contaminated and it is suspected that ground and surface water are also contaminated.

Sources of Information : Nooksack Valley Disposal and Recycling, Inc

. 2006. 18 January 2006

. http://www.nvd

- inc.com/

.

USEPA. “Nooksack Valley Disposal Facility Detail Report.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 18 January 2006

. http://oasp ub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=1100053
22953Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 335 Site Information

Site Name: Northwest Transformer (Mission/Pole)
EPA ID No.: WAD980833974
Address: 6882 Mission St., Everson, WA 98247 County: Whatcom

NPL Site: Deleted 9/28/1999
In CERCLIS Database: 1001003

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Northwest Transformer (Mission/Pole) salvage yard covers 1.6 acres

. The property was agricultural farmland until 1958,
when the Northwest Transformer Service Company began leasing the site

. The company used the site as a salvage yard and stored, repaired, and recycled electrical transformers and capacitors on site from 1958 to 1985

. They also carried out other activities on site, including dismantling and reclaiming equipment, burning casings for transformers in an open concrete burn pit, burning waste oils in a space heater, and draining transformer oils into a seepage pit. Chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) spilled and leaked into site s oil

. Waste
transformer fluids were stored in a tank on

- site.

Description of Contamination: Soil was contaminated with PCBs and small quantities of
solvents

. The highest was 31,000 parts per million (ppm). In May 1985, EPA used CERCLA emergency funds to r emove PCB containing materials from the site. Five transformers containing greater than 500 ppm were drained and cleaned. About 500 transformers were either already clean (less than 46 ppm) and those that contained 46 to 500 ppm were drained, rinsed,
and c leaned on

- site

. Contaminated soil (1,360 cubic yards) and waste liquid (5,500 gallons) containing 10 ppm or more were also removed

.

Sources of Information: USEPA. “EPA Superfund Explanation of Significant Differences: Northwest Transformer.” 22 December 1993. 19 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e109410 2.pdf

USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision Amendment: Northwest Transformer.” 30 September 1991. 19 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/a1091031 .pdf

USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Northwest Transformer.” 15 September 1989. 19 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1089018.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 336 USEP A. “Federal Register Notice

– Notice of deletion of the Lackawanna Refuse Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL).” 28 September 1999. 19 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/su

perfund/sites/npl/d990928.htm

USEPA. “Five Year Review Northwest Transformer.” July 1999. 19 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f99

- 10003.pdf

USEPA. “NPL Fact Sheet Northwest Transformer (Mission Pole).” April 2002. 19 February
2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/nplpad.nsf/epaid/wad980833974

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Northwest T ransformer.” 10 June 1986. 19 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n1001003.pdf

USEPA. “Superfund Site Progress Profile: Northwest Transformer.” CERCLIS. 10 Januar y 2006. 19 February 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=1001003

Additional Contacts: Tim Brincefield (Site Manager) (202) 553

- 2100 brincefield.timothy@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 337 Site Information

Site Name: Nucor Corporation, Inc.
EPA ID No.:
Address: headquartered in Charlotte, NC County:
NPL Site:
In CERCLIS Database:

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Nucor Corporation, Inc. will spend nearly $100 million to settle an environmental suit alleging that it failed to control the amount of pollution released from its steel factories in seven states, under an agreement reached December
19 , 2000, with the Justice Department and USEPA. This is the largest and most comprehensive
environmental settlement ever with a steel manufacturer.

The settlement, filed in U.S. District Court in Florence, SC, requires Nucor to undertake broad
environmenta l improvements at its 14 facilities in Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas and Utah. The settlement terms are as follows (1) Nucor will pay a civil penalty of $9 million; (2) $85 million will be spent on injunction relief

. Nucor wil

l pilot air pollution control technologies for control of NOx emissions from its electric arc and reheat furnaces. This control technology should set a new standard for NOx control in the steel industry

. Nucor will also conduct sampling of groundwater and soil at all facilities, conduct sampling of stormwater at all minimills, identify areas of contamination and clean up that contamination in accordance
with USEPA or state

- approved plan for each facility, implement enhancements to its environmental manageme nt of electric arc furnace dust, and its process waster and storm water to ensure continued compliance with hazardous waste laws and Clean Water Act requirements, and lastly complete all filings under the Emergency Planning and Community Right

- to

- Know
Act of 1986

. Nucor will conduct extensive environmental audits to discover and correct any remaining environmental problems, and put in place a corporate

- wide environmental management system to prevent future violations

. $4 million will be spent on additional environmental projects, $2 million for community

- based supplemental environmental projects and $2 million for the installation of state

- of

- the

- art continuous air emission monitoring (CEM) equipment at Nucor’s minimills that will monitor continuously to ens ure that the company complies with emission limits for nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxides. The installation of CEM equipment is not required by law, and will add significantly to USEPA’s understanding of emissions at Nucor facilities, and throughout the stee l industry

. Under the second settlement term Nucor will improve its methods for the K061 dust it generates by sampling groundwater and soilAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 338 at each of its factories and identifying those areas that are contaminated with K061 dust and clean them up under US EPA or state

- approved plan.

Only a small portion of the $100 million settlement pertains directly to recycling operations (the exact amount is unclear)

. The agreement covers eight Nucor "mini

- mills," which produce steel by melting scrap metal in large ele ctric arc furnaces, and six steel fabrication plants, where the final molding and painting of steel products occurs. The settlement resolves allegations, contained in a federal complaint filed along with the agreement, that Nucor violated
environmental sta ndards regulating the release of pollutants into the air, water, and soil. The complaint alleges that Nucor's failure to control air pollution resulted in thousands of tons of illegal air emissions each year. In addition the complaint alleges that Nucor mi smanaged K061 dust, a hazardous waste produced by the steel furnaces.

Description of Contamination: Nucor Corporation Inc. processed ferrous scrap metals, some of
which contained hazardous contaminants

. The recycling process created K061 dust, which

con tains lead and cadmium and which was subsequently disposed of improperly at eight Nucor factories resulting in contaminated soil and groundwater

. The dust also was discharged illegally through wastewater and storm water

. These actions violated several envi ronmental laws including RCRA

.

Sources of Information:

USEPA. “Nucor Corporation, Inc. Multimedia Settlement.” 16 March 2005. 25 January 2005. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/mm/nucor.html

USEPA. “Nucor Corporation, Inc. Civil Judicial Settlement Fact Sheet.” 19 December 2000. 19 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/mm/nucorfs.pdf

USEPA. “

U.S. Reaches Environmental Settlement with Steel Manufacturer Nucor.”19 December 2000. 19 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/016bcfb1deb9fecd85256aca005d74df/9eb593c7e2c54 803852569ba006165a8?OpenDocumentAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 339 Site Information

Site Name: Old Bridge Chemicals, Inc. / Madison Industri es, Inc.
EPA ID No.: NJD002460855 / NJD002460855
Address: Old Waterworks Rd, Old Bridge, NJ 08857 County: Middlesex

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Old Bridge Chemicals, Inc. (OBC) and Madison Industries, Inc. (Madison) operate at the same location at Old Waterworks Road

. The property is owned by Arnet Realty Company

. Operations began at this site in 1964 and approximately 5 acres are active

. The sit e produces copper sulfate, zinc sulfate, zinc chloride,
etchants and iron enrichment additives

. The company claimed it conducted recycling at the facility using materials generated at the site (filter press material from the zinc sulfate and zinc
chloride processes and from the wastewater treatment plant operations and off

- specification copper products) to produce a “micronutrient fertilizer.” A pile of this material existed at the site from at least 12/4/89 until 8/18/95, when it was removed by court order , and was found to be hazardous for lead and cadmium toxicity based on sampling, with results as high as 40 ppm and 300 ppm, respectively

. Portions of the pile were sold to out

- of

- state fertilizer manufacturers for incorporation into its products through 1992

. The pile was maintained outside, exposed to the elements, and thus was susceptible to moisture and dispersion by wind and precipitation. Discharges to the environment from the pile were observed and documented by the NJDEP on 6/9/93, 9/9/93 and 2/22/ 94

.

As of November 2001 this site did not hold a RCRA Part B permit

.

Description of Contamination : In 1995, a pile of micronutrient fertilizer was removed and found to be hazardous for lead and cadmium toxicity based on sampling, with results as high a s 40 ppm and 300 ppm, respectively

. A report prepared in July 1996 by Amy S. Greene Environmental Consultants, Inc. for Madison revealed elevated levels of zinc and copper in the
leaves within four stressed zones to the west of the site

. Groundwater at thi s site is contaminated with heavy metals, which was identified by NJ DEP.

Sources of Information:

EPA Region 2

. Email Correspondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste)

. 31 October 2005.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 340 USEPA. “Old Bridge Chemicals, Inc.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 18 January 2006.

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000756469

USEPA. “Old Bridge Chemicals, Inc.” RCRAInfo. 26 Novem ber 2001

. 20 January 2006.

USEPA. “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Site Progress Profile: Old Bridge Metals and Chemicals.” 10 December 2005. 18 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/rcra_profile.getmain?p_handler_id=NJD052204864

Additional Contacts: Susan Gieser (Public Contact) (732) 727

- 2225Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 341 Site Name: Old ESCO Manufacturing
EPA ID No.: TXD980513808
Address: 500 Forrester Street, Greenville, TX, 75401 County: Hunt
NPL Site: Yes
In CERCLIS Database: TXD980513808

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Old ESCO Manufacturing (ESCO) operated in Greenville, Texas from 1945 until March 1991. ESCO manufactured electrical transformers and repaired and refurbished used transformers for resale. The manufacturing process included the use of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) oil, which has contaminated soil on the facility property and surrounding properties. ESCO filed for bankruptcy in 1990. The property was foreclosed on in 2001 by the taxing entities due to non

- payment of taxes. The facility is currently abandoned. According to the city of Greenville Community Development Director, the city master plan shows the futu re land use for this property as low density residential/park/open space.

The area surrounding the former facility is primarily residential and also includes some small businesses. Multiple residential properties were affected by the contaminated soil. In particular,
PCB

- contaminated soil has been confirmed at 35 residential properties located immediately north and east of the facility. Thus, there is a potential for residents and children to come into
contact with the contaminated soils.

From August 2008 through January 2009, U.S. EPA conducted a first Time Critical Removal
Action that included:

 Removal of approximately 5000 tons PCB

- contaminated soils from six adjacent residential properties located directly east of the site ;

 Restoration of these same six properties;

 Installation of fencing around the perimeter of the former facility ;

 Removal of 120 cubic yards of asb estos

- containing materials ;

 Placement of ripple dams/storm water controls in drainage pathways between residen tial properties and the site to reduce the potential for contaminated soil backflow on to clean areas during flooding events; and

 Placement of ripple dams at periodic locations on the site drainage to reduce off

- site soil migration

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 342 EPA also assisted Hunt County in removing for disposal materials including hay and tires stored in a building on site

. During the September 2009, through December 2009, U.S. EPA conducted a second Time Critical Removal Action that included the removal of 3,192 tons of PCB contaminated soil from three residential properties and numerous adjacent road side drainage ditch grids, and the restoration of the excavated properties.

On May 17, 2011, the EPA began a third Time

- Critical Removal Action

. As of September 30th, 2011, a t otal of 52,731 tons of soil was removed from the main building and its concrete
foundation

. The affected area was remediated to below 1.0 ppm total PCBs

. On the 19 th of September 2011, groundwater monitoring showed contamination in all wells to be below th e 0.5 ppb U.S. EPA standard for drinking water.

Description of Contamination : The manufacturing and recycling processes included the use of PCB oil, which contaminated soil on the facility property and surrounding properties. Soil
contamination consisted of PCB

- contaminated soil, at concentrations exceeding health

- based benchmarks, on the facility property and surrounding residential properties. In addition, 120 cubic yards of asbestos

- containing materials were abandoned on site

. PCBs were present in on

s ite soils to a depth of 15 feet, with concentrations as high as 85,000 ppm

. Groundwater below the site is not contaminated above drinking water standards.

Sources of Information:

1. USEPA. Facility Registry System. Esco Manufacturing. Accessed Online. Novem ber
2011: http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=1100201
25782

2. USEPA. National Priorities List (NPL) Site Na rrative. Old Esco Manufacturing.
Accessed Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1777.htm

3. USEPA. On

- Scene Coordinator Website Old Esco Manufacturing. Accessed Onl ine.
November 2011: http://www.epaosc.org/site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=6960

4. USEPA. Region 6 Superfund Site Summary Old Esco Manufacturing. Accessed Online.
November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/region6/6sf/pdffiles/0602482.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 343 Site Information

Site Name: Old Salem Tannery II
EPA ID No.: VAD988170437
Address: 120 S. Bruffey Street, Salem, VA 24153 County: Salem

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 303837

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Old Salem Tannery Site was a tannery in operation from the late 1891 until 1973

. From 1973 until 1993, the land was used as an industrial storage facility and a lead reclamation operation

. Until 1991, the current

- owner of the property operated on the site an industrial salvage facility engaged in the reclamation of lead from the splitting of batteries. Since the mid 1990s, the property has been use d as a truck and vehicle salvage yard

.

Description of Contamination : There are approximately 100 drums and containers on site

. On January 14, 1992, a site assessment was conducted to determine the extent of possible
contamination on and off the site. Twe lve samples were collected from the site, which included two soil samples from near the former battery breaking site in addition to several others

. Analytical results show that several soil samples had elevated levels of lead and samples from a lagoon area had elevated levels of chromium contamination. In 1993, the USEPA Region 3 Removal Program performed a removal action at the Site which included the removal of drums
and containers of hazardous waste

. In April of 2004, USEPA was again contacted regarding the
Site.

Sources of Information : EPA Region 3

. Memorandum from Terry Stilman, OSC, EPA Region III to Charles Walters, Public Health Advisor, ATSDR EPA Region III

. “Old Salem Tannery Site.” 27 February
1992

. 17 January 2006

. http://loggerhead.epa.gov/arweb/pdf/154671.pdf

USEPA. “Old Salem Tannery.” CERCLIS . 27 October 2005

. 17 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/su

percpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0303837

.

USEPA. “Old Salem Tannery.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 17 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=1100093
15963

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 344 USEPA. “Old Salem Tannery II.” On

- Scene Coordinator Profile . (n.d.). 17 January 2006

. http://ww w.epaosc.net/site_profile.asp?site_id=809

Additional Contacts : Christine Wagner wagner.christine@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 345 Site Information

Site Name: Omega Chemical Corporation
EPA ID No.: CAD042245001
Address : 12504 and 12512 E. Whittier Boulevard, Whittier, CA 90602 County: Los Angeles
NPL Site: Final: 1/19/99
In CERCLIS Database: 0903349

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Omega Chemical Corporation operated as a spent solvent and refrigerant recycling and treatment facility

. During its years of operation from 1976 until 1991, drums and bulk loads of waste solvent and chemicals from various industrial activities were processed to form commercial products. Chemical, thermal and physi cal treatment processes are believed to have been used to recycle and reuse the waste
materials

. This facility did not report itself as a recycler on RCRA notification forms.

In 1995, following four years of effort by the California Department of Toxic S ubstances Control (DTSC) to clean up the facility, the site owner pleaded guilty to two felony counts of illegal storage and disposal of hazardous waste.

This site was not RCRA permitted.

Description of Contamination : High concentrations of tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), and other chlorinated hydrocarbons were found in subsurface soil and groundwater

. During 1995, USEPA’s Superfund Emergency Response Office oversaw removal activities, during which several thousand drums of ha zardous wastes were removed from the property

. In 1996, the potentially responsible party (PRP) Group, with USEPA oversight, undertook the collection and analyses of some preliminary subsurface soil and groundwater samples at the Omega Property and surroun ding locations. Analytical results indicated that subsurface soil at the Omega Property is contaminated with chlorinated solvents, primarily PCE, TCE, other chlorinated hydrocarbons, freons and metals. PCE contamination was detected in soil at
concentratio ns ranging from 1.9 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to 510 mg/kg. Groundwater samples collected at the Omega Property contained PCE up to 86,000 micrograms per liter as well as significant concentrations of other chlorinated hydrocarbons and Freon. [Note: The federal drinking water standard for PCE is 5 micrograms per liter.] The presence of PCE and TCE was also detected in groundwater at locations approximately 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 mile
down

- gradient of the Omega Property in the City of Santa Fe Spring s.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 346 The cleanup expenditure at this site as of September 2004 was $5,510,784.78

.

In August 2005, the federal government proposed plans to remediate groundwater contamination
from the site

. USEPA has already removed some 2,700 drums of hazardous chemicals and
contaminated soil from the site.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 9. Email Correspondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 22 November
2005

.

USEPA. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). 30 September 2004

. 16 January 2006

.

USEPA. “NPL Fact Sheet: Omega Chemical Corporation.” 19 January 1999. 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0903349.pdf

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Omega Chem ical Corporation.” 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplfs/fs0903349.pdf

USEPA. “Omega Chemical Corporation.” CERCLIS

. 27 October 2005

. 24 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0903349

USEPA. “Omega Chemical Corporation.” RCRAInfo . 27 June 2002

. 18 January 2006.

USEPA. “Omega Chemical Site PRP Org GP.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.)

. 24 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000609510

Waste News

– Headline News. "EPA proposes cleanup plan for Calif. Chemical recycling plant." 11 August 2005. 17 January 2006. http://www.wastenews.com/headlines2.html?id=1123786480

Additional Contacts:
Jere Johnson (SAM) (415) 972

- 3094 Christopher Lichens (RPM) (415) 972

- 3149 Matt Mitguard (SAM) (415) 972

- 3096 Dawn Richmond (SAM) (415) 972

- 3097Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 347 Site Information

Site Name: OMG Air Emissions
EPA ID No.: UTD982589848
Address: Shivwits Band of Paiute Tribe Reservation., Mile 15 Highway 91 West, St. George UT 84771 County: Washington
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0801820

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: This metal reclamation facility is an inorganic chemical processing facility which produces cobalt compounds from residues, byproducts, and cobalt chemicals and tungsten compounds from tungsten carbide scrap including soft scrap and hard scrap

. Hard scrap is tungsten carbide that has been formed into tools and other pieces that failed the manufacturer’s quality control tests for shape or size or has been
broken

. Hard scrap may take the form of drill bits, cutting tool inserts, ball bearings, or projectile points

. Soft scrap is a wet grinding sludge that is collected from the machining of the hard scrap parts

. OMG’s products consisted of cobalt sulfate used in copper mining applications, cobalt carbonate used in animal feeding applications, cobalt nitrate us ed in the manufacturing of automobile air bags, cobalt oxides used for pigmentation in ceramics and glass, lithium cobalt oxides used in the manufacture of rechargeable batteries, and tungsten powders used in the manufacturing of hard metals and lighting p roducts

. The tungsten process recovered tungsten from secondary raw materials such as tungsten carbide scrap and residues and forms ammonium paratungstate (APT)

. This reclamation process involved four major steps : 1) raw material drying, crushing and calci

ning, 2) impurities removal, 3) product recovery and 4) drying and packaging

. The cobalt plant produces five different types of cobalt products; cobalt carbonate, cobalt oxide, lithium cobalt dioxide, cobalt nitrate, and cobalt sulfate

. Although each product is distinct, the products of one line may be used as feed to another

. Further, residue filter cake from the tungsten plant typically contains cobalt values and is used as a feed to the cobalt plant.

In November 2002, OMG's corporate headquarters a nnounced its intention to close the facility as part of a major corporate restructuring. The plant ceased operations in December

. The company is currently working with the Shivwits Band of Paiute Indians to assist them with finding acceptable alternative u ses for the plant site and to implement a site reclamation plan. That plan will include clean closure of the existing wastewater ponds.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has undertaken further investigation and site cleanup.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 348 Description of Contamination: OM Group of Cleveland, Ohio, parent company of OMG Apex Inc., signed an administrative consent order with USEPA's Region 8 office in Denver agreeing to pay $110,000 penalties after dumping 44,000 gallons of chromium

- tainted wastewater

. USEPA inspected the OM G facility near St. George, Utah, after the company reported discharging the wastewater into evaporation ponds over a four

- day period in August 2002 in violation of RCRA

. OMG did not have permits to place the hazardous waste in the ponds

. The wastewater co ntained high levels of chromium

. In addition to the penalty, OMG agreed to sample and analyze the wastes in the evaporation ponds at the site, which is now closed

. The agreement follows a previous settlement reached in August 2001 between OMG and USEPA in which the company agreed to perform nearly $900,000 of environmental work and pay a $125,000 penalty for other hazardous wastes at the same plant site, the agency said. The two cases were unrelated.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 8

. “Air Pollution Control, Title V Permit to Operate, Statement of Basis for Final
Permit No. V

- P

- 0001

- 00.00.” Provided by EPA on 7 December 2005.

EPA Region 8. “EPA, OMG settle hazardous waste case.” 22 April 2003. 26 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r8/r8media.nsf/65d6223e10b0ee12872567df0075e965/5804bf94 b97afa8787256d0a00724857!OpenDocument

EPA Region 8. “EPA, OMG settle waste case. ” 3 August 2001. 26 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r8/r8media.nsf/90a4fc3bc5595fbc872567df0075e923/c883893ac
1b9e8ed 87256a9d006b2f41!OpenDocument

Johnson, Eric (EPA Region 8) (303) 312

- 6357, Interview 8 December 2005.

USEPA

. “OMG Air Emissions.” CERCLIS

. 27 October 2005

. 21 January 2006

. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0801820

USEPA. “ OMG Ame ricas APEX Operations Facility Detail Report.” Envirofacts Data
Warehouse . (n.d.). 21 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_ program_facility?p_registry_id=1100123
57421

USEPA. “Utah metals firm faces waste fine, order.” 8 August 2000

. 21 January 2006

. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/d0b2d6dc52c949bb852570d900462aa3?Ope
nDocumentAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 349 Additional Contacts: Joyce Ackerman (On

- scene coordinator) (303) 312

- 6822 Luke Chavez (SAM) (303) 312

- 6512 Amy Swanson (EPA) (303) 312

- 6906 Eric R. Johnson (EPA) (303) 312

- 6357 Frank Montarelli (EPA) (303) 312

- 6780 Toll Free (EPA) 1

- 800

- 227

- 8917 Kathleen Paser (EPA Air Programs Department) (303) 312

- 6526 Eric Johnson, RCRA Enforcement, (303) 312

- 6357Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 350 Site Information

Site Name: ONARP Inc.(Mel’s Battery)
EPA ID No.: ODH980995963
Address: 459 N. Main St., Lima, OH 45801 County: Allen

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Mel’s Battery was a lead acid battery recycling facility which is no longer in operation

. Lead laden battery acid as well as spent acid resulting from drum washing has contaminated the site

. The company was ordered t o complete closure per director’s Findings and Orders but never did

. USEPA issued the company a §3008(h) order to clean up site and again, the company did nothing

. The owner was found in contempt of
Orders and then died

. Although the dates of operation are unknown, the first enforcement was
1987

. The site did not have a RCRA permit.

Description of Contamination : The soils and flooring in site buildings are contaminated with high levels of lead

.

Sources of Information : Hale, Karen (Ohio EPA). Email correspondence to David Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste).
24 June 2005.

USEPA. “Injunctive Relief 1993.” EPA Region 5. 1993. 22 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/reg5oorc/annualreport s/1993/ir93.htm

USEPA. “Onarp Inc.” RCRA Info. 15 September 2000. 18 January 2006.

Additional Contacts: Karen Hale (Ohio EPA) (614) 644

- 2927, karen.hale@epa.state.oh.us

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 351 Site Information

Site Name: P4 Production LLC

- Monsanto
EPA ID No.: IDD081830994
Address: Highway 34 North, Soda Springs, ID 83276 County: Caribou

NPL Site: Proposed: 5/05/1989; Final: 8/30/1990
In CERCLIS Database: 1000213

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Monsanto Soda Springs Plant processes locally mined phosphate ore to produce elemental phosphorus. In 1952, Monsanto purchased the plant site, built the plant, and began operations. The fenced plant consists of more than a dozen administrative and proc essing buildings plus ore piles, slag piles, by

- product materials, surface impoundments, and a solid

- waste landfill

. Recycling operations have included many process water waste streams and operations continue on the property

. It appears that the recyclable materials were not managed to prevent or minimize loss

.

Description of Contamination : In the past, recycling of the scrubber wastewater from the Bevill exempt nodulizing kiln and entrained, underflow solids, led to extensive groundwater contamination, r esulting in an NPL listing

. Groundwater underneath the site and the surrounding vicinity is contaminated with cadmium, selenium, fluoride and nitrate

. Management of non Bevill exempt wastewaters prior to re

- use may also have resulted in groundwater contami nation. The solids, some of which are also recycled to the kiln, have high levels of naturally occurring radioactive materials and have resulted in radionuclide contamination around the plant

.

Through the 1980s, Monsanto conducted investigations and acti ons at the site to address many of the known and suspected sources of contamination. In 1987, sampling was conducted as part of a site inspection and contamination was found in monitoring and production wells

. Investigations into the type and extent of con tamination at the site have since been completed.

Over the past 30 years, the estimated cost of addressing all the contaminated soils through institutional controls at prices estimated in the feasibility study (FS) is $2,500,000. However, the
total cost c ould be as much as $9,500,000, if the full extent of contaminated soils above the remediation goal in potential residential areas is taken into account through excavation, soil replacement, and containment within the Plant. The estimated cost of the Soil I nstitutional Control/Groundwater Monitoring alternative in the FS was $400,000 for the initial cost of establishing institutional controls and up to $150,000/year for ongoing groundwater monitoring, source/soil monitoring, and dust control

. Together these costs add up to a total of $2,500,000 forAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 352 remediation at the site. Since dust control is required pursuant to the Plant's Idaho permit and is not part of the selected remedy, that cost is not part of the cost of the remedy. However, the cost
estimate still seems reasonable, given that the cost of the arbitration which may be needed was
not estimated in the FS.

The FS cost estimate for the active soil cleanup alternative was $16 million dollars, based on cleanup of 435 acres to meet a 1x10

- 4 cleanup level. Current estimates of the total area to be
addressed at the selected 3x 10

- 4 cleanup level, is 250 acres, of which some 25 percent is already owned by Monsanto. Thus the maximum cost estimate for the soil remedy over 30 years
if all soils outside Monsanto 's control require active remediation is an additional $7,000,000, for a total cost estimate of $9,500,000.

As of September 30, 2004 total cost expenditures at the site were $944,646.65

. Contamination
occurred both before and after 1982

. Contamination oc curred from a variety of sources, some of them not recycling related and the clean up cost, therefore, is not all related to recycling.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 10

. Email Correspondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste)

. 30 November 20 05

.

USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: P4 Production LLC.” 30 April 1997. 16 January
2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r1097049.pdf

USEPA

. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). 30 September 2006. 13 January
2006.

USEPA. “Monsanto Chemical Co.” CERCLIS

. 7 December 2005

. 25 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=1000213

USEPA. “NPL Fact Sheet: P4 Production LLC.” November 2003. 16 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/nplpad.nsf/88d393e4946e3c478825631200672c95/39dd3205 823cb6c785256595004b0ea3?OpenDocument

USEPA. “P4 Production LLC.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 16 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000743982

Additional Contacts: Sylvia Burges: 206

- 553

- 1254Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 353 Wally Reid: 206

- 553

- 1728Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 354 Site Information

Site Name: Pagano Salvage
EPA ID No.: NMD980749980
Address: Los Lunas, NM 87031 County: Valencia

NPL Site: Deleted: 10/14/1992
In CERCLIS Database: 0600907

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Pagano Salvage Site covers 1.25 acres near the east bank of the Rio Grande. In 1983, Pagano Salvage purchased electric transformers/capacitors and other scrap metals containing polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)

- contaminated oil from Sandia National Labor atories, a U.S. Department of Energy facility in Albuquerque, New Mexico

. Pagano Salvage removed the oil, poured it over insulated wire, and burned off the insulation to recover the metal. The burning took place on unprotected ground at
several locations

. Site inspections in 1984, 1985, and 1986 revealed several areas of soil contamination in the yard due to leaks from scrap materials, which released PCB contaminated
oil into the soil

. These areas included two surface burn areas, a stained soil area, and a surface pool of oil.

Description of Contamination: When the facility ceased operations, 62 drums containing oil
remained on

- site. On

- site soil samples collected by USEPA in March 1987 contained high concentrations of two PCBs: Aroclor 1254 at 1,400 parts per million (ppm), and Aroclor 1260 at 910 ppm. Pesticides were also detected: DDT at 40 parts per billion (ppb) and DDE at 17 ppb. Contaminants were detected to a depth of 4 feet. All of these contaminants were also detected in

on

- site soil collected in N ovember 1985

. Local conditions facilitated movement of contaminants into ground water.

On June 8, 1989, USEPA issued a CERCLA Section 106 Administrative Order requiring a number of parties potentially responsible for wastes associated with the site to co nduct a removal action. The parties declined but proposed to fund the action, estimated to cost $1.5 million

. Over 5,100 tons of soil and debris were removed from the site.

Sources of Information:

USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Pagano Salvage. ” 27 September 1990. 18 January
2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0690058.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 355 USEPA. “Pagano Salvage Yard.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 25 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110010646024

USEPA. “NPL Fact Sheet: Pagano Salvage.” 12 January 2006. 18 January 2006. http://www .epa.gov/earth1r6/6sf/pdffiles/0600907.pdf

USEPA. “Superfund Site Progress Profile: Pagano Salvage.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 18 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercp ad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0600907

Additional Contacts: Ladonna Walker (SAM) (214) 665

- 6666 Don Williams (RPM) (214) 665

- 2197Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 356 Site Information

Site Name: Parawax Reclaiming, Inc.

EPA ID No.: OKD062270590
Address: 700 South Irving, Oklahoma City, OK 73160 County: Oklahoma
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0601121

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Parawax operated as a reclaimer of
oilfield wastes from 1942 until 1993

. Parawax produced various oil and wax products from crude oil exploration and production wastes accepted from local producers

. Historically, the crude oil exploration/production wastes were dehydrated using heat from an onsite boiler. Water produced during dehydration was aerated by treatment lagoons. Historical documents indicate up to five lagoons were used in the aeration treatment. Currently only one lagoon remains. Saltwater recovered in the process was disposed of at the Baker

- Townsend injection well approximately a quarter of a mile north

- northeast of the s ite. The current operation was halted by State mandate for environmental violations with orders to cleanup the facility. Insufficient resources were cited as the reason the owner/operator did not observe this State direction. However, solids and wastes
had not been removed from the process for an extended time, and had accumulated to such an extent that little capacity for further accumulation existed on site.

Description of Contamination: Contaminants include petroleum and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs )

. Soil on site was contaminated with PCBs

. USEPA discovered 26 above ground storage tanks in poor condition

. These tanks contained nearly 500,000 gallons of oil, oily water, and sludge

. Secondary containment berms (where they are present) were filled to n ear capacity with leaked oily waste

. In addition to removing these wastes, USEPA had to remove 25,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils as well

. Historical inspections conducted by the Oklahoma Water Resource Board (OWRB) indicate oil spilled from the Para wax site reached the North Canadian
River

. Offsite migration of oil was observed from piping on the southeastern fence boundary to the railroad right of way, and draining towards the river.

USEPA, in cooperation with the US Coast Guard’s National Pollutio n Funds Center spent approximately $2.5 million in federal resources to clean up the site (as of 2001). Clean up was completed by Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), USEPA, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the US Army Corps of Engineers , the City of Oklahoma City, the US Coast Guard, the Native American Cultural and Educational Authority, the Oklahoma Department of Commerce and the US Fish and Wildlife Service

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 357 Sources of Information: Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. “Okl ahoma Department of Environmental Quality Annual Report.” 2001. 18 January 2006. http://www.deq.state.ok.us/mainlinks/AR2001/2001AR

- 6.pdf

US Coast Guard Department of Homeland Security. “Year in Review FY2001

- FY2002.”
National Pollution Funds Center. 2001

- 2002. 18 January 2006. http://www.uscg.mil/hq/npfc/Doc uments/PDFs/year_in_review_01_02.pdf

USEPA. “Parawax Refinery.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 18 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0601121

US EPA. “Pollution Reports (Polreps).” 13 April 2001. 18 January 2006. http://yosemite1.epa.gov/r6/polreps.nsf/0/4fcdffbf71f264ba86256bd500759c28?OpenDo

cum ent

USEPA. “Pollution Reports (Polreps).” 9 March 2001. 18 January 2006. http://yosemite1.epa.gov/r6/polreps.nsf/0/cb609b4a768195ed86256bd50074d2b5?Ope nD

ocument

USEPA Region 6. “State, Federal, Local and Tribal Agencies Partners in Cleanup Project.” 15 November 2001. 18 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b0789fb70f8ff03285257029006e3880/bb09f4f c701020ac852570d6005e7dc1!OpenDocument

Additional Contacts: James Mullins (OSC) (214) 665

- 2273 Philip Ofosu (SAM) (214) 665

- 3178 Susan Webster (OSC) (214) 665

- 6784 Rita R. Kottke (Oklahoma DEQ) (405) 702

- 5127Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 358 Site Name: Peck Iron and Metal
EPA ID No.: VAN000306115
Address: 3850 Elm Street, Portsmouth, VA, 23704 County: Portsmouth City
NPL Site: Yes
In CERCLIS Database: VAN000306115

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : From 1945 to 1999, Peck Iron and Metal (Peck Iron) purchased, processed, stored, and shipped met al scrap from various military bases; federal, state, and local government agencies; and local businesses. The Department of Defense (DOD) processed and sold scrap metal to Peck Iron that was acquired from various military bases and Navy yards

. Other large, nongovernmental sellers to Peck Iron included Virginia Electric and Power, various railroads, landfills (sources of white goods [household appliances] and miscellaneous scrap), and nearby ship repair facilities

. Scrap metal handled at the facility i

ncluded damaged and obsolete equipment, attachments, parts, and other miscellaneous materials, including scrapped naval vessels. Some of these scrap materials contained cadmium (automobile parts), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) (insulated wire, gaskets, f luorescent lights and transformer oils), and lead (scrapped bridge sections and automobile batteries). PCB

- containing transformers were disassembled at the facility and the wires were burned to remove insulation. The facility is currently inactive.

The 33

- acre site is situated in a mixed residential and industrial area in the tidewater region of southeastern Virginia bordered in part by Paradise Creek, a tributary to the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River and Chesapeake Bay. The site’s historical usage as a salvage operation resulted in the improper storage and disposal of hazardous substances and the consequent release
of these hazardous substances into the environment. Assessments conducted of the site between
2003 and 2006 indicate that concentration s of semi

- volatile organic compounds, metals, PCBs, and pesticides in soil and sediment exceed various risk

- based screening levels. PCBs and lead are the primary contaminants of concern due to their extreme concentrations.

PCBs and lead have been detected in a wetland on the southwest border of facility and the bank of Paradise Creek, which is a human food chain fishery and is used for recreation activities, including swimming, boating, crabbing, and fishing.

The s ite was proposed to the N ational P riorities L ist on April 9, 2009, and was finalized on the NPL on November 4, 2009.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 359 Description of Contamination: Numerous investigations conducted at the Peck Iron facility have identified high concentrations of PCB and lead in surface soils on site

. The highest concentrations of PCBs were found in the southern portion of the property

. Analytical results indicate that much of the soil on site has lead concentrations up to 1,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), and a small area of soil in the southern port ion of the property has shown lead concentrations exceeding 10,000 mg/kg

. Extensive PCB investigations conducted in 2005 sampled the facility using a 50 by 50

- foot grid system

. The investigation studied samples collected from nearly 21 acres of surface soi l (0 to 18 inches below ground surface) and from approximately seven acres of subsurface soil (18 to 36 inches below ground surface)

. Based on the investigations, PCB concentrations were estimated in surface soils as follows : 11 acres

– less than 10 mg/kg; 8 acres

– between 10 and 100 mg/kg; and 2 acres

– greater than 100 mg/kg

. PCB
concentrations in subsurface soils were estimated at a similar distribution : 4 acres

– less than 10 mg/kg; 2 acres

– between 10 and 100 mg/kg; and 1 acre

– greater than 100 mg/k g.

Limited sediment sampling conducted in Paradise Creek revealed PCB concentrations ranging from 0.001 to 17 mg/kg.

To eliminate the possibility of exposure of trespassers, incidental, or recreational

- use individuals
to hazardous substances from the Pe ck Iron property, a chain link fence with a locked gate was installed in 2003 near the northwest corner of the facility

. Though a tenant currently leases a small portion of the property along the western border, the remainder of the property is currently

v acant

. Accumulations of scrap metal and miscellaneous debris are present in a number of areas throughout the property.

No formal response activities have been conducted to date. Multiple sampling events have been conducted at the request of the Texas Comm i ssion on Environmental Quality and U.S.EPA Region 6. Sampling activities were conducted in 2005 and in 2007.

While the Site is moving through the CERCLA process, it is expected that the Remedial Program will continue to monitor and survey the site to det ermine if migration of contamination and the immediate threat of significant release presents an unreasonable risk

. If the threat of sig nificant release is observed, immediate action may be taken to further stabilize or remediate the site.

Sources of Info rmation:

1. USEPA. Facility Registry System. Facility Detail Report. Peck Iron and Metal

. Accessed
Online. November 2011:Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 360 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=1100179
37278

2. USEPA. Hazardous Ranking System. Documentation Record. Peck Iron and Metal.
Accessed Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/docrec/pdoc1795.pdf

3. USEPA. Mid

- Atlantic Superfund Site Summary. Peck Iron and Metal. Accessed Online.
November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/reg 3hwmd/npl/VAN000306115.htm

4. USEPA. National Priorities List (NPL) Site Narrative. Peck Iron and Metal. Accessed
Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1795.htm

5. US EPA. On

- Scene Coordinator Website. Peck and Iron Metal Site

. Accessed Online.
November 2011: http://www.epaosc.org/site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=2586Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 361 Site Information

Site Name: PECO Energy Company (Exelon)
EPA ID No.: PAD000731026
Address : Jeffrey Street and Delaware Avenue, Chester PA 19013 County: Delaware

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The PECO Energy Company site is a
90

- acre site bordering the Delaware River

. Prior site uses include coal

- fired electricity generation, coke and steel production, industrial chemical and resin manufacturing, and hazardous waste recycling

. The Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Company (PICCO) operated its settling basin for resin disposal until 1981, when PECO removed 5,000 cubic yards of resinous material. Chem Clear operated its hazardous waste treatment and recycling facility
between 1977 and 1989.

Descr iption of Contamination : Most contamination is on 17 acres of the site where resin manufacturing and hazardous waste recycling activities took place

. The Chem Clear recycling hazardous waste operation was responsible for some of the contamination

. On

- site soil is composed of fill containing resins and tar fragments

. Contaminants include BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), light non

- aqueous phase liquids (LNAPLs), and heavy metals

. Onsite groundwater is conta minated with BTEX, PAHs, LNAPL, and semi

- volatile organic compounds

. Groundwater contamination led to sheens of BTEX and PAHs spreading onto the surface of the Delaware River

. Of the 90 acres, 17 are currently under a RCRA Agreement to construct a remedy f or past hazardous waste activities. The remainder of the site was characterized under Pennsylvania’s Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards Act (“Act 2")

. USEPA, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and PECO worke d together to develop a plan to remediate
the entire site.

Sources of Information: Dao, Khai M. (EPA Region 8) (215) 814

- 5467, Interview 11/18/2005.

USEPA. “Peco Energy Co Gould Chemclear.” RCRA Info. 13 September 2000. 18 January
2006.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 362 USEPA. “Redevelopment and Reuse Fact Sheet PECO Energy (Philadelphia Electric Company) Chester, PA.” (n.d.). 22 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/pdf/peco.pdf

USEPA. “Region 3 GPRA Ba seline RCRA Corrective Action Facility Peco Energy Co., Chester Facility.” (n.d.). 22 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/pa/pdf/pad000731026.pdf

Additional Contacts:
Khai M . Dao (EPA Region 3 Contact) (215) 814

- 5467 or

- 5761, dao.khai@epa.gov Renee Gelblat (RCRA Project Manager) (215) 814

- 3421, gelblat.renee@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 363 Site Information

Site Name: Pellestar Limited
EPA ID No.: MIN000508651
Address : 1201 County Road 492, Negaunee Township, MI 49866 County: Marquette
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 508651

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Pellestar Limited property is an abandoned industrial property located in an industrial area in Marquette County between Negaunee and Marquette, Michigan. Previous owners had used the property for research and development of pelletizing technologies and fo r metal recovery. Operations included the recycling of arc furnace dust, arc furnace waste oxides, flue dust, caustic ash, mill scale, plating sludge, medical sharps, automobile air bag inflators, and used oil filters

. After Pellestar, Ltd.,
closed down me tal recovery operations in 1997, Marquette County, Michigan took possession of the property.

The property covers 18 acres and contains various buildings from previous industrial activities.
There are four wastewater treatment lagoons on the northern part of the property. Lagoons 1, 2, and 3 were lined; however, lagoon 4 was unlined. There is an abandoned well on the property located near the northwest corner of the main building.

Description of Contamination : 11,474 tons of soil contaminated with heavy m etals were disposed of at Marquette County landfill

. Four aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), 209 drums, 48 pails, 28 mercury switches, 250 small containers, and 15 compressed cylinders were also disposed

.

A November 4, 2003 Federal Register Notice details a compromise for payment of past response
costs incurred in connection with the Pellestar site

. Included in the agreement are the following settling parties: Carpenter Technology Corporation; Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company; General Motors Corporation; Howm et Corporation; Ispat Inland Inc.; Technology Development Corporation and its subsidiaries, including Pellet Technology Corporation; and TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc. The settlement requires the settling parties to perform a removal action at
the site a nd reimburse USEPA for its costs incurred after April 1, 2003 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. Past costs (USEPA costs incurred prior to April 1, 2003) in the amount of $118,328 are being compromised in consideration of the settling parties' commitmen t to perform the removal and pay all costs after April 1, 2003.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 364 Sources of Information : Federal Register (Volume 68, Number 213). Page 62454. “Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement; Pellestar Site, Negaunee, MI.” 4 November 2003. 15 Jan uary 2006. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA

- WASTE/2003/November/Day

- 04/f27676.htm

Michigan Department of Community Health. “Health Consultation Report: Pellastar Limited.” 29 January 2002. 17 January 2006. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/pellestar/pel_toc.html

U SEPA. “Pellestar.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 25 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110002437809

USEPA. “Pellesta r.” On

- Scene Coordinator Profile. (n.d.) 17 January 2006. www.epaosc.net/pellestar

USEPA. “Pellestar.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 17 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0508651

Additional Contacts : Brian Kelly (OSC) kelly.brian@epa.gov (734) 692

- 767Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 365 Site Information:
Site Name: Petrochem Recycling Corp./Ekotek Plant
EPA ID No.: UTD093119196
Address : 1628 N Chicago St., Salt Lake City, UT 84116 County: Salt Lake
NPL Site: Deleted: 6/30/2003
In CERCLIS Database: 0800649

Site History and/or Description of Recycling Operation : This Superfund site is located in the northern section of Salt Lake City

. It was originally owned and operated as an oil refinery by
O.C. Allen Oil Company from 1953 to 1968

. In 1968, Flinco, Inc. purchased the facility and operated the refinery until 1978

. During that time, Flinco changed its name to Bonus International Corp

. In 1978, Axel Johnson, Inc. acquired the facility and operated i t through its
Delaware

- based subsidiary, Ekotek, Inc

. This subsidiary converted the site into a hazardous waste storage, treatment, and petrochemical recycling facility

. In 1981, the facility changed ownership but retained the name Ekotek, Inc., based in U tah

. Ekotek declared bankruptcy in November 1987. Petrochem Recycling Corp. leased the facility in 1987 from Ekotek and continued operations until February 1988. The facility received a final RCRA permit in July 1987, which expired in July 1989

.

The Ekot ek bankruptcy estate remains the current site owner. The facility was permitted to manage hazardous wastes, though the nature and extent of the petrochemical recycling operation
is not known

. After operations ceased at this facility ownership was unknown

.

Cleanup expenditure spent on this site in 2004 equaled $4,032,359.38

.

Description of Contamination : Contaminants associated with on

- site sources include a wide range of organic substances such as chlorinated solvents and other volatile organic compound s, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, phthalates, pesticides, Aroclor 1260, dioxin and furans, and heavy metals

. An emergency surface removal addressed 1,200 drums and 1,500 smaller containers, 3 surface impoundments, an underground drain field, numerous p iles and pits of waste materials, underground tanks, incineration furnaces, and contaminated soils

. It is unknown from which phase of the operation the contamination occurred.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 8. “Petrochem Recycling Corporation/E kotek Plant.” May 2003

. 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/sites/ut/pchem.html

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 366 USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Petrochem Recycling Corp./Ekotek Plant .” 27 September 1996

. 17 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0896901.pdf

.

USEPA. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). 30 September 2004.

USEPA

. “NPL Site Narrative for Petrochem Recycling Corporation/Ekotek Plant.” 7 October
2004

. 17 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1315.htm

.

USEPA

. “Permit Series Lis t.” RCRAInfo

. 19 January 2006.

USEPA

. “

Petrochem Recycling Corp./Ekotek Plant .” CERCLIS

. 27 October 2005

. 17 January
2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm ?id=0800649

White, Jack (EPA Region 8), 303

- 312

- 6707, Interview 12/8/2005.

Additional Contacts:

Rebecca Thomas, USEPA, (303) 312

- 6552

Jack White, USEPA, (303) 312

- 6707Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 367 Site Information
Site Name: Phelps Dodge New Cornelia Branch Facility
EPA ID No.: AZD081687063
Address: HWY 85 South; Ajo, AZ 85321 County: Pima
NPL Site No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Phelps Dodge New Cornelia Branch Facility is a copper mine in the vicinity of Ajo, Arizona, approximately 130 miles west of Tucson. On May 23, 1994, the Sheriffs Department investigated a complaint a bout smoke rising from the Phelps Dodge Slag Pile. Officers observed two piles of burning wire. Phelps Dodge had an independent contractor that performed various salvage activities, such as recycling and disposing of scrap metal, including insulated copper wire.

Description of Contamination: On June 22, 1994, at the request of the County Attorney’s Office and the Sheriffs Department, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) staff conducted a hazardous waste inspection at the Phelps Dodge Slag Pi le. ADEQ collected nine soil samples from the burn areas, all from within six inches of the surface. Three contaminants of concern were identified; cadmium, chromium, and lead. Six of the samples collected demonstrated levels of Toxicity Characteristic Lea ching Procedure (TCLP) for lead over the regulatory limit, and one sample demonstrated levels of TCLP for cadmium over the regulatory limit. Based on the analyses conducted, ADEQ determined that there was reason to believe that the slag pile itself was con taminated from the open burning and open dumping of insulated copper wire.

On May 12, 1995, ADEQ issued a Notice of Violation to the independent contractor working for Phelps Dodge that required removal of contaminated soils to a licensed TSD facility and that the use of all equipment used in copper wire burning be discontinued

. Although Phelps Dodge reportedly did not approve of the copper wire burning at the site, the company agreed to address the residual impacts of the burning and excavated additional material that was treated as hazardous waste, stored in containers, and shipped to a TSD facility. Phelps Dodge subsequently conducted sampling of the excavated areas, and submitted a Voluntary Environmental Mitigation Use Restriction to ADEQ because the s oil remediation levels were not considered to be protective of residential use.

Phelps Dodge determined that there was no likelihood that ground water could be impacted due to the absence of ground water in the area. The nearest ground water drinking well s are fiveAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 368 miles from the site. Phelps Dodge pumps ground water from a depth of 800 feet from a well field
six miles north of the site.

Sources of Information: USEPA. “Damage Cases and Environmental Releases from Mines and Mineral Processing Sites.” 1997. 28 January 2008. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ldr/mine/damg3

- 97.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 369 Site Name: Pick

- Your

- Part Auto Recyclers
EPA ID No.: CAL000266823
Address: 1903 Blinn Avenue, Wilmington, CA, 90744 County: Los Angeles
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Pick

- Your

- Part Auto Recyclers ( Pick

Your

- Part) , located in Wilmington, California, at the Port of Los Angeles, is the largest self

service auto recycler in Southern California. The salvage yard was the site of a fire in June 2010, in which flammable liquid ignited as scrap me tal was being moved by employees. In addition, U.S. EPA commenced proceedings against the salvage yard in 2002 for violations of its N ational Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit

.

Description of Contamination : On Saturday June 5, 2010 at approximately 11:30 AM, a fire
broke out at the Pick

- Your

- Part salvage yard

. Employees at the salvage yard were apparently moving salvaged metals when flammable liquids ignited, sparking the blaze. The fire sent up a huge plume of smoke near the Port of Lo s Angeles. The smell of burnt rubber and metal could be detected as far away as Carson, ten miles to the north. The fire took 32 hours for firefighters to extinguish. Sixteen fire companies and four rescue teams, totaling 103 firefighters, responded to
the fire. At its peak, the fire was said to be as long as a football field and 20

- 25 feet high.

Sampling revealed light hydrocarbons (C2 and C3) were elevated in all the downwind samples relative to typical ambient air

. For benzene, the N ational Institute f or Occupational Safety and
Health Recommended Exposure Limit is 100 ppb

. The highest reading obtained at the scene of the incident was 27 ppb

. For 1,3

- butadiene, the O ccupational Safety and Health Administration Permissible Exposure Limit is 1,000 ppb, and the highest measured downwind concentration was 12 ppb

. Measured concentrations of toluene, xylenes, and styrene also were well below health

based criteria.

The two canister samples collected immediately adjac ent to the fire and in the plume showed hydrocarbons and halogenated hydrocarbons concentrations were much higher than typical
outdoor levels

. At these levels, anyone in the immediate vicinity of the fire could have experienced respiratory irritation witho ut adequate protection from these pollutants as well as fine particles in smoke

. At the levels measured, one would not expect irreversible health impacts

. Local communities were not expected to be exposed to concentrations measured in the smoke sample due to plume buoyancy and dispersion.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 370 Sources of Information:

1. Coalition for a Safe Environment TV. YouTube. Pick Your Part Junkyard Fire. Accessed
Online. December 2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=86uPrSXeP5M

2. Federal Registry. Clean Water Act Class II: Proposed Administrative Penalty Assessments and Opportunities To Comment Regarding Pick Your Part Auto Wrecking

-- Chula Vista; Pick Your Part Auto Wrecking

-- Help Yourself; Pick Your Part Auto
Wrecki ng

-- Santa Paula; Pick Your Part Auto Wrecking

-- Sun Valley; Pick Your Part Auto Wrecking

— Wilmington. Friday, November 1, 2002. Accessed Online. December
2011: http://www.gpo.gov/fd sys/pkg/FR

- 2002

- 11

- 01/html/02

- 27831.htm

3. KTLA News. Scrap Yard Fire Extinguished After Burning 32 Hours. June 6, 2010.
Accessed Online. December 2011: http://www.ktla.com/ news/landing/ktla

- wilmington

fire,0,1746710.story

4. Pick your Part Auto Recycler Website. Accessed Online. December 2011: http://www.pickyourpart.com/

5. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Summary of Leve ls of Air Pollutants Measured in Neighborhoods Near Saturday’s Fire at Pick

- Your

- Part. Accessed Online.
December 2011: http://www.aqmd.gov/news1/2010/PickYourPart1.pdf

6. USEPA. Facility Regist ry System. Facility Detail Report. Pick Your Part. Accessed
Online. December 2011: http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.di sp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=CAL0 00266823&pgm_sys_acrnm_in=BRAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 371 Site Information:

Site Name: Pittsburgh Metal & Equipment
EPA ID No.: NJD000540062 or NJD981490295
Address : 41

- 59 Aetna Street (Foot), Jersey City, NJ 07302 County: Hudson
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0201097

Description of Recycling Operation: A former smelting facility that operated for approximately thirty

- five years, receiving used metal and dross from a number of clients, including those in the printing industries.

This site did not hold a RCRA Part B permit.

Description of Contaminatio n: USEPA confirmed contamination at the site as high as 15 percent lead in the top two feet of soil. Other hazardous substances at the site include cadmium, antimony, beryllium, copper, nickel, silver, zinc, and PCBs.

As a result of the release or threate ned release of hazardous substances, USEPA has undertaken response actions at or in connection with the Site under section 104 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
9604

. Under the terms of the Agreement, the de minimis Settling Parties will pay a total of approximately $3 70,000.00 to reimburse USEPA for clean up costs. incurred at the Site. In addition, a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection document lists USEPA emergency clean up costs in 2000 amounting to $2,864,000.

Sources of Additional Information:
Feder al Register (Volume 70, Number 97) Page 29312

- 29313. “Proposed Settlement Under Section 122(g) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act Regarding the Pittsburgh Metal and Equipment Superfund Site, Jersey City,
NJ.” 20 Ma y 2005. 24 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA

- WASTE/2005/May/Day

- 20/f10147.htm

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. “NJ Publicly Funded Cleanups Site Status

Report 2000: Remedial Action/Construction projects completed in 2000.” 18 January 2006. http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/publications/site_status/2000/html/2000intro05.htmAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 372 USEPA. “Pittsburgh Metals & Graphics.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 18 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0201097

USEPA. “Pittsburgh Metals & Graphics.” RCRAInfo . 26 November 2001

. 20 January 2006.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 373 Site Information :

Site Name: Poly

- Cycle, Industries Tecula
EPA ID No.: TXT490012689
Address : FM 2064 and CR 4216, Tecula, TX County: Cherokee
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Description of Recycling Operation : Prior to May 1982, and up to January 1990, Poly

- Cycle Industries, Inc., Tecula operated as a recycler of lead from lead acid batteries. They also recycled plastic and rubber chips from ground up battery cases

. The site is now inactive and abandoned.

The site did not have a RCRA permit.

Description of Contamination : The facility came under intense scrutiny after 1983 when a ph ysician notified OSHA of a worker seriously ill with lead intoxication. OSHA documented approximately 24 cases of lead poisoning between October 1983 and August 1989. In 1983, the site received contaminated soil from a nearby Poly

- Cycle operation in Jackso nville. In 1984 lead contamination was documented in soils at 281,000 parts per million. Additional analysis in 1986 documented 350,000 part per million of lead in soils. Although numerous violation notices were issued, the owner failed to abide by orders or agreements to cease operations or to reduce the hazard. Finally, in 1991, USEPA was granted court authority to enter the site and abate the substantial endangerment. USEPA excavated nine acres of contaminated soil, constructed two temporary buildings an

d filled them with 2,200 bags, each with 1.7 cubic yards of contaminated soil. The remaining contaminated soil was consolidated in a stockpile and covered with a two

foot soil cap that was seeded. The soil cap has since eroded. The results of February 2000 soil sampling showed lead still to be a matter of concern. List of contaminants include metals.

Sources of Information Contacts : EPA Region 6

. “POLREP No. 1 (Polycycle

- Tecula

- Supersack disposal).” (n.d.). 21 January
2006

. http://yosemite1.epa.gov/r6/polreps.nsf/0/ 837f6da1585633d286256ab80059864f?OpenD

ocument.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

. “Poly

- Cycle Industries, Tecula.” 5 January 2005

. 21 January 2006

. http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/superfund/state/polycycl

tecula.html.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 374 USEPA. “

Poly

- Cycle Industries Inc. Facility Detail Report.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 21 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=1100109
35417.

USEPA. “Poly Cycle Industries Inc.” RCRA Info. 2 September 2000. 18 January 2006.

Additional Contacts : Alonzo Arredondo (Texas Commission on Environmental Quali ty) (512) 239

- 2145 or (800) 633

- 9363, aarredon@tceq.state.tx.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 375 Site Information

Site Name: Progressive Marketing Group, Inc. (PMG Finishing)
EPA ID No.:
Address: 4701 L.B. McLeod Road, Orlando, FL 32811 County: Hennepin
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : In 1988, the Hennepin County Department of Environment and Energy notified the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) that PMG Finishing purchased 500 gallons of paint for $5.00

. Possible fraudulent recycling activities were investigated

. PMG had just begun metal finishing operations in Orlando and identified the material as usable product

. PMG went out of business around 1990

. In October, 1994, a semi

- trailer containing numerous drums and containers of waste solvents, corrosives and paints was found abandoned along side a roadway in Marion County, Florida

. Labels on some containers identified PMG as a source

. FDEP incurred $26 ,469 in disposal costs

.

Description of Contamination : Unknown

Sources of Information : Posner, Augusta. (State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection)

. Email Correspondence to Dave Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 17 March 2005

.

Additional Contacts : Augusta Posner, FDEP, augusta.posner@dep.state.fl.us , 850

- 245

- 2285Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 376 Site Information

Site Name: Queen City Barrel Co.
EPA ID No.: OHD004477634
Address: 1937 South Street, Cincinnati, OH 45204 County: Hamilton
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 505978

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Queen City Barrel Emergency Response site consists of a 400,000

- square

- foot warehouse commonly referred to as the "Lawson Building." E. Paul Corporation owns the Lawson Building

. Queen City Barrel Company (QCB) owns a container reconditioning facility that adjoins the Lawson Building to the north and west

. Since at least 1998, QCB has leased the Lawson Building and us ed it for drum and container storage, fiber drum reconditioning, and equipment and maintenance storage

. Since at least 1998, a portion of the Lawson Building has also been leased to a wooden pallet reconditioner, C&H Pallet Company

. In March 1984, the site was issued a RCRA permit

.

Description of Contamination : On August 19, 2004 at approximately 6:30 p.m., a fire ignited in the Lawson Building

. At the time of the fire, the warehouse contained thousands of fiber, plastic, and metal drums and other contain ers

. The following chemicals were detected in the Whateley Street smoke plume: acetone, 2

- butanone (methyl ethyl ketone), tetrahydrofuran, heptane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, styrene, and xylene

. Drums were noted to be burned, partially burned, and in varying stages of deterioration due to the fire, which was still smoldering

. Drums were observed within the fire area, as well as in other parts of the building that were immediately adjacent to the fire areas

. Drums were stacked three high in several are as of the building's upper level

. As of March 25, 2005, approximately 28,436 empty drums have been removed from the drum storage building

. A total of 12,971 drums containing liquid and solid wastes were staged, sampled, and hazard categorized for off

- site disposal

.

In addition, in February 2004, Ohio EPA reached a settlement with Queen City Barrel Co. for violating air pollution control regulations at its drum reconditioning facility

. The company agreed to pay a $26,625 civil penalty and shut down a coati ng line that will result in the reduction of 1.6 tons per year of volatile organic compounds to the air. Between October 30, 2000, and August 13, 2002, HCDES inspectors documented that Queen City Barrel failed to
conduct air emissions tests on time or file adequate paperwork to document the effectiveness of the company's pollution control devices. On October 25, 2002, the company submitted paperwork documenting times that complete air pollution control equipment records were notAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 377 kept

. On October 22, 2003, H CDES investigated an odor complaint in the Lower Price Hill area. The inspection determined that Queen City Barrel was operating an unpermitted steel drum coating line

. In addition to paying the fine, Queen City Barrel agreed to stop operating the
exterior drum coating line that was the source of the October 2003 odor complaint and conduct tests of the emissions control devices in the presence of HCDES staff. The company has since tested its air emissions and is in compliance with all applicable air laws an d regulations.

Sources of Information : Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. “Cincinnati Company Agrees to Pay $26,625 for Air Pollution Violations; Will Stop One Painting Operation.” 20 February 2004. 22 January
2006. http://www.epa.state.oh.us/pic/nr/2004/february/qcb.html

USEPA. “Queen City Barrel.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 22 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0505978

USEPA. “Queen City Barrel.” On

- Scene Coordinator Profile. (n.d.) 22 January 2006. www.epaosc.net/queencitybarrel

USEPA. “Queen City Barrel.” RCRA Info. 15 September 2000. 18 January 2006.

USEPA. “Reports of Significant Developments and Activities Ending on September 10, 2004.” EPA Region 5. 17 September 2004. 22 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region5superfund/significant_actions/2004/040910.txt

Additional Contacts : Steven Renninger (OSC) (513) 569

- 7539 renninger.steven@epa.gov An additional list of contacts can be found at the following link: http://www.epaosc.net/contact_list.asp?site_id=R5ZZAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 378 Site Information

Site Name: Quicksilver Products, Inc.
EPA ID No.: CAD981424732
Address: 200 Valley Dr Ste 1, Brisbane, CA 94005 County: San Mateo
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Quicksilver Products, Inc. operated a mercury recycling facility, including fluorescent/mercury lamps and mercury

- contaminated debris, from 1988 to 1995

. Their lamps were crushed outside in a unit mounted on top of a 55 gallon drum

. An air separation system was used t o remove the phosphor powder and mercury from the glass

. The facility was closed down for violations of safe operating practices.

In 1999, the San Mateo County District Attorney‘s Office held a hearing on Mr. Ritchie Vaughn, former owner/operator of the Quicksilver Products, regarding his probation violation stemming from his failure to initiate facility closure following his hazardous waste facility permit
revocation

. Mr. Vaughn admitted his violation, was placed back on probation by the Court, and

was g iven an additional probation condition of 300 hours of public service work, which must be environmentally related.

Quicksilver received a Part B RCRA permit on August 7, 1989; however, it expired

.

Description of Contamination: Extensive contamination wa s found around the facility; high concentrations of mercury were measured in the soil, rinse water, and on a nearby roof

. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) conducted an investigation and cleanup of the site and is now seeking rec overy of its costs

.

In 1999, DTSC identified Berkeley Lab as one of the parties potentially responsible for these costs because it once sent fluorescent/mercury lamps and mercury

- contaminated debris to the Quicksilver site. Berkeley Lab and other potenti ally responsible parties are negotiating allocation of the cleanup costs with DTSC.

Sources of Information: Berkeley Lab. “Environmental Program Summary 3: Environmental Restoration (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program).”Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 379 17 January 2006. http://www.lbl.gov/ehs/esg/00ser/00serchp3.html

Emissions Standards Division prepared by EC/R Incorporated. “EPA Evaluation of Mercury Emissions from Fluorescent Lamp Crushing

. February 1994. 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/mercury.doc

EPA Region 9. Email Correspondenc e to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 22 November
2005.

USEPA. “Quicksilver Products, Inc.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.). 24 January 2006

. http://oaspub.ep a.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000610027

USEPA. “Quicksilver Products, Inc.” RCRAInfo

. 27 June 2002

. 18 January 2006.

USEPA. “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Site Progress Profile: Quicksilver Products, Inc.” (n.d.). 17 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/rcris_web.report?pgm_sys_id=CAD981424732

Additional Contacts: Ritchey Vaughn (Pub lic) 415

- 468

- 2000Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 380 Site Information

Site Name: R. Lavin and Sons
EPA ID No.: ILN000508448
Address: 2028 S. Sheridan Road, North Chicago, IL 60064 County: Lake
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0508448

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The site operated as a secondary brass smelter since 1941 and comprises approximately 17.5 acres surrounded by residential and
commercial land

- uses

. A variety of copper and brass scraps were imported from off

- site sources, melted and refined, po ured into ingots, and shipped to customers. The facility has been upgraded several times in response to enforcement actions by the state of Illinois including, installation of several baghouses, improvement of a closed

- loop, cooling water recirculating sys tem, and implementation of surface run

- off containment and control measures

.

Description of Contamination : Areas of concern on site include three open top storage tanks, two retention ponds, process water pit and numerous baghouses, containing elevated l evels of lead, cadmium, copper and zinc. State studies have indicated significant downstream contamination of Pettibone Creek with copper, lead and zinc.

Releases of contaminants to the storm sewer as a result of recycling operations have been and
contin ue to be an ongoing problem at this site.

Sources of Information : USEPA. “R Lavin and Sons.” CERCLIS . 27 October 2005. 16 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursi tes/csitinfo.cfm?id=0508448

USEPA. “R Lavin and Sons.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 16 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000429812

USEPA. “R Lavin and Sons.” On

- Scene Coordinator Profile. (n.d.) 16 January 2006. www.epaosc.net/RLAVIN

Additional Contacts : Bradley Benning, benning.bradley@epa.gov Cynthia Kawakami, kawakami.cynthia@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 381 Site Name: Raleigh Street Dump
EPA ID No.: FLD984227249
Address: West End of Raleigh Street, Tampa, FL, 33619 County: Hillsborough
NPL Site: Yes
In CERCLIS Database: FLD984227249

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Raleigh Street Dump Site (RSDS) is a five acre site located in Tampa, Florida

. The site is split into a northern section and a southern section. The northern section of the site is an unfenced and undeveloped area with evidence of previous use as a landfill. The southern section is currently occupied by Tampa Fiberglass, a company th at manufactures fiberglass tanks and other products. There is evidence that the buildings on this developed part of the site were constructed after dumping and landfilling had already taken place.

Evidence indicates that the RSDS was used as a landfill area for battery casings, furnace slag, and other debris, starting around 1977 and continuing into the mid

- 1980s, with the majority of dumping occurring in the northern portion. The site was discovere d during a 1980 investigation of Chloride Metals Inc., a nearby battery recycling facility that is believed to have transported waste material from recycling activities and landfilled it at the Raleigh Street site. Although
Chloride Metals Inc. claims that battery case disposal was halted at the site in 1978, a nearby business owner reported disposal until 1980, and aerial photographs indicate that disposal could
have occurred into the mid

- 1980s.

The southern portion of the site was owned by a John Manfrin during the period of active disposal, and is now owned by Stephen and Patricia Cook. The northern portion was and is owned by the Atlantic Land and I mprovement Company/CSX Transporta tion. Chloride Metals Inc is currently owned by the Exide Corporation whi ch is in b ankruptcy.

In the late 1980s, Hillsborough County officials inspected improper disposal at the Tampa Fiberglass site, and issued a notice of violation (NOV) for improper disposal in 1988. The NOV was closed after cleanup in 1991. In 1994 a CERCL A site inspection was undertaken, and in 1998 an Expanded Site Inspection was conducted for the U.S. EPA. Subsequent remedial investigations were undertaken by the U.S. EPA in 2001, 2002 and 2006, along with a feasibility study in 2007

. These investigation s resulted in the site being placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 2009, and a cleanup process is currently in negotiation.

Description of Contamination: The northern section of the facility remains strewn with battery casings and other debris w hile the southern section shows less evidence of previous landfillAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 382 activities. Site investigations have found considerable contamination with a number of hazardous
substances

. In particular, metals, pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

, and polychl orinated biphenyls all are in the soil above health

- based risk levels. Some of the contaminants (particularly lead) also have been found in on

- site surface water and shallow groundwater. Most contaminants are suspected to be related to the landfill activit ies at the site and the dumping of wastes from Chloride Metal’s battery recycling operation. Material was believed to have been dumped at the west end of the site and fanned out via bulldozing. This northern section is now overgrown with bush, trees and we tland.

Early soil investigations at the site in the 1980s detected elevated levels of lead, arsenic, and antimony. Subsequent investigations, particularly a CERCLA inspection initiated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), have all found elevated contaminants primarily in the soil. Such investigations lead to the site’s addition to the NPL, because the FDEP was unable to come to a cleanup agreement with the responsible parties. While remedial investigation has been undertaken, the b ankruptcy of Exide has delayed the process and no cleanups have yet begun.

Sources of Information:

1. USEPA. Facility Registry Systems. Facility Detail Report. Raleigh Street Dump.
Accessed Online. November 2011: http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=1100092
76292

2. USEPA. National Priorities List (NPL) Site Narrative. Raleigh Street Dump, Tampa,
Florida Accessed O nline. November 2011 : http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1785.htm

3. USEPA. Region 4. Record of Decision. Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection. Raleigh Dump Site. June 2009

. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2009040003099.pdf

4. USEPA. Superfund (Cerclis). Query Results. Raleigh Street Dump. Accesse d Online.
November 2011: http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/cerclis_web.report?pgm_sys_id=FLD984227249

5. USEPA. Superfund Information Systems. Superfund Site Progress. Profile . Raleigh Street Dump. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0405795Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 383 Site Information

Site Name: Recyclights West LLC
EPA ID No.:
Address: Glendora, CA County:
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Robert J. Roberts owned Recyclights West in Glendora, CA

. Recyclights transported used fluorescent light tubes and high

- intensity discharge lamps and advertised itself as a company that recycled "hazardous waste lamps" in compliance with United States Environmental Protection Agency regulations. Recyclights also promised customers, such as the Los Angeles Air Force Bas e and Camp Pendleton, that it would issue a Certificate of Recycling.

A grand jury indicted Robert J. Roberts on federal environmental and obstruction of justice charges for offering to properly dispose of fluorescent light tubes and other lamps that cont ained hazardous levels of lead and mercury, and then simply dumping these materials in storage
lockers across Southern California

. The indictment charges Roberts with one count of storing hazardous wastes without a permit, two counts of making a false statement to a criminal investigator with the Department of Defense, one count of obstructing justice, and one count of making a false statement to the United States Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton.

The indictment alleges that, rather than recycling lam ps, Roberts rented self

- storage units throughout Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties and simply dumped the waste fluorescent tubes and lamps at the self

- storage locations. This case was investigated by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Defense, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and the United States Postal Inspection Service.

Description of Contamination: When agents executed search warrants at approximately 30 storage units, they found tens of thousands of ligh ts that contained hazardous levels of lead and mercury. Investigators also learned that Roberts had stopped paying rent for the units.

Sources of Information: US Department of Justice

. “Man Who Offered Hazardous Waste Recycling Allegedly Only Dumped Mate rial In Storage Lockers.” Release No. 06

- 027

. 3 March 2006

. 5 March 2008

. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pressroom/pr2006/027.htmlAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 384 Site Information
Site Name: Red Jacket Salvage Yard
EPA ID No.: WVN000306116
Address: Mitchell Branch Rd., Red Jacket, WV 25692 County: Mingo
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 306116

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The abandoned 4

- acre salvage yard was previously named Lacy’s Salvage Yard and contains an ash pile from previous smelter operations

. The site contains two small ash piles that cover about 10 feet by 4 feet in total area. The ash was created from a small aluminum smelter that operated at this site. The smelter was

us ed to separate and collect aluminum from items such as old car parts. The concrete pad from the smelter remains at the site. One of the ash piles is on the concrete pad and the other is inside
an old truck bed.

Description of Contamination: The ash pile c ontains elevated levels of lead which were at risk of migrating into the adjacent soil and local waterways

. Twenty

- two tons of lead affected ash and soil were transported to a hazardous waste landfill in 2004.

Sources of Information: US Department of H ealth and Human Services

. “Health Consultation: Incidental Ingestion Exposures to Chemicals from a Smelter: Red Jacket Salvage Yard Site A/K/A Lacy’s Salvage Yard.” 4 April 2005

. 18 January 2006. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/RedJacketSalvageYd/ RedJacketHC040405.pdf

USEPA. “Red Jacket Salvage Yard.” CERCLIS . 27 October 2005

. 18 January 2006. http://cfpub.e pa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0306116

.

USEPA. “Red Jacket Salvage Yard Facility Detail Report.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 18 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110017937303.

USEPA. “Red Jacket Salvage Yard.” On

- Scene Coordinator Profile. (n.d.). 18 January 2006

. www.epaosc.net/redjacketsalvageyard

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 385 Additional Contacts: Nicolas Brescia (OSC) brescia.nicolas@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 386 Site Information

Site Name: Red River Aluminum

EPA ID No.: AR0000605322
Address: US HWY 80 P.O. Box 99 Stamps, AR 71860 County: Lafayette
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0605322

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: This facility is a bankrupt secondary smelter operation which extracted aluminum from the byproduct of conventional aluminum smelting

. It reprocessed dross, an impure aluminum surface sum from the electrolytic cells of various primary aluminum smelters, to recover additional aluminum

. The facility also processed recycled aluminum

. The site has been abandoned for several years. It operated from 1988 to
1998 or 1985 to 1997 (sources vary) during which time it generated a waste pile approximately 175,000 cubic yards of aluminum dross and salt cake

.

Description of Contamination : The primary pollutants are sodium chloride, potassium chloride, and copper

. During it s operation, USEPA estimates more than 200,000 cubic yards of accumulated salt cake containing elevated levels of copper were exposed to the elements and contaminated nearby soil, surface water and threatened shallow ground water beneath the site

. None of the pollutants are present in the groundwater at a level that causes a human health

concern

. On Nov. 7, 2000, USEPA began taking action at the site to eliminate the most immediate environmental threats posed by the exposed saltcake materials containing ele vated levels of copper

. Immediate action was taken to prevent the copper contaminated runoff from adversely affecting nearby streams and marshes, which also prevented saltcake from being blown by heavy winds into nearby residential areas

. ADEQ Director Richard A. Weiss said that the State of Arkansas and USEPA successfully worked together to secure the site and address the most pressing public health concerns, and added that the federal government's expenditure of $2 million was vital to halting contamin ation of the environment surrounding the site

.

Residents allege that site

- related contaminants might have caused the following health conditions: diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer (no type specified), skin, eye, and respiratory tract irritation, asthma, and skin rashes.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 387 Sources of Information: Arkansas Department of Health under agreement with Agency for Toxic Substance & Disease Registry. “Health Consultation, Assessment of Indoor Air in Residences Adjacent to the Red River Aluminum Site in Stamps, Arkansas” 17 July 2003. 16 January 2006. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/redriver/rra_p1.html#back

USEP A. “Cleanup Effort at Red River Aluminum Complete.” 11 October 2001. 16 January
2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/7474083079d775f8852570 d6005e7dbe?Ope
nDocument

USEPA. “Red River Aluminum.” CERCLIS . 27 October 2005

. 16 January 2006

. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0605322

USEPA. “R

ed River Aluminum.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.)

. 24 January
2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=11000114924

USEPA. “Red River Aluminum Site Cleanup Begins.” 8 November 2000. 24 January
2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0290c4651fdf42e2852570d6005e7d9f? OpenDocument

Additional Contacts: Philip Ofosu (SAM) (214) 665

- 3178 Susan Webster (OSC) (214) 665

- 6784Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 388 Site Information

Site Name: Refined Metals Corporation
EPA ID No.: TND067690040
Address: 257 West Mallory Avenue, Memphis, TN 38109 County: Shelby

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Refined Metals Corporation was a lead
smelter

. In 1990 and 1991 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) violations at this facility were recorded by monitors near the facility

. As a result USEPA designated the portion of Memphis in Shelby County, Tennessee, around the Refined Metals Corporation secondary lead smelter as a lead nonattainment area on January 6, 1992

. In 1996, USEPA conducted an inspection of this facility and found that violations were due to compliance issues (i.e., poor housekeeping methods)

. During the second quarter of 1998, a violation of the lead NAAQS occurred in the Shelby County nonattainment area. Subsequently, the MSCHD issued a Notice of Violation giving Refined Metals, Inc. options to surrender all of its permits or pay a fine and conduct extensive remodeling of the facility. Refined Metals, Inc. chose to surrender all of its permits and shutdown permanently on December 22, 1998. As a result, the 1994 submittal was no longer applicable and MSCHD withdrew and replaced it with a new submittal dated March 17, 2000.

The site was issued a RCRA permit in September 2002

.

Description of Contamination: Unknown

Sources of Information: EPA Region 4

. Email Correspondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste)

. October 2005.

Federal Register 65: 56794

- 56797. “Approval and Promulgation of the Implementation Plan for the Shelby County, Tennessee Lead Nonattainment Area.” 20 September 2000. 21 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA

- AIR/2000/September/Day

20/a24042.htm

USE PA

. “RCRA Site Progress Profile

- Refined Metals Corporation.” 10 December 2005

. 21 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/rcra_profile.getmain?p_handler_id=TND 067690040

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 389 USEPA

. “Refined Metals Corporation.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 21 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000374112.

USEPA. “Refined Metals Corporation.” RCRA Info . 16 October 2002. 18 January 2006.

Additional Contacts: Matt Love Dustin (610) 921

- 4063Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 390 Site Information

Site Name: Reflex Recycling
EPA ID No.: WAD980978142
Address: 2432 E 11 th St, Tacoma, WA County: Pierce
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Reflex Recycling stored and recycled hazardous waste in the printing industry. It shut down in 2000 after breaking more than 50 environmental regulations

. The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) spent approximately $150,000 for an emergency removal and disposal of nearly 250 drums of oily waste. The site is currently fenced and secure, but has not yet gone through proper investigation and cleanup. There was no approved financial instrument in pla ce to fund closure costs

. A letter from a consultant to Ecology estimated closure costs at $103,000, but provided no basis for the
estimate.

Description of Contamination : Drums containing unidentifiable waste solutions that consisted
of benzene and tetrac hloroethylene were found on site as well as waste stored on a cracked floor

. In 2001, 32,000 gallons of hazardous waste were removed from the site

. In March 2001, it was confirmed that the ground water on site contains small amounts of hexavalent chromium

. In 2005, Reflex Recycling was removed from Washington’s Hazardous Sites List.

Sources of Information: Boyd, Andrew

. Email to Amy Lile (USEPA Office of Solid Waste)

. 21 October 2005

. Information from Washington Department of Ecology’s report to the state legislature in
2002: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0204028.html

USEPA. “Reflex Recycling Corporation Multisystem Report.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 18 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000702455

Washington Department of Ecology, “Analysis of Cleanup Obligations and Costs for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities in Washington Stat e

- Final Report.” 29 January 2003

. 18 January 2006

. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0304011.pdf

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 391 Washington Department of Ecology

. “Washington’s Hazardous Sites List.” 23 February 2005

. 18 January 2006. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0509041d.pdf

.

Washington Department of Ecology

. “Ecology removes tons of hazardous waste in Tacoma,
Vancouver.” 29 May 2001. 18 January 2006

. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/news/200 1news/2001

- 091.html.

Washington Department of Ecology

. “Reflex Recycling Corporation fined $20,000 for Improperly Handling Waste.” 21 March 2000. 18 January 2006

. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/news /2000news/2000

- 044.html

.

Additional Contacts: Sandy Howard (Washington Department of Ecology) (360) 407

- 6239 Kerri Graber (Washington Department of Ecology) (360) 407

- 0241, kgra461@ecy.wa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 392 Site Name: Re

- Gen Inc.
EPA ID No.: OHR000041657
Address: 1040 Pine Ave. S.E., Warren, OH, 44483 County: Trumbull
NPL Site: Not on the NPL
In CERCLIS Database: Archived

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : International Steel Services, Inc. (International Steel) and it subsidiary Re

‐ Gen, Inc. (Re

‐ Gen) are the owner/operators of a hydrochloric acid regeneration and iron oxide production facility located at the RG Steel mill in Warren, Ohio. Hydrochloric acid regeneration and iron oxide product ion is a secondary industry associated with steel production

. This is a hazardous waste reclamation process because hydrochloric acid is recovered from spent pickle liquor.

In December 1999, the Ohio EPA provided Re

- Gen with a variance for its spent pickle liquor recovery system

. Specifically, the variance allowed Re

- Gen to take offsite spent pickle liquor without a storage permit. The recovery unit was exempted for onsite recycling of the steel mill's pickle liquor

. Conditions of the variance require d Re

- Gen to operate and maintain all equipment for storage and reclamation of hazardous waste, to retain records of hazardous waste produced and managed, and to clean up and spills or releases associated with the process.

On December 13, 2004, the varianc e was terminated

. On December 28, 2005, Ohio EPA inspected the site noting unusable residues of iron oxide from the reclamation process were
stored in "supersacks," that the material had been disposed of on the ground in the area of the loading operations, and that Re

- Gen failed to clean up the released material. This release, as well as other releases, and subsequent failure to clean up, led to the ultimate disposal of hazardous waste throughout the site. Tanks that held spent pickle liquor were found to b e leaking (or evidence indicted previous leaks), and that many of the tanks displayed significant signs of corrosion due to improper maintenance of equipment. Re

- Gen was ordered to pay a t otal civil penalty of $70,000 in a 2007 settlement.

In, 2011, the Attorney General of Ohio filed a complaint against the facility operators for the violations at the facility. The 13

- count suit asked the court to order the companies to submit a closure plan, along with an estimate of the closure cost. In ad dition, the owner/operators would be required to do all necessary investigations and remedial activities and pay a civil penalty of $10,000 a day for each violation. Ohio EPA also sought financial assurance and liability coverage for the closure of the fac ility. The complaint also sought civil penalties as well asAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 393 injunctive relief to compel the facility to obtain the proper permit, submit the necessary reports, and pay the requisite fees.

Description of Contamination: Re

- Gen is accused of illegally dispo sing of hazardous waste (i.e., spent pickle liquor) at an unpermitted facility, failing to keep written operating records, failing to analyze the waste, failing to conduct routine inspections, and failing to have a contingency plan in the event of fire, ex plosion, or contamination. Data to characterize environmental contamination at the site are not available. However, past activities associated with the acid regeneration facility are the likely source of the low pH (<2.0) in groundwater.

Sources of Inform

ation:

1. Amended Complaint, State of Ohio vs. International Steel Service, Inc., and Re

- Gen, Inc., Severstal Warren, Inc., RG Steel, LLC. July 6, 2011.

2. Beedle, Michael

. US Environmental Protection Agency

– Region 5

. Personal communication (email) with Aman da Kohler , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August, 2011

3. Consent Order and Final Judgment, State of Ohio vs. International Steel Service, Inc.,
and Re

- Gen, Inc. January, 15, 2009. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/portals/27/enforcement/year_2009/ISSI_Re

Gen_CO_011509.pdf

4. Legal News Wire. International Steel Services, Inc., Walter Sieckman, Re

- Gen, Inc., and
Michael Sieckmann. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://www.legalnewsline.com/content/img/f198622/dann.pdf

.

5. E verstal Warren Inc., Letter from Mark W. Clark, Manager, Environmental Control, Severstal Warren Inc. to Michelle Mullin, Corrective Action Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5

. July 23, 2010.

6. Tribune Chronicle, State sues mill owners Attorney general wants waste facility closed, May 28, 2011. Accessed Onli ne. November, 2011 : http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.detail/id/557435/State

- sues

- mill

- owners.html

7. U. S. EPA. Facility Registry System. Facility Detail Report. Re

- Gen, Inc. Accessed
Online. November 2011:Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 394 http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_ detail.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=11002
4244708Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 395 Site Information

Site Name: Revere Smelting and Refining Corporation of NJ
EPA ID No.: NYD030485288
Address : 65 Ballard Road, Middletown, NY 10941 County Orange
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Revere Smelting and Refining Corporation of NJ, a subsidiary of Eco

- Bat NY, LLC, recycles batteries and is still in operation

. The 55

- acre Revere site is located in a rural area, with about one

- third of the site used for recycling operations

. Revere receives and dismantles used batteries; dismantled batteries and other wastes are stored in a containment building

. Lead

- bearing materials are refined onsite in a high temperature smelter

. C ontamination occurred post

- RCRA and it is possible that contamination may be occurring presently

.

A 1995 court ruling noted that Revere Smelting and Refining Corp. had filed with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation staff letters o f credit in the amount of $3,669,665

. This facility received a RCRA permit on July 28, 1995

.

Description of Contamination : In the late 1970s and early 1980s, lead slag, battery pieces, and
other lead

- bearing wastes were buried onsite by Revere

. Battery dismantling activities leaked acid into soil and groundwater, leaching lead from these buried wastes into the groundwater along with it

. Lead

- contaminated fill reaches depths of 20 feet in parts of the Revere site

. Other
onsite contaminants include cadmium , antimony and arsenic

. In total, approximately 100,000 cubic yards of soil was contaminated. Remediation of site soil and groundwater is underway.

Sources of Information:

EPA Region 2

- Waste. “Hazardous Waste Cleanup Site Fact Sheet: Revere Smelting and Refining Corporation of NJ.” November 2003. 19 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/Region2/waste/fsrevere.pdf

New York Department of Environmental Conservation. “Revere Smelting and Refining Cor p Ruling June 20, 1995.” 20 June 1995

. 19 January 2006. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/reverer.htmAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 396 Stein, Carol (EPA Region 2) (212) 637

- 4181, Interview 17 November 2005.

USEPA. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. “Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination: Revere Smelting and Refining Corporation.” 30 September 2004. 19 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/Region2/waste/rever725.pdf

USEPA. “Revere Smelting & Refining Corporation.” RCRAInfo . 20 July 2001. https://rtnccisland.rtpnc.epa .gov/rcrainfo/permitting/PMT_series_upd.asp?msg_seriesseq=1

Additional Contacts: Paul Patel, NYSDEC Case Manager, (518) 402

- 8594, appatel@gw.dec.state.ny.us Keith Gronwald, NYSDEC Case Manager, (518) 402

- 8594, khgronwald@gw.dec.state.ny.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 397 Site Information
Site Name: Rho Chem Corp.
EPA ID No.: CAD008364432
Address: 425 Isis Ave, Inglewood CA 90301 County: Los Angeles
NPL Site: No

In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Rho

- Chem facility is a solvent recycling facility on a one

- acre parcel. The facility is currently owned and operated by Philip Environmental Incorporated

. Rho Chem’s RCRA Part B permit was issued on December 30,
1983

. After expiration it then became effective again in May 1991; however, it has since expired

.

Description of Contamination : This facility has significant contaminants in groundwater and
soil. Chlorinated solvents include trichloroethylene (TCE) (140 ppm) in groundwater, and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) (3600 micrograms/kg) in soil. Methyl ethyl ketone (4,000 micrograms/kg) is also found in soil

. A soil

- vapor survey, soil

- vapor extraction system, and underground storage tanks (UST) removals were planned in 1999

. Offsite groundwater
contamination is known

. An additional RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Work plan phase began in 1999 to identify the extent of groundwater contamination offsite. Given the high
concentrations of con

taminants, indoor air is likely to be a potential issue

. In 1999, future steps were projected to include interim measures to pump and treat groundwater onsite and soil vapor extraction (SVE) to address soil

- vapor concerns, which therefore assist in contain ing the groundwater pollution.

Sources of Information : Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Docket HWCA 20030194. Consent Order. Health and Safety Code Section 25187.” July 2003

. 17 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/upload/RhoChem_2003_ENF_CO.pdf

USEPA. “Documentation of Determination: Rho Chem Corp.” 5 February 1999. 17 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000475030

USEPA. “RCRA Corrective Action Addendum: Rho Chem Corp.” 2 May 1999. 17 January
2 006.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 398 http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9coract.nsf/allfacilities/73CFD83200BBED3488256ACC007 AE660?OpenDocument

USEPA. “Rho Chem Corp.” Envirofa cts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 17 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000475030

USEPA. “Rho Chem Corp.” RCRAInfo

. 17 Septemb er 2002

. 18 January 2006

.

Additional Contacts : Liang Chiang (818) 551

- 2964 lchiang@dtsc.ca.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 399 Site Name: Rineco Chemical
EPA ID No.: ARD981057870
Address: 1007 Vulcan Road, Benton, AR, 72015 County: Saline
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Rineco Chemical (Rineco), in Benton, Arkansas is a hazardous waste fuel blending facility that receives hazardous waste from several
hazardous waste genera tors. The facility is located in a heavy industrial zoned area. Although the facility owns over 200 acres, active operations take place on only about 15 acres. Surrounding the facility are industrial areas to the north, woodlands to the east and south, and residences to
the west.

Rineco was first established in 1986 as a fuel blending operation and added additional waste management processes over time. Through the use of a solid and liquid blending process,
Rineco manufactures waste

- derived fuel that is used as a secondary fuel source to replace coal and natural gas in cement kilns. The facility has three permits: a RCRA Permit, a Clean Air Act
Mi nor Source Permit, and a Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. Rineco services over 2,500 large and small quantity generators throughout the United States, Canada, Mexico and several Fortune 500 companies. The facility is capable of processing various wastes, including solvents, paints, washes, resins, cosmetics, printing inks, refinery wastes, sludges, rock

- hard solids, visquine, towels, gloves, empty containers, rags, filter cartridges, rubber boots, reacted epoxy resins , and the like.

On September 22, 1995, the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPC&E) issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) alleging that Rineco improperly operated certain pieces of equipment without proper hazardous waste Interim Status p ermitting. The NOV also alleged certain additional violations arising out of inspections conducted on September 28

- 29, 1993. Rineco was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $165,000.

Rineco claimed that its thermal metal wash treatment unit was exempt from pe rmitting requirements because it recycled scrap metal from a treatment process. During site visits, Region 6 evaluated Rineco’s operations and determined the thermal treatment unit to be subject to regulation as a "miscellaneous unit" under 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart X. On December 12, 2007,
the United States of America filed a Complaint for claims of: (1) unauthorized operation of RCRA Treatment Unit; (2) Unauthorized Operation of RCRA Storage Unit; (3) Unauthorized Operations of RCRA Disposal Unit; (4) Failu re to Notify of Hazardous Waste Activity; and (5) Failure to Provide Financial Assurance. In addition to the allegations in the Complaint, theAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 400 Amended and Supplemental Complaint alleged: (1) Failure to design, construct, and operate the
thermal treatment u

nit and other units in such a manner as 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; (2) Failure to equip numerous open

- en ded values and lines with caps or plugs; and (3) Storage of hazardous waste in an open container. On March 4, 2009, EPA received a favorable decision from the Court on liability (violations) on each of the five claims asserted in the Complaint. The Court f urther ordered that the matter would proceed as to any appropriate civil penalties and as to the three remaining claims in the Amended and Supplemental Complaint. This ruling required Rineco to modify its RCRA Permit consistent with EPA’s findings.

On May 19, 2010, Rineco and EPA entered into a Consent Decree, which outlined the compliance requirements, timelines, and a civil penalty of $1,350,000. The compliance requirements included: (1) submittal of application for the thermal treatment unit in accordanc e with 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart X Miscellaneous Unit, Risk Burn Guidance for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities, and Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol; (2) Preparation and Submission of Trial Burn Plan; (3) Preparation and Submission of Risk Burn Pla n; and (3)
Control of fugitive emissions. If Rineco fail ed to adhere to the terms of the Consent Decree, it would be forced to shut down the thermal treatment unit until issuance of a final RCRA permit. The facility also may be subject to stipulated penalties. The original deadline for approval of the
thermal tre atment unit permit application was October 14, 2011 ; however a subsequent modification to the Consent Decree altered the compliance requirements, established interim operating conditions and milestone requirements for the hazardous waste thermal treatment unit, and extended the compliance schedule for one year.

Description of Contamination:

Rineco has reported total volume of hazardous waste processed at the facility to be 212 million pounds in 2004. Rineco reported that it accepts all hazardous wastes wit h the exception of P

listed hazardous waste and dioxins. In the Consent Decree Modification for operating conditions, Rineco was to submit interim limits on thermal treatment waste streams for waste feed limits, ash content, total chlorine and all risk ass essment metals (antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, silver, and thallium); install emission monitors; conduct sampling and analysis of dioxins, furans, and particulate matter; measure stack gas flow rate; and compliance with operating parameters and limits.

S ources of Information:Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 401 1. Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, Notice of Violation, LIS 95

- 137. September 26, 1995. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/ftproot/pub/WebDatabases/Legal/CAO/LIS_Files/95

- 137.pdf

2. United States of America vs. Rineco Chemical Industries, Inc., Civil Action 4

- 07

- CV

— 01189

- SWW. U.S. District Court for the Ea stern District of Arkansas. December 12,
2007

3. United States of America vs. Rineco Chemical Industries, Inc., Consent Decree. August 16, 2010

4. United States of America vs. Rineco Chemical Industries, Inc., Consent Decree Modification. October 14, 2011.

5. USEP A. Facility Registry System. Facility Detail Report. Rineco Chemical. Accessed
Online. November 2011: http://oaspub.epa.gov/env iro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=11000 0451476&pgm_sys_acrnm_in=FRSAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 402 Site Information

Site Name: River Recycling Industries, Inc.
EPA ID No.: OHD004187035
Address: 4195 Bradley Road, Cleveland, OH 44109 County: Cuyahoga
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The facility was originally developed in the later half of the 1800s as a copper refinery and then converted to a brickworks

. RRI purchased the facility in 1919 and currently acts as an intermediate dealer of copper alloys. Scrap metals from the plumbing, marine, bearings, electric, automotive, and locomotive industries, as well as from scrap dealers provide the raw materials for the operation. The materials are
combi ned, melted, and formed into ingots, which are shipped to customers as final products. The slag from the smelting operations is sold to other smelters for further refining. RRI also
manufactures resin coated sand used to make industrial cores and molds for the metal castings
industries.

The site did not have a RCRA permit.

Description of Contamination: In 2000, it was found that g roundwater was contaminated with aluminum, arsenic, lead and mercury and soil was contaminated with arsenic, lead and zinc.

Sources of Information:
Ohio EPA. “Ohio GPRA Corrective Action Universe Environmental Indicators Status.” 1 March 2005. 19 January 2005. http://www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/wptdi v/cars/caindicators/ohca_tables.pdf

USEPA. “River Recycling Industries Inc.” RCRA Info. 15 September 2000. 18 January 2006.

USEPA. “River Recycling Industries Incorporated.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 19 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000616913

USEPA. “Statement of Basis for the Selection of Corrective Measures for the River Recycling

I ndustries Facility Cleveland, Ohio 004 187 035.” http://www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/wptdiv/permits/mr_RiverRecyclingSOB.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 403 Additional Contacts: Todd Gmitro (Corrective Action Project Manager) (312) 886

- 5909, gmitro.todd@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 404 Site Information

Site Name: Rockwool Industries, Inc.
EPA ID No.: TXD06637964
Address: 1741 Taylor’s Valley Road, Belton, TX 76903 County: Bell
NPL Site: Final: 9/29/1998
In CERCLIS Database: 0605009

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Rockwool Industries, Inc. manufactured
mineral wool insulation from mid

- 1950s until February 1987. From 1984 to 1987, Rockwool operated under a RCRA permit. The facility manufactured two types of mineral wool insulation: blow wool and batt wool. The mineral wool was manufactured in blast furnaces using raw material such as slags from copper and antimony smelting, waste from limestone mining and
coke and basalts. The raw material was melted in a coke

- fired furnace and then extruded by blowing air over spinning drums to form fibers. The residue left in the furnace from the heating of the slags was a metal “shot” type material. This “spent iron shot” was the main waste type generated as a part of th

e Rockwool production process

. This material was piled in the North Shot Pile (NSP), the South Shot Pile (SSP), and the Cemetery Shot Pile (CSP)

.

The NSP area began receiving spent shot material waste in the mid

- 1950s. By 1982, the NSP
covered more than three acres and there was no room for further expansion. The northern edge of the NSP was on the southern bank of the Leon River and waste runoff had been detected going
into the River. The NSP was reduced to about two acres after waste was hauled to an of f

- site disposal area. In 1983, a dirt cover was placed over the NSP to reduce fugitive dust and the infiltration of rain. A french drain system was installed along the northern edge of the shot pile to intercept and collect leachate as it flowed horizontal ly toward the Leon River. This french drain carried the liquid to a concrete sump and the water that collected in the sump was pumped to the lined Evaporation Lagoon.

It is not clear when the SSP began receiving waste; however, beginning in 1984, some of the spent shot material was removed from the SSP and was recycled as an ingredient in brick making. The shot was mixed with cement and baghouse dust; it was shaped into bricks and then
used as raw material feed for the furnace. An unknown amount of the sho t was recycled in this way. It is not known when the CSP began receiving waste.

Cleanup costs at the site equaled $3,122,434.09.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 405 Description of Contamination : Known sources of contamination are contaminated soils associated with the South Shot Pile (esti mated to contain 20,000 to 30,000 cubic yards of waste), the North Shot Pile (estimated to contain between 15,000 and 25,000 cubic yards of waste), and the Cemetery Shot Pile (waste volume unknown)

.

Sediment is also contaminated; however, the data are not available for the types of contaminants. Antimony, arsenic, and lead in residual waste remaining in the former baghouse dust impoundment represents the primary ground water contaminant source. Analy tical results for samples collected in the vicinity of the NSP, SSP and evaporation lagoon areas also indicate waste materials as a probable antimony and arsenic source. This conclusion is also supported by the arsenic results from the Toxicity Characteris tic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and antimony results from the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) tests. The TCLP results exhibited arsenic leachate concentrations up to 1.02 mg/L from fine waste material in the SSP.
The SPLP results revealed a ntimony leachate concentrations up to 3.1 mg/L from the NSP samples. The absence of TCLP

- arsenic in the NSP samples and the relatively low antimony concentration in the SPLP samples from the SSP are most likely the result of waste material
variations not c aptured by the samples.

Chemical analysis of sediment samples in the Leon River and in Nolan Creek indicated the presence of inorganics in concentrations above the release criteria

. The Leon River adjacent to and downstream of the seep sites revealed arse nic and lead concentrations above background
levels

. Analysis of sediment samples collected from the same 24 locations also revealed elevated levels of antimony, arsenic, and lead.

Sources of Information:
USEPA

. “Final Record of Decision: Rockwool Indust ries Inc. Superfund Site.” September 2004

. 21 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6sf/pdffiles/rockwool_rod_9_2004.pdf

USEPA

. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). 20 September 2004. 21 January
2006.

USEPA

. “NPL Site Narrative for Rockwool Industries Inc.” 29 September 1998

. 21 January
2006

. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0605 009.pdf

.

USEPA

. “

Rockwool Industries Inc .” CERCLIS

. 27 October 2005

. 20 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0605009

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 406 USEPA

. “Rockwool Indust ries Inc Fact Sheet.” January 2006

. 21 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6sf/pdffiles/0605009.pdf

USEPA. “

Rockwool Industries Inc. Facility Detail Report.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 21 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query _dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=1100093
13625.

Additional Contacts: Shawn Ghose (RPM) (214) 665

- 6782Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 407 Site Information

Site Name: Rogene French Alcohol Plant EPA ID No.: MOD981722481 Address: Rt. 2 Box 214 Osceola, MO 64776 County: St. Clair NPL Site: No In CERCLIS Database: 0702064

Recycling Operation: This site is an abandoned alcohol and solvent recover distillation facility

. It operated from the early 1980’s to the late 1980’s under a DNR permit for resource recovery

. The facility reclaimed spent solvents from industrial uses and then shipped these reclaimed materials back to the originator.

Description of Contamination : When the site was abandoned, approximately 400 55

- gallon drums were left in two storage buildings on

- site, in addition to 11 above

- ground storage tanks

. The drums and tanks contain ignitable hazardous waste.

S ources of Information: USEPA. “Rogene French Alcohol Plant.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 17 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0702064

USEPA. “Rogene French Alcohol Plant.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.)

. 25 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110015651463

USEPA. “Rogene French Alcohol Plant.” On

- Scene Coordinator Profile. (n.d.). 17 January 2006. www.Epaosc.net/RogeneFrenchAlcoholPlant

Additional Contacts Don Lininger Lininger.don@epa.gov (913) 551

- 7724Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 408 Site Information:

Site Name: Romarc Industries
EPA ID No.: FL0002072882
Address: 2490 N.E. 200th Avenue, Williston, FL 32696 County: Levy
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0406786

Description of Recycling Operation : In the late 1980s and early '90s, Romarc received hazardous wastes, primarily flammable resins, from companies throughout the United States, but minimal recycling occurred

. The company stored waste in drums that were kept in an enclosure
with a concrete floor and roof

. Other drums were kept outside on the ground

. The facility went

o ut of business and abandoned the drums of hazardous waste around 1996

.

FDEP believes that the facility tried using polyester resin to make resin casts and molds for concrete products

. The facility marketed a few products such as railroad cross ties and a rtificial reef structures in an attempt to demonstrate that it was producing a valuable product

. Eventually Romarc received a contract from the Solid Waste Research Division of the University of Florida to produce concrete artificial reef structures using the polyester resin casts. The facility did not have a RCRA permit.

Description of Contamination : EPA was contacted by the FDEP in February 1998 for assistance with a site assessment and possible removal action

. An estimated 1,000 drums of
flammable resin waste, in various stages of deterioration, were found at the site

. Since minimal recycling occurred at the facility, contamination most likely came from the drums. While there was some soil contamination, the potential for a fire or a future release from deteriorating drums was the biggest concern.

The PRP(s) cleanup was approximately $535,000

. Outstanding costs at the site were just less than $500,000 of which $25,000 was the agency’s cost prior to PRP take over

. The remaining $475,000 consisted of over sight costs and enforcement costs

.

Sources of Additional Information: EPA Region 4

. Email Correspondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 31 October
2005

.

EPA Region 4 Environmental News. “EPA Superfund Removal to Begin at the RomarcAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 409 Industries Site, Williston, Levy County, FL.” 26 March 1999

. 21 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region4/oeapages/99press/032699.htm

Luetscher, Gregory (EPA Region 4). 404

- 562

- 9677. Interview, 11/22/2005

Posner, Augusta. (State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection)

. Email Correspondence to Dave Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 17 March 2005

.

USEPA. “Romarc Industries.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 20 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0406786

USEPA. “Romarc Industries.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.)

. 25 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110005634536

Contacts: John Nolen, EPA On

- Scene Coordinator, (404) 562

- 8750 Augusta Posner, FDEP, (850) 245

- 2282, augusta.posner@dep.state.fl.us Beth Knauss FDEP District Office, (813) 744

- 6100 x383 Gregory D. Luetscher, EPA Region 4, 404

- 562

- 9677Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 410 Site Name: Romic Environmental Technologies, Chandler (Romic Southwest)
EPA ID No.: AZD009015389
Address: 6760 West Allison Road, Chandler, AZ 85226 County: Maricopa
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Romic Environmental Technologies (Romic) operated an approximately three

- acre hazardous waste storage, treatment, and recycling facility in the Lone Butte Industrial Park near Chandler Arizona. This industrial park is located within the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), on lands held in trust for GRIC

.

The facility began operation in 1975 under ownershi p of Southwest Solvents

. In 1988, Romic purchased the facility from Southwest Solvents and continued operations, which were primarily solvent recycling through distillation. The facility received on average about 13,000 tons of waste per year, about half o f which was considered hazardous by the USEPA. Wastes received by the facility came from a variety of industries, including dry cleaning, paint manufacturing, aerospace, and automotive industries. The facility also received household hazardous wastes
from collection events. In addition to solvent recycling, the facility acted as an intermediate facility, including consolidating solids for off

- site transfer and disposal and conducting fuel blending. Other site activities included antifreeze recycling and oth er management methods. No wastes were disposed on site; all wastes were transferred off site for disposal or re

- use.

In 1981, Southwest Solvents submitted Part A of a RCRA hazardous waste permit application and was granted interim status by the USEPA. Th e facility continued to operate under interim status until Romic acquired the facility in 1988

. At that time, Romic submitted a revised Part A application as well as the more extensive Part B application for a permit. The facility remained under interim pe rmit status pending further review by the USEPA. During this period, Romic complied with a number of RCRA requirements including completion of a number of remediation activities to clean up contamination, and conducted a remedial investigation (RI) in
2004 . In 2005, Romic was fined $67,888 for multiple hazardous waste violations related to improper storage and labeling of hazardous waste and other violation. The company corrected the violations and also spent $100,800 on life

- saving equipment for the Gila R iver Indian Community Fire Department and air monitoring and meteorological equipment for the Gila River Indian Community Department of Environmental Quality.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 411 Also in 2005, Romic submitted a final revised Part B application. However the landowner, GRIC, would not sign the application and therefore the permit application was denied in 2007

. Romic then submitted a facility closure plan, which was approved in 2008. Romic is currently conducting site cleanup activities.

Description of Contamination : In 2007, the USEPA issued an Administrative Order of Consent (AOC) to Romic to investigate contamination on and around the site. It is believed that the groundwater contamination at the Romic facility may be related to the operations of Southwest Solvents, which o perated the facility prior to 1988 (3).

In accordance with a 1988 Consent Agreement, Romic conducted extensive soil cleanup upon purchasing the facility. However, a 2004 Remedial Investigation Report completed for the GRIC Department of Environmental Qual ity (DEQ) indicated that trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), and 1,1

- dichloroethylene (1,1

- DCE) contamination in groundwater was above U.S. EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) close to and down gradient from the facility. Although the fac ility operated in an industrial park, its location is approximately 200 meters from a public drinking water well and up

- gradient from irrigation wells.

Due to the RCRA permit denial, Romic prepared a closure plan in 2008 for cleanup of surface
contaminat ion. Under this plan, Romic will remove all remaining wastes, clean and decontaminate remaining equipment and structures, and send the resulting waste offsite for treatment and disposal

. The estimated cost of this portion of the site cleanup is $900,000 (8 )

. Information about the costs of earlier site remedial activities is not available from the sources used for this damage case

. Romic is working with U.S. EPA and GRIC DEQ to further investigate and implement corrective actions to address ground water cont amination (8).

Sources of Information:

1. USEPA. Facility Registry System, Facility Detail Report. Romic Environmental Technologies Corporation Southwest

. Accessed Online

. May 2011: http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=AZD 009015389&pgm_sys_acrnm_in=RCRAINFO

2. USEPA

. Envirofacts, Multisystem, Romic Environmental Technologies Corp
Southwest. Accessed Online

. May 2011: http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2_v2.get_list?facility_uin=110000471249Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 412 3. USEPA. Region 9, Waste Programs. Romic Environm ental Technologies Corporation Southwest Hazardous Waste Storage and Treatment Facility

. Accessed Online

. May
2011: http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/romic/index.html# correctiveaction

4. USEPA. “Permit Series List.” RCRAInfo. May 2011.

5. USEPA. Region 9: Administrative Order On Consent. Romic Environmental Technologies Corporation

. Accessed Online

. May 2011: http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/romic/index.html#correctiveaction

6. USEPA. Notice of Intent to Deny a RCRA Permit Application for Romic Environmental Technologies Corporation

– Southwest. August 2007. Accessed Online

. May 2011: http://www.epa.gov/region9/waste/romic/pdf/proposed

- permit

- decision.pdf

7. USEPA. News Release: EPA fines hazardous waste company on Arizona tribal lands $67,888. August 2005. Accessed Online

. May 2011: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/9e50770d29adb32685257018004d06fd/9da55 7d9afa35dde852570d8005e178a!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,romic

8. Romic Environmental Technologies Corp. Romic Southwest Facility. Closure Plan.
Submitted to US Environmental Protecti on Agency Region 9. August 2008. Accessed
Online

. May 2011: http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/romic/pdf/RSW

- Closure

- Plan

final

- August

- 2008.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 413 Site Name: Romic Environmental Technologies, E. Palo Alto, CA
EPA ID No.: CAD009452657
Address: 2081 Bay road, East Palo Alto, CA, 94303 County: San Mateo
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: CAN000908403

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Romic Environmental Technologies (Romic) facility in East Palo Alto, California, is a 12.6

- acre former hazardous waste management facility. It is located in an industrial area approximately half mile west of San Francisco Bay. The facility fence line b orders tidal marshes and other industrial facilities. The nearest residences are about 2,000 feet to the west, with the closest school being about a half
mile.

The site first began operation as a chemical storage facility under previous owners in 1956

. R omic began operating the facility in 1963, purchased it in 1979, and continued to operate it until it closed in 2007. Romic performed a combination of hazardous waste storage, treatment, and recycling operations and received hazardous waste from a number o f industrial business, including wastes such as paint thinner and paints, antifreeze, oils, inks, adhesives, and solvents. Waste management methods included storage, solvent recycling using distillation, incineration, and other treatment. In addition, wast e management method information included in the facility’s biennial hazardous waste reports indicate that the facility also served as an intermediate facility for some wastes. Prior to closure, the facility managed an estimated 35,000 tons of waste per

yea r.

The Romic facility has a history of violations and incidents including a 2006 tanker truck spill, employee burn incidents in 2004 and 2006, and a 2007 transporter incident. The 2006 spill involved 4,000 gallons of used, mixed organic solvents, including hydroxylamine, monoethanolamine, toluene, and acetronitrile. The solvents began reacting inside the tanker truck resulting a release of a fine mist that settled over an empty lot owned by Romic, portions of Bay Road, and adjacent parcels that included a P acific Gas and Electric (PG&E) substation and nearby wetlands. In both of the burn incidents, employees were burned by ignitable vapors that were not properly drained from tanks other equipment. In the 2007 transporter incident, a highway exit ramp in Bake rsfield, California, was shut down for several hours due to leakage from a truck containing drums shipped from the Romic facility.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 414 The facility also was subject to a 2005 settlement with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for a nu mber of violations that occurred from 1999 to 2004. Because of this history of violations, in 2007 the DTSC ordered Romic to close the facility and implement its cleanup plan. The facility stopped accepting waste in 2007, and all stored hazardous waste

was removed from the site that year.

Description of Contamination : DTSC and U.S. EPA site investigations concluded that Romic’s operations contaminated soil and groundwater across most of the site and to a depth of at least 80
feet

. The primary contaminants are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as the solvent
trichloroethene

. The soil and groundwater contamination is primarily attributed to the spills, overflows, flooding events, and other accidental releases around the central process area . A groundwater extraction and treatment system was operated as a site remediation strategy from
1993 until 2005

. From 2003

– 2005 Romic conducted enhanced reductive dechlorination to remediate groundwater.

Following closure in 2007, the DTSC, U.S. EPA, a nd Romic agreed to a closure and cleanup plan for the facility consisting of two phases

. Phase 1, which was overseen by DTSC and was completed in 2010, involved the closure, cleaning, and removal of the aboveground waste management units and equipment, as well as and cleanup of surface contamination. Phase 2, which is underway with U.S. EPA supervision, addresses the remediation of subsurface soil and groundwater. The Final Remedy to address soil and groundwater contamination will use enhanced biological tr eatment, monitored natural attenuation, excavation, and removal of contaminated soils, land use restrictions, and maintenance of the existing site cover. The estimated cost for closure and cleanup of the facility is $2.5 million

.

Sources of Information:

1. USEPA. Facility Registry System, Facility Detail Report. Romic Environmental Technologies Corporation

. Accessed Online

. May 2011: http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=CAN0 00908403&pgm_sys_acrnm_in=CERCLIS

2. USEPA

. Superfund Site Information. Romic East Palo Alto. Accessed Online

. May 2011: http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0908403

3. USEPA. Pacific Southwest, Region 9, Waste. Romic Environmental Technologies, East Palo Alto, CA

. Accessed Online

. May 2011: http://www.epa.gov/region9/waste/romic

eastpaloalto/#moreinfoAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 415 4. USEPA. “Permit Series List.” RCRAInfo. May 2011.

5. California Department of Toxic Substance Control. Fact Sheet. Romic’s Draft Closure Plan Open for Public Comment. April 2008. Accessed Online

. May 2011:
ht tp://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/upload/Romic_FS_DClosurePlan_040 8.pdf

6. USEPA. US EPA Selects Final Cleanup Plan for Former Romic East Palo Alto Facility. July 2008. Accessed Online

. May 2011: http://www.epa.gov/region9/waste/romic

eastpaloalto/pdf/Romic

- Final

- Decision

- FactSheet

- Eng

- 0708.pdf

7. Final Draft: Comprehensive Site

- Wide Sampling and analyses Plan, Former Romic
Environmenta l Technologies Corporation Facility. Prepared for Bay Enterprises, Prepared by Iris Environmental

. March 2011. Accessed Online

. May 2011: http://www.epa.go v/region9/waste/romic

- eastpaloalto/pdf/romic

- epa

- samp_anal

- plan.pdf

8. California Department of Toxic Substance Control. Romic Environmental Technologies Corporation, Enforcement Order. 2007. Accessed Online

. May 2011: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/upload/ROMIC_ENF_EO_2007.pdf

Official Announcement and Shut

- down order on Romic. Palo Alto Online. May 2007. Accessed Online. May 2011: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=5146Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 416 Site Information

Site Name: Ross Metals, Inc.
EPA ID No.: TND096070396
Address : 100 N Railroad Street, Rossville, TN 38066 County: Fayette
NPL Site: Final: 4/1/1997
In CERCLIS Database: 0403822

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Fifteen acres of this 200

- acre parcel were used by Ross Metals (RM) in a secondary lead smelting operation from 1978 to 1992

. The facility was RCRA

- permitted; however, it is unclear when the permit was issued. They primarily used lead from spent lead

- acid batteries but al so recovered other materials including lead plates, lead oxide, scrap metal, etc

. Ross melted the lead and cast it into ingots for resale.

From 1978 until June 20, 1992, RM operated a secondary lead smelter at the Site. Prior to 1978, the property was un

developed. RM produced specification alloyed lead that was sold for use in manufacturing vehicle batteries, lead shot pellets, and sheet lead (radiation shields). The facility received spent lead acid batteries, spent lead plates, lead oxide, scrap metal, and other lead waste and material from various businesses and industries, including battery crackers and battery manufacturers. The primary material used for the recycling process was spent lead acid batteries,
with automotive and industrial batteries acco unting for 80 percent of the raw material processed. The remaining 20 percent consisted of other lead

- bearing materials, such as recycled dross, dust slag, and factory scrap. Facility operations included not only the smelting of lead and other scrap
metals but a variety of other products, such as crushed drums, limestone, steel, and cast iron. These materials were added to the blast furnace as flux to create a reducing atmosphere. Wastes generated from the process included slag, plastic chips, waste acid, l ead emission control dusts,
and lead

- contaminated stormwater.

Upon receipt, batteries were stored on pallets located east and southeast of the facility; each pallet held about 50 batteries. The batteries were then conveyed to the wrecker building for the battery breaking operation. According to facility representatives, 99 to 99.5 percent of the lead content was recovered. The molten lead product was then moved to the refinery area. Acid and sludge obtained during the battery breaking operation contained r esidual amounts of lead and lead acid; the acid and sludge were transferred to the wastewater treatment unit to reclaim the remaining lead. Lead was reclaimed by allowing it to settle further in aboveground collection tanks. This lead sludge, collected pri or to neutralization, was transferred to the blast furnace area and immediately fed into the furnace. The remaining acid was neutralized with liquid causticAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 417 soda. Upon neutralization, the solution was held for additional settling to precipitate dissolved

m etals. Sludge resulting from the neutralization process was also collected in settling tanks and recycled into the blast furnace with other lead scrap.

Several areas of the operating facility contained large volumes of lead

- bearing materials. With
the ex ception of the container storage area, the lead

- bearing materials were not containerized; instead, they were placed on the asphalt foundation of the facility or directly on facility soils. From 1979 until December 1988, blast slag that had accumulated as a part of the smelting process was disposed of in an on

- Site landfill

. USEPA's RCRA Compliance Section conducted a sampling investigation on December 7, 1988, to determine if the waste generated at the facility should be regulated. On December 20, 1988, the Tennessee Department of Health and Environment (TDHE) suspended all further processing of the request until results from the USEPA sampling event could be assessed and the USEPA could determine whether the blast slag was a nonhazardous waste (B&V 1996). S everal references in the USEPA files for the RM Site debate the status of blast slag as a hazardous waste. File material also indicates that on April 20, 1990, RM applied for a solid waste classification variance for the blast slag. RCRA also
conducted a s ampling investigation on May 9, 1990, to determine if smelting and landfilling activities at the facility were causing adverse environmental impacts. The variance was denied on June 6, 1990, because USEPA determined that blast slag was a hazardous waste an d subject to the full extent of RCRA regulations. In September of 1990, RCRA issued a Complaint and Compliance Order against Ross Metals. After several months of extensive negotiations, the parties reached an agreement to settle the case. However, the comp any never signed the Consent Agreement, because of its precarious financial condition. In 1992, Ross Metals, Inc. received an Administrative Dissolution under Articles of Incorporation. There is no known successor entity. Because of this, all State and Fed eral RCRA enforcement actions at the Site ceased.

Once negotiations failed with Ross Metals and all operations ceased at the facility, the Site was referred to USEPA's Emergency Response and Removal Branch (ERRB)

. On June 15, 1994,
ERRB conducted a Site v isit. Based upon ERRB's file review and Site visit, the Ross Metals Site met the criteria for a high priority removal action. The removal action began in September 1994 and was completed in June 1995. The removal consisted of segregating, staging, or remov ing forty

- six waste streams. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards (CY) of lead bearing blast slag was staged in on

- Site buildings.

An Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) was finalized in February 1998. In considering the information presented in the E E/CA and the statutory limits which apply to non

time critical removal actions, USEPA determined that a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Report that develops appropriate remedial action alternatives was needed for this Site. On MarchAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 418 24th, 1998, US EPA sent general notice letters to the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs). The threat of human exposure and reports of trespassing caused USEPA to perform a removal action in June and September of 1998. About 10,000 CY of slag are landfilled in an unli ned and unsecured area located just north of the facility process area. About 6,000 CY of stockpiled lead slag material are still stored at the facility inside deteriorating sheet metal buildings. The buildings are no longer providing protection from weath er conditions because of deterioration. Data collected in the investigation revealed lead

- contaminated surface soils (outside the fenced facility

- approximately 8.58 acres). This area is adjacent to residential property and is located within a designated wetland. The removal action consisted of placing tarpaulins over the 6,000 CY of stockpiled lead slag and installing security fencing around the contaminated surface soils and landfill. The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study was finalized in November 1998.

A RCRA permit was issued in September 1990. The RCRA permit was terminated in September
1993

. Clean up expenditures at this site as of September 2004 are $9,990,564.07.

Description of Contamination : Contamination included lead, barium, cadmium, and zinc

. Approximately 4,400 gallons, 170 tons, and 1,700 cubic yards of wastes were removed from the site. Significant quantities of blast slag still remain on

- site

. Contamination was most likely related to spillage of battery acid and slag material left at site

. These contaminants affected surrounding lands and seeped into groundwater.

Lead contaminated surface soil is present across the site. Lead concentrations in most surface soil and sediment samples collected throughout the site exceeded 400 ppm. I n addition, aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, copper, iron, manganese, selenium, and
vanadium were detected above risk

- based remedial goal option (RGO) levels. In addition, high
levels of subsurface soil contamination were found in two isolated locations in the process area; east of the wrecker building, and southeast of the truck wash. Analytical results of groundwater samples revealed the presence of several inorganic compounds at concentrations that either exceed the primary or secondary drin king water standards or the State of Tennessee domestic water supply criteria. Aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, nickel and vanadium were detected above respective guidance concentrations and/or RGO levels. Analytical res ults of surface water samples revealed concentrations of several inorganic compounds that exceeded background concentrations. Significant inorganic contaminants included antimony, arsenic, cadmium, iron, lead, and manganese. As a result of the baseline ris k assessment completed for the RI, COCs were defined for soil and groundwater. For the protection of human health, aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, selenium, and vanadium were defined as soil COCs. Groundwater CO Cs include aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, and vanadium.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 419 The ecological risk assessment conducted for the RM site identified wetlands north and east of the facility, as well as the facility itself, as areas of c oncern and evaluated the degree of contamination in wetlands farther from the facility that had not been previously evaluated. The ecological risk assessment concluded that of the metals calculated to pose a potential risk, lead posed the highest risk to t he ecological risk receptors at the site.

Sources of Information: Hey, Andy (Paralegal) (404) 562

- 9522, Interview 22 November 2005

Matory, Derrick (RPM) (404) 562

- 8800, Interview 12 November 2005

USEPA. EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Ross Metals Oper able Unit 2.” 17 September 2002. 20 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0402076.pdf

USEPA. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). 30 Septemb er 2004. 20 January
2006.

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Ross Metals, Inc.” 1 April 1997. 20 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0403822.pdf

USEPA. “Ross Metal

s.” RCRA Info. 2 September 2000. 18 January 2006.

USEPA. “Tennessee NPL/NPL Caliber Cleanup Site Summaries: Ross Metals.” 12 December 2005. 20 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/npltn/rossmetn.htm

Additional Contacts : Beth Brown (RPM) (404) 562

- 8814 Derrick Matory (RPM) (404) 562

- 8800 Andy Hey (paralegal) (404) 562

- 9522Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 420 Site Information

Site Name: Rouse Steel Drum Co.
EPA ID No.: FLD032391542
Address: 612 12 th Street East, Jacksonville, FL 32206 County: Duval
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0404733

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : This facility was an “empty” drum reconditioning facility

. It generated waste water on

- site from the reconditioning processes

. Wastes were spilled to the ground

.

Description of Contamination : The facility went out of business and EPA paid for the clean up

.

Sources of Information : Posner, Augusta. (State of Florida Departm ent of Environmental Protection)

. Email Correspondence to Dave Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 17 March 2005

.

USEPA. “Rouse Steel Drum.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 20 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0404733

USEPA. “Rouse Steel Drum.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.) 20 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110002528612

Additional Contacts : Augusta Posner, FDEP (850) 245

- 2285, augusta.posner@dep.state.fl.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 421 Site Information

Site Name: Rowe Paint and Plas

- Chem Coatings (Wilmer Rowe)
EPA ID No.: FLD984243923
Address: 144 Watts St. Jacksonville, FL 322090 County: Duval
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Waste paint and solvents were dumped onto the floor of a warehouse that had formerly been leased by Mr. Rowe

. Plas

- Chem Coatings was the main paint manufacturing facility where he generated waste solvent and waste paint that he claimed he was recycling

. Mr. Rowe eventually went to jail and the property owner paid $400,000 to dispose of paints, solvents and chemicals left behind.

Description of Contamination : Unknown

Sources of Information : Posner, Augusta. (State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection)

. Email Corresponde nce to Dave Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 17 March 2005

.

USEPA. “Rowe Paint.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.) 20 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110005618885

Additional Contacts : Augusta Posner, FDEP, augusta.posner@dep.state.fl.us , 850

- 245

- 2285Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 422 Site Name: SA Recycling
EPA ID No.: CAL000338569
Address: 901 New Dock Street, San Pedro, CA, 90731 County: Los Angeles
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : In approximately 1963, the Hugo Neu

Proler Company opened a metal

- shredding plant at the Port of Los Angeles. The plant grinds scrap metal and loads it onto ships for export. Tons of scrap metal are transferred to the site daily, including structural ste el braces, engines, and entire cars. In 1996, approximately 700 automobiles and 3,000 household appliances were recycled per day.

In October 2005, the majority of the recycling operation was acquired from Hugo Neu

- Proler by the Sims Group

. In June 2007, the Sims Group merged its recycling operations with Adams Steel, creating SA Recycling LLC.

Available information sources describe two distinct environmental issues at the plant

. First, it has been alleged that normal operations have caused polychlorinat ed biphenyls (PCBs) to enter Los Angeles Harbor through metal dust and debris falling into the harbor water

. Second, the facility operated without air pollution control equipment for a period of weeks following the explosion of a megashredder that damage d the equipment in May 2007

.

Description of Contamination : In 1991, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board ordered the plant to stop discharging metal shredding waste into the Los Angeles Harbor alleging that the metal and debris constituted an ongoing source of PCBs. The plant owner/operators agreed to prevent metal dust and debris from falling in the water, but denied that the plant was contributing to the PCB pollution in the harbor.

In August 2011, the current owner, SA Recycling, agreed to settle an environment lawsuit
related to the release of toxic substances to the atmosphere following the 2007 megashredder explosion

. The lawsuit alleged that volatile organic compounds and tiny pieces of metal and debris were released for a period of weeks until the California Department of Toxic Substances
Co ntrol was alerted

. The $2.93 settlement included $260,000 in civil penalties and investigative costs to be paid to the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office; $430,000 to the Department of Toxic Substances Control for investigative expenses; $100,000 to th e College of Engineering at the University of California, Davis, to support aerosol studies; $75,000 to the Coalition for a SafeAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 423 Environment; and $165,000 to 11 San Pedro marina owners and operators to target water and sediment pollution sources.

Sources of Information:

1. Hatch, George

. Los Angeles Times. State Orders Firm to Halt PCB Discharge: Pollution: Agency charges scrap

- metal exporter with sprinkling high levels of the carcinogen into Los Angeles Harbor. May 30, 1991. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://articles.latimes.com/1991

- 05

- 30/local/me

- 3711_1_los

- angeles

- harbor

2. Slater, Eric. Los Angeles Times. Harboring Doubts: Environmentalists Say a Scrap Metal
Re cycler at the Port of L.A. Should Clean Up Its Yard Before Its Lease Is Renewed. January 08, 1996. Accessed Online. November 2011 : http://articles.latimes.com/1996

- 01

- 08/lo cal/me

- 22363_1_scrap

- metal

3. Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. Metal Shredding Company Settles Air Pollution Case. September 19, 2011. Accessed Online. November 2011 : http://da.co.la.ca.us/m

r/091911b.htm

4. Altman, Larry. Daily Breeze. Terminal Island metal shredding firm agrees to settle pollution lawsuit. August 31, 2011, amended September 20, 2011. Accessed Online.
November 2011 : http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_18799989?IADID=Search

www.dailybreeze.com

- www.dailybreeze.comAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 424 Site Information

Site Name: SafCo Environmental
EPA ID No.: WAD981766884
Address: 1255 South 188 th St., SeaTac, WA 98148 County: King
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: SafCo was illegally operating as hazardous waste recycling and transportation facility that primarily handled waste oil and printing wastes. It was closed by the local fire department as a potential fire hazard following a substantial spill of oily waste in 1992

. Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) issued an emergency enforcement order directing that all materials, including 55 damaged or leaking drums containing oil and other wastes from the site, be removed and disposed of legally. Other
actions r equired by the order included the separation of incompatibles, identification of the contents of damaged drums, and the disposal of toxic wastes

. Eventually, a second order was issued for the removal of an additional 445 drums containing oil and other wast es

. There was neither any financial assurance mechanism nor any source of funds from the owner/operator, who disappeared. A group of 31 potentially liable parties (PLPs) managed the removal and disposal. Best cost estimates received from representatives of the PLP group put the costs between $500,000 and $750,000, but no one could provide exact data due to the age of this case

. The leads for the group represented the one or two largest companies associated with it

. Thirteen smaller generators eventually pai d on the order of $200,000 to the lead companies for their share

. Both attorneys said cleanup costs were most likely paid for from operating revenues

. All materials were inventoried, analyzed, and disposed of properly

. The site is currently vacant and

secu red

. There is no remaining cleanup to be done, except what might be necessary on a voluntary basis in order to sell the property

.

Description of Contamination: In 1992, there was a substantial spill of oily waste; however, the
extent of contamination fr om this spill is unclear

.

Sources of Information: Boyd, Andrew

. Email to Amy Lile (USEPA Office of Solid Waste). 21 October 2005. Information from Washington Department of Ecology's report to the state legislature in
2002: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0204028.htmlAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 425 USEPA. “Safco Environmental Safco Corp Multisystem Report.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.). 18 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110005341914.

USEPA. “Safco Environmental Safco Corp Facility Detail Report.” Envirofacts Data
Warehouse . (n.d.). 18 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facili ty?pgm_sys_id_in=WAD981766884&pgm_sys_acrnm _in=RCRAINFO.

Washington State Department of Ecology

. “Analysis of Cleanup Obligations and Costs for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities in Washington State

- Final Report.” 29 January
2003

. 18 January 2006

. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0304011.pdf

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 426 Site Information:

Site Name: Safety Kleen Corporation
EPA ID No.: MDD000737395
Address : 12164 Tech Road, Silver Spring, MD 20904 County: Montgomery
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Safety Kleen Silver Spring Maryland Service Center operated on the site from 1982 until operations ceased in August, 1996

. The former service center consisted of approximately 10,300 square feet which was used as an accumulation point for spent solvents and other fluids generated by Safety Kleen customers. All wastes stored at the site were ultimately shipped to an off

- site Safety Kleen recycle center or a

contract reclaimer. During operations, two 12,000 gallon underground storage tanks were used at the site: one tank was used to store spent parts washer solvents and the other tank stored product (mineral spirits based solvent). Two loading units were used to trans fer waste parts washer solvent to the underground storage tanks. There were also two areas designated for container storage. The site was a permitted RCRA Part B facility

. It received permits on the following
dates: 6/12/90 and 7/22/94

. Its permit expired in September of 1999

.

Description of Contamination: The Safety Kleen facility had the following major contaminations incidents prior to closure in 1996. In January, 1988 and April, 1989 spills were reported from overfilling an underground storage tank

. I n October, 1989 an underground storage tank failed a tank tightness inspection and leakage was discovered

. Finally, in December, 1989, 45 gallons of solvents spilled from a storage tank and in June, 1993, 13 gallons of used oil spilled during a truck trans fer operation.

In 1996 on

- site sampling unearthed evidence of soil and groundwater contamination with petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds

. Groundwater monitoring at this site
has been on

- going since July 1989 and has shown consistent det ections of TPH, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and some volatile organic compounds. Based on these findings, the former tank pit area, former return and fill station area, and the former piping trench have
been the focus of remedial efforts at the site.

The Maryland Department of the Environment issued a Post Closure Permit for the area, which includes remediation goals and requirements for the cleanup of the groundwater and soil. RCRAAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 427 Corrective Actions have included a soil vapor extraction syst em, removal of the underground storage tanks, and other post

- closure corrective actions.

Sources of Information:

Hamerburg, Ed (410) 537

- 3345, Interview 28 October 2005.

EPA Region 3

- RCRA Baseline Facilities. “Safety Kleen Corporation.” (n.d.). 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/md/pdf/mdd000737395.pdf

USEPA. “Safety Kleen Corporation 2 .” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 17 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000614005

USEPA

. “Safety Kleen Corp.” RCRAIn fo . 12 January 2005

. 21 January 2006.

Additional Contacts:

Bob Greaves, Chief RCRA Operations Branch EPA Region 3 (215) 814

- 3423 Amin Yazdanian, Maryland Department of the Environment (410) 537

- 3345 Ed Hamerburg at (410) 537

- 3345 Bill Schmidt (410) 537

- 3345Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 428 Site Information:

Site Name: Safety

- Kleen (Hebron)
EPA ID No.: OHD980587364
Address: 581 Milliken Drive SE, Hebron, OH 43025 County: Licking
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Safety

- Kleen has been in operation since July 1981 as a large solvent reclamation facility recycling spent solvents (mineral spirits, dry cleaning solvents, paint and lacquer solvents and other organic solvents). The spent solvents
are stored in tanks and containers prior to the recycling process and then reclaimed using distillation and fractionating process equipment

. Dry cleaning process wastes, spent industrial solvents, and mineral spirits dumpster mud are brought to the facility and the solvents are

r ecovered for reuse through the Safety

- Therm process

. The solid residues generated during the recycling process are transported off site for proper disposal

. The facility has a RCRA permit

.

Description of Contamination : The site has e xtensive soil, surfac e water and ground water
contamination

. Due to a mechanical malfunction of a heat band, a fire occurred in the aboveground storage tank farm in November 1985

. The tank farm was destroyed and a release of unknown quantities of spent and reclaimed solvent to soil, surface water and ground water
occurred.

In September 2002, USEPA Region 5 reached agreement with Safety

- Kleen Systems Inc. for violations of federal rules on hazardous waste at its Hebron, Ohio, facility. The company
admitted the violations and agreed to pay a $945,018 penalty on approval by the bankruptcy court. The violations, which occurred between Sept. 1, 1996, and Feb. 28, 2000, were failure to properly operate air emissions equipment on recycling machinery and failure to monitor pumps
for air emissions regulated under RCRA

.

Sources of Information: Hale, Karen (Ohio EPA). Email correspondence to David Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste).
24 June 2005.

Ohio EPA. “Ohio EPA to Hold Hearing on a Draft Permit for Safety

- Kleen Corporation.” 5 Ma y 1998. 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.state.oh.us/pic/nr/1998/may/safeklee.htmlAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 429 USEPA. “Safety Kleen Systems Inc.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. 18 January 2006. 18 January
2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000381471

USEPA. “Safety Kleen Systems Inc.” RCRA Info. 17 June 2005. 18 January 2006.

USEPA. “EPA Se ttles with Safety

- Kleen on Hazardous Waste Violations; Includes $945,018 Fine.” 25 September 2002. 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region5/news/news02/02opa129.htm

USEPA. “Statement of Basis/Final Decision and Response to Comments Summary

– Safety

Kleen Corporation Recycle Center Facility.” 14 July 1998. 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/e paoswer/hazwaste/ca/sbs2/pdfs/oh7364.pdf

Additional Contacts: Andy Lonzo (Safety Kleen) (740) 929

- 3532 Jim Leach (614) 728

- 0041 Kim Reinbold (Ohio EPA Hazardous Waste Management) (614) 728

- 3887 Karen Hale (Ohio EPA) (614) 644

- 2927, karen.hale@epa.state.oh.us Sirtaj Ahmed (EPA Project Coordinator) (312) 886

- 4445, ahmed.sirtaj@epamail.epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 430 Site Information

Site Name: Safety

- Kleen (San Jose Facility)
EPA ID No.: CAD059494310
Address: 1021 Berryessa Road, San Jose, CA 95112 County: Santa Clara
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Safety Kleen (aka Solvent Services, aka Laidlaw) operates a storage, treatment, and recycling facility for waste chemicals

. The site occupies approximately three acres in a predominantly commercial/industrial area of San Jose

. The facility began operation s in 1974 under the name Solvent Services Company, Inc

. Operations at that time did not include the waste water treatment system which now exists at the facility

. The CA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) issued a permit for storage
and treatmen

t of hazardous waste to the facility in 1990

. Solvent Services was acquired by Laidlaw Environmental Services on December 31, 1994 and Solvent Services changed its name to Laidlaw Environmental Services in May 1997

. In July 1998, the facility changed its n ame from Laidlaw Environmental Services (San Jose), Inc. to Safety

- Kleen (San Jose), Inc

. On September 7, 2002, the Safety Kleen site became a Clean Harbors Site.

An inspection in April 2000 resulted in the facility being cited for several alleged violat ions, including labeling discrepancies, container management problems, and record keeping discrepancies

.

This site had an active Part B permit

. It first received the permit in October 1983 and later was

re

- issued the permit in November 1989 after it expi red

.

Description of Contamination : The contamination was discovered in the early 1980s and it is likely that some contamination may have occurred after 1982

. A good amount of it occurred in
the 1970s

. Soils at the site are contaminated with various VOCs

. The site is entirely covered with either asphalt or concrete

. Historically, the site was heavily contaminated

. A full

- scale steam injection and vacuum extraction system was installed and began operating in 1989

. This was
later converted to a dual

- phase ex traction system

. Approximately 71,000 VOCs have been
removed between 1989 and 2001

. In 1992, prior to major modifications and remodeling, the facility had a release of hazardous waste to the air as a result of an uncontrolled chemical reaction, which occur red during the blending of wastes within a tanker truck at the facility

. This accident occurred prior to the installation of new tanks at the facility

. Clean up is ongoing and itAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 431 is difficult to determine the costs as ownership has transferred numerous tim es over the course of clean up

.

Sources of Information:

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Draft Hazardous Waste Facility Permit: Safety Kleen: San Jose.” January 2002. 17 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/upload/Safety

- Kleen_FS_CEQA_NegDec.pdf

EPA Region 9. “Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination: Safety Kleen San Jose.” 5 February 1999. 17 January 2006

. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9coract.nsf/0/2282 81032035d08788256acc007cb2c6/$FILE/ Safety_Kleen_(San_Jose)_310_EI_00.pdf

EPA Region 9. “RCRA Corrective Action Forms Addendum: Safety Kleen San Jose.” 27 September 2000

. 17 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9coract.nsf/0/228281032035d08788256acc007cb2c6/$FILE/ Safety%20Kleen%20(San%20Jose)%2 0310%20+%2000.pdf

Smith, Marty (Remediation Group) (417) 358

- 0826, Interview 10/28/2005.

USEPA. “Clean Harbors San Jose.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 24 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000484743

USEPA. “Safety Kleen San Jose.” RCRAInfo . 27 June 2002

. 18 January 2006.

Additional Contacts: Marty Smith (Remediation Group) (417) 358

- 0826
Andrew Bernahicks (Project Officer at CADTSC) (510) 540

- 3956 Vince Christian (510) 622

- 2336Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 432 Site Information

Site Name: Safety

- Kleen Corporation, Reedley Recycling Center
EPA ID No.: CAD093459485
Address: 1000 S. I St., Reedley, CA 93654 County: Fresno
NPL Site: No

In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : This is a solvent recycling facility, which recycles both halogenated and corrosive solvents

. It received a settlement agreement with California Department of Toxic Substances Control DTSC in 2001 and a corrective action consent agreement in 2004

. The facility has been in operation since 1972

.

There have been three inspections in the past three years; last inspection 10/6/2003

. Two quarters in alleged non

- compliance in past th ree years. No alleged current significant violations. Two informal enforcement actions were done in the past three years

.

In 2001, The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) announced that it had reached a settlement agreement with Saf ety

- Kleen Systems, Inc., which included $38,500 in penalties, for hazardous waste violations at its facility. The facility was cited by DTSC investigators for the following violations:

• Failure to properly analyze the hazardous waste generated by the activ ated carbon filtration system prior to shipping it to the company’s Buttonwillow facility for treatment and disposal in August of 1998. A roll

- off bin containing this hazardous waste caught fire shortly after it was received at the Safety

- Kleen Buttonwillo w facility.

• Installation of a different, and larger, activated carbon filtration system on the thermal cooker before receiving approval from DTSC for a permit modification the company submitted in
October 1999. A thermal cooker solidifies waste material c oming from the treatment tank prior to disposal. The application for the permit modification was subsequently approved by
DTSC in December 1999.

• Installation and use of an activated carbon filtration system on the thermal cooker without prior authorization from DTSC in 1998.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 433 • Failure to give DTSC advance notice of the company’s planned installation of an activated carbon filtration system on a thermal cooker in 1998.

The contamination was discovered in 1989 when the facility was required to re move all tanks

. The facility had a RCRA Part B permit, which was issued and re

- issued on the following dates: 9/11/1984, 9/11/1989, 6/30/1993, and 12/11/1998

.

Description of Contamination : The facility’s soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater are known
to be contaminated

. The main contaminant at the site is methylene chloride

. Methylene chloride has been detected in groundwater at levels as high as thousands of ppm

. However, soil venting may have reduced these concentrations

. Previous monitoring data ind icate that the following compounds have been detected above maximum contaminant levels (MCLs): benzene; 1,1

- dichloroethane (DCA); tetrachloroethylene (PCE); 1,1

- dichloroethylene (DCE)

. Also, methylene chloride has been detected at elevated concentrations ( thousands of ppm) in the past, and may have been reduced in part by soil venting

. In over eight years of monitoring, there has been no
evidence of off

- site contamination (as of 2000)

. Approximately $2.5 million has been spent over the past few years at thi s site

.

Sources of Information California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Department Reaches Agreement with Safety

- Kleen.” 21 November 2001. 17 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PressRoom/upload/NEWS_2001_Safety

- Kleen.pdf

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Docket HWCA: P1

- 03/04

- 004: Corrective Action Consent Agreement.” February 2004

. 17 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/upload/SK

- Reedley_ENF_CACA.pdf

EPA Region 9. “RCRA Corrective Action Environmental Indicator Forms: Safety Kleen Reedly Recycling Center.” 3 April 20 00. 17 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9coract.nsf/92e28fb9e2f1a35a88256 a72006760cb/d057b34d75f2 c00f88256acc007d11c4/$FILE/Safety%20Kleen%20Reedley%20485%20+%2000.pdf

USEPA. “Enforcement & Compliance History Online: Safety Kleen Reedley Incorporated.” 9
December 2005

. 23 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/cgi

- bin/get1cReport.cgi?tool=echo&IDNumber=110000482102Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 434 USEPA. “Safety Kleen Reedly Incorporated.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 17 January
2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000482102

USEPA. “Safety Kleen Reedly Incorporated.” RCRAInfo

. 7 November 2002

. 18 January 2006

.

Vakili, Farshad (DTSC Sacramento), 916

- 255

- 3612, interview 10/28/2005

Additional Contacts : Ninon Stamoulis 559

- 643

- 2105 Farshad Vakili (DTSC Sacramento) (916) 255

- 3612, fvakili@dtsc.ca.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 435 Site Information
Site Name: Safety

- Kleen Corporation, Rohnert Park
EPA ID No.: CAT000613943
Address: 5750 Commerce Rohnert Park CA 94928 County: Sonoma
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Safety Kleen operated a proprietary
solvent distribution and recycling service. A Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) (#99

- 56) is in effect for this facility

. The facility is still in operation. It received a RCRA permit on 9/17/1994

. The permit expired in October 2004

.

Description of Contamination : The facility had two underground storage tanks (USTs), 1,000 gallons each that leaked mineral spirits, perchloroethylene (PCE), and tri

- chloroethylene (TCE). The most recent ground water monitoring report indicates the presence of TCE (4 ppb), PCE (24 ppb ), cis

- 1,2

- di

- chloroethylene (DCE) (16 ppb) 1, 4

- dichlorobenzene, and 1,1

- DCE (6 ppb). Vinyl chloride in shallow ground water beneath the facility has declined from a maximum of over 500 ppb in 1997 to non detection as of the April 12, 2000 sampling. The p lume does not
extend off

- site

. Soils on and off

- site were contaminated with various solvents. A soil vapor extraction (SVE) system began operation in July, 1993. The SVE system was shut down in July, 1996, with RWQCB approval because the removal rate of the system had declined

. Both tanks and soil were removed in August 1991. Contamination was not removed beneath buildings for reasons of structural stability. The entire facility is paved and there are no deed restrictions against digging or using the shal low ground water at the present time. The project manager feels that the residual contamination in subsurface soil is probably fairly low; however, there is no data to confirm this opinion. Soil gas investigations have been conducted

. Some contamination
di d occur after RCRA was in place including a surface spill resulting from a drum leak

. The site had California state permits

.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 9. “Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination: Safety Kleen
Rohnert Park.” 5 Fe bruary 2002

. 17 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9coract.nsf/92e28fb9e2f1a35a88256a72006760cb/c2644a773 c83ec4c88256acc007c3c95/$FILE/Safety_Kleen_(Rohnert_Park)_943_EI_00.PDFAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 436 EPA Region 9. “RCRA Corrective Action Environmental Indicator Forms Addendum: Safety
Kleen Rohnert P ark.” 9 November 2000

. 17 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9coract .nsf/92e28fb9e2f1a35a88256a72006760cb/c2644a773 c83ec4c88256acc007c3c95/$FILE/Safety%20Kleen%20(Rohnert%20Park)%20943%20 +%2000.pdf

Rolandelli, Bonnie (CA SWRCB) (707) 576

- 2667, Interview 11/22/2005

USEPA. “Safety Kleen Rohnert Park.” Envirofacts Data Wa rehouse. (n.d.). 17 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000621408

USEPA

. “Safety Kleen Rohnert Park.” RCRAInfo

. 27 June 200 2

. 23 January 2006.

Additional Contacts : Bonnie Rolandelli (707) 576

- 2667 rolab@rbl.swrcb.ca.gov Sharon Halper (Family Contact) (707) 748

- 7507Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 437 Site Information

Site Name: Safety

- Kleen Envirosystems Company
EPA ID No.: NJD002153922
Address : 600 Doremus Avenue, Newark, NJ County: Essex
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Safety

- Kleen Envirosystems Company site is located on approximately 9.5 acres in a heavily industrialized area of Newark, New Jersey. During the 1800s, the site was part of the Balbach Smelting and Refining Corporation Works, which refined lead and cop per. The refining operations ceased in 1938 and the ownership was transferred to the City of Newark. It was inactive until purchased in 1952 by the Kolker Chemical Company, which manufactured chemicals at the location, including chlorine, methylene chlorid e, methyl chloride, chloroform and plasticizers.

In 1974, Inland Chemical Corporation purchased the property, phasing out chemical manufacturing and initiating solvent recovery operations in 1975. In 1976, the southern portion of the property was sold to Darling International for rendering of animal byproducts. Inland and McKesson Envirosystems Company merged in 1981. In October 1982, an explosion and fire destroyed much of the operations at the site and it has been inactive and vacant ever since. In
1987 , Safety

- Kleen Corporation acquired the stock of McKesson and renamed the company Safety

- Kleen Envirosystems.

In 1982, McKesson Envirosystem Company entered into an Administrative Consent Order with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (N JDEP) for investigations of the site. Subsequent investigations and inspections identified a number of units and areas of concerns. In 1993, Safety

- Kleen Envirosystems Company and Bristol

- Myers Squibb Company (which shipped waste to the site) entered into an Administrative Consent Order with NJDEP to conduct remedial investigations and remedial measures, if necessary

.

This site does not hold a RCRA Part B permit

.

Description of Contamination : Due to poor manufacturing operation and maintenance practices, the site’s soil and groundwater are contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and volatile and semi

- volatile organics, such as methylene chloride, vinyl chloride,Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 438 chloroform, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, cis

- 1,2 Dichloroethyl ene and xylenes

. Contamination of soil and groundwater includes PCBs, volatile, and semi

- volatile organics

.

Some contamination occurred after 1982, and the facility was closed 2 days after the explosion and subsequent fire

. The cost of clean up has amoun ted to $2.75 million for groundwater remedy and $1.76 million for soil.

Sources of Information: Abdellatif, Sameh (212) 637

- 4103, Interview 1 November 2005.

EPA Region 2. “Hazardous Waste Cleanup Site Fact Sheet: Safety

- Kleen Envirosystems Co.” 3
Novembe r 2005.18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region02/waste/njstate.htm

EPA Region 2. “Hazardous Waste Cleanup Site Fact Sheet: Safety

- Kleen Envirosystems.” 3 November 2005.18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region02/waste/fssafene.pdf

USEPA. “McKesson Envirosystems Co.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. 18 January 2006. 18 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility

USEPA. “Safety

- Kleen Envirosystems.” RCRAInfo . 26 November 2001.

Additional Contacts: NJ DEP, Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste Records Center, 401 E. Stat e Street, 6 th Floor, Trenton, NJ 08625, (609) 777

- 3373 Sameh Abdellatif, EPA Region 2 Contact, (212) 637

- 4103, abdellatif.sameh@epa.gov Mark Walters (609) 633

- 1486Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 439 Site Information

Site Name: Safety

- Kleen Systems, Inc.

EPA ID No.: VAD981043011

Address : Chester Service Center, 1200 W. Hundred Road, Chester, VA
23831 County: Chesterfield

NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Since the 1980s, when the site was purchased from a petroleum supplier, Safety

- Kleen in Chester, VA has distributed, collected, and reclaimed solvents in a legitimate, regulated solvent recycling facility

. Customers include automotive repair shops, industrial maintenance facili ties, photo processors, and dry cleaners

. The 9

- acre Safety

- Kleen site is 1.5 miles south of the James River and bordered by a general business zone and private residences

. The facility is still in operation

. RCRA permits were issued December 1990; August 1996; and September 2002

. Contamination occurred most likely during
1980s before the site had a RCRA Part B Permit

.

Description of Contamination : Contamination stemming from Safety

- Kleen activities includes mineral spirits in soils and sub

- soils, and 1,1

- dichloroethene and tetrachloroethene in groundwater

. In 1998, Safety

- Kleen connected a neighboring private home to the public water supply

. Safety

- Kleen continues to monitor groundwater contamination, and groundwater sampling has shown a downward trend in contamination.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 3

. “Region 3 GPRA Baseline RCRA Corrective Action Facility: Bingham & Taylor.” 1 July 2005. 17 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/reg3 wcmd/ca/va/pdf/vad981043011.pdf

Jacobi, Mik (Region 3) (215) 814

- 3435, Interview 7 November 2005.

USEPA

. “Permit Series List.” RCRAInfo

. 19 January 2006.

USEPA. “Safety Kleen Systems 315401.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 17 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list_tri?tri_fac_id=23831SFTYK1200WAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 440 Additional Contacts: Kurt Stafford (VADEQ) (804) 698

- 4005, kastafford@deq.virginia.gov Mik Jacobi (EPA Region 3) (215) 814

- 3435, jacobi.mike@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 441 Site Information
Site Name: Safety

- Kleen, Inc., El Monte
EPA ID No.: CAT00613893
Address: 10625 Hickson St. Unit A, El Monte CA 91731 County: Los Angeles
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : This facility is a branch of Safety

Kleen’s chemical distribution/recycling

. Used chemicals, including mineral spirits, spent immersion cleaners, dry cleaning wastes, lacquer thinner wastes and spent antifreeze are collected from the customers and stored at the facility while awaiting shipment to recycling

centers

. California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control manages the s oils on the property.

There have been eight inspections in the past three years; last inspection 4/21/2005

. Nine quarters in alleged non

- compliance in past three years, and there are current alleged significant
violations. There have been five informal a nd one formal enforcement action in past three years

. This was a RCRA Corrective Action site.

Description of Contamination : Contaminated soil was removed from solid waste management units (SWMUs) and regulated units

. In the past, there were groundwater re leases at the site, but currently (as of 2000) there are no detections of groundwater contaminants above maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) at the facility

. It is likely that contamination occurred post

- RCRA, but it is unclear when contamination actually oc curred

. Cost of cleanup is unknown

.

Sources of Information EPA Region 9 “RCRA Corrective Action Environmental Indicator Forms Addendum: Safety Kleen El Monte.” 15 May 2000. 17 January 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9coract.nsf/92e28fb9e2f1a35a88256a72006760cb/d766525a9 715718288256acc007cd0eb/$FILE/Safety%20Kleen%20El%20Monte%20893 %20+%20 00.pdf

Senga, Robert. (Project Manager, DTSC Cypress) (714) 484

- 5436, Interview 11/7/05.

USEPA. “Enforcement & Compliance History Online: Safety Kleen.” 9 December 2005

. 23 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/cgi

bin/get1cReport.cgi?tool=echo&IDNumber=110000621391

USEPA. “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Site ProgressAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 442 Profile: Safety Kleen, Inc. El Monte.” 10 December 2005. 17 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/rcris_web.report?pgm_sys_id=CAT000613893

USEPA. “Safety Kleen Systems Inc orporated.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 24 January 2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000621391

Additional Contacts : Robert Senga (Project Manager, DTSC Cypress) (714) 484

- 5436 rsenga@dtsc.ca.gov Aaron Yue (714) 484

- 5439 Sara Brothers (Facility Contact) (503) 341

- 3866Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 443 Site Name: Sandoval Zinc Company
EPA ID No.: ILD053980454
Address: 263 Smelter Road, Sandoval, IL, 62882

- 0263 County: Marion
NPL Site: Yes
In CERCLIS Database: ILD053980454

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Located in Sandoval, Illinois, the Sandoval Zinc Company site is a former secondary zinc smelter

. The 14

- acre site was originally operated as a primary zinc smelter by the Swansea Vale Zinc Company, beginning in 1898. In 1936, the facility was sold to the Sandoval Zinc Company, which continued to operate as a primary zinc smelter for 15 years at which time it was converted to secondary zinc smelting. As a secondary smelter, facility used compounds including pure zinc, zinc oxide, zinc chloride, and possibly other trace metals. The facility closed in 1985, and the company f iled for bankruptcy in 1986. The site is currently inactive and is owned by a private individual.

During operation, large amounts of cinders, slag, and other waste from the smelting process were used as fill on the property and surfacing for a number of ro ads on the site. The remaining waste was placed in a five

- acre pile on site

. Waste also was offered to the town and the public for other
fill and construction needs.

The first studies at the site began in 1975, followed by CERCLA assessment and inspection s which occurred in 1986 and 1988, respectively. In 1991 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency began its first cleanup at the site, after fuel oil spilled from an above

- ground tank. This was followed by a feasibility study begun in 1993, and further cleanup in 1998. This cleanup included the demolition and disposal of site buildings and enclosed materials. In 2010, a state

funded site inspection was undertaken, followed in September 2011 by the site being added to
the National Priorities List.

Descri ption of Contamination: Damage and contamination on the site is primarily related to the abandoned cinders and slag, which have been shown to contain elevated levels of lead, zinc, and other metals. Contaminants from this waste have also migrated off site into a drainage ditch and adjacent ponds and wetlands. Antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc were all detected in the wetland above U.S. EPA’s screening values. The source for contamination is determined to primarily be the remaining waste pile of cinders and slag, and contaminants have been found in soils and surface water, including some off

- site locations.

The site has been under investigation for a number of years and has been the subject of a few cleanup activities in the 1990s. Although site fencing was replaced and repaired in 1998, access remains unrestricted and trespasser contact with the hazardous wa stes and soils remains possibleAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 444 and likely as investigations showed signs of recreational use. Following the cleanups and inspections in the 1990s, another inspection was undertaken in 2010 which resulted in the site being added to the NPL. No Federally in itiated cleanups have been undertaken, although investigations are underway.

Sources of Information:
1. USEPA. Region 5, Cleanup Sites. Sandoval Zinc Company

. Accessed Online

. November
2011: h ttp://www.epa.gov/region5/cleanup/sandovalzinc/

2. USEPA. EPA Planning New Round of Yard Sampling. Sandoval Zinc Company Site.
Accessed Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/region5/cleanup/sandovalzinc/pdfs/sandoval_fs_20100712.pdf

3. USEPA. National Priorities List (NPL) Site Narrative. Sandoval Zinc Company.
Accessed Online. November 2011 : h ttp://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1839.htm

4. USEPA. Superfund (Cerclis). Query Results. Sandoval Zinc Company. Accessed Online.
November 2011: http://oaspub. epa.gov/enviro/cerclisquery.get_report?pgm_sys_id=ILD053980454

5. USEPA. HRS Documentation Record. Sandoval Zinc Company Accessed Online.
November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites /docrec/pdoc1839.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 445 Site Information:

Site Name: Saran Protective Coatings
EPA ID No.: MIN000509094
Address: 17332 Shields Street, Detroit, MI 48212 County: Wayne
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 509094

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Saran Protective Coatings Co. (SPC) was incorporated in 1950 and operated at this location from 1987 to 2002

. Operations included recycling lubricants and manufacturing protective coatings for metal products, specializing in polyurethane coating s

. Waste from another SPC facility on Oakman Boulevard in Detroit, Michigan, was also transferred to this location until 1987

. SPC ceased operations in August
2002

. A main production building, three storage buildings, an office/laboratory building, and a

s hed occupy the site.

Description of Contamination : In October 2003, approximately 400 abandoned drums were observed by the USEPA on

- site assessment, as well as numerous small containers and laboratory

- sized containers

. Analytical results for samples coll ected from the drums and containers on indicated the presence of corrosive and ignitable materials as well as solvent
materials

. USEPA has initiated a fund lead cleanup as enforcement efforts were not effective due to the potentially responsible party (PRP ) claiming the lack of needed funds to conduct the cleanup.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 5. “Reports of Significant Developments and Activities ending on October 8, 2004.” 15 October 2004. 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region5/superfund/significant_actions/2004/041008.txt

USEPA. “Saran Protective Coatings.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 25 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110003634274

USEPA. “Saran Protective Coatings.” On

- Scene Coordinator Profile. (n.d.). 17 January 2006. www.epaosc.net/SPC

USEPA. “Saran Protective Coatings.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 17 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpa d/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0509094

Additional Contacts:Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 446 Jeffrey Kimble (OSC) (734) 692

- 7688 kimble.jeffrey@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 447 Site Information :

Site Name: Schuylkill Metals Corp. EPA ID No.: FLD062794003 Address : 402 S Woodrow Wilson Dr., Plant City, FL 33566 County: Hillsborough NPL Site: Deleted: 8/22/2001 In CERCLIS Database: 0400710

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : This facility recovered lead from storage batteries from 1972 until 1986

. The process consisted of transporting the batteries to the site, sawing the tops off, dumping the sulfuric acid on the ground and loading the lead plates onto a railroad car to go to the smelter

. Empty battery casings were put in an on

- site landfill

.

I n October 1988, a RCRA closure permit was issued under the provisions of Section 403.722, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 17

- 3, 17

- 4, 17

- 21, and 17

- 30

. This directed Schuylkill Metals to close the unlined hazardous waste pond and sp ecified the closure procedures

. The RCRA closure/post

- closure plan for the disposal pond will be addressed by the CERCLA design for remedial action. This site did not have a RCRA Part B permit

.

Description of Contamination : EPA determined that the pollut ion from this site was due to current operations, thereby subjecting the facility to RCRA Corrective Action not CERCLA. Groundwater underlying the facility was contaminated with heavy metals such as lead and chromium, as well as sulfate and ammonia

.

The cleanup expenditure at this site as of September 2004 was $612,421.63

.

Sources of Information: USEPA. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). 30 September 2004. 15 January 2004.

USEPA. “Schuylkill Metals Corp.” RCRAInfo . 2 September 2000

. 21 January 2006.

USEPA. “Schuylkill Metals of Plant City Incorporated.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.). 25 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_ list?facility_uin=110000611446

USEPA. “Superfund Site Progress Profile: Schuylkill Metals.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 20 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursit es/csitinfo.cfm?id=0400710Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 448 USEPA. “Superfund Record of Decision: Schuylkill Metals Corp.”28 September 1990. 20 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r04 90061.pdf

Additional Contacts: Randall Chaffins (RPM) (404) 562

- 8929 Galo Jackson (RPM) (404) 562

- 8937 Don Rigger (OSC) (404) 347

- 3931 Kelsey Helton FL (850) 245

- 8967 Jennifer K. Wills (404) 562

- 9562 Annette Hill (404) 562

- 8060Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 449 Site Information :

Site Name: Scorpio Recycling, Inc.
EPA ID No.: PRD987376662
Address : State Road #2 KM 19.7 (Acuna Street), Candeleria Ward,
Puerto Rico 00759 County: Toa Baja Municipality
NPL Site: Final: 2/4/2000
In CERCLIS Database: 0203570

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Scorpio Recycling, Inc. (SRI) is a 6.5 acre metal recycling company that purchases, accumulates, and processes a variety of scrap
metals for resale to foundries in the United States and Brazil

. The facility began operati ng in 1972 as Astur Metals, Inc. and changed its name to Scorpio Recycling, Inc. in 1988

. The site contains five main areas: battery accumulation and aluminum cans compacting building, aluminum processing building, offices and red metals processing buildin g, maintenance shop, and batteries and other metals accumulation building

. The facility is located between karst hills in an aquifer recharge area

. Since the time when battery crushing had ceased the site has been used for the temporary storage of scrap st eel

. Available facility records indicate that the facility receives approximately 9

- million pounds of scrap material per month from outside sources

. The site is still in operation today.

Description of Contamination : Scorpio Recycling, Inc. is still under investigation by USEPA

. Over 2.4 million batteries were crushed and stored at the Scorpio site between 1972 and 1982

. Battery fluids were dumped directly onto the soil

. Packaging and shipping of batteries continued
until 1982

. In 1991, poor housekeeping p ractices were observed at the site, including stained and corroded floors, spills, batteries on the ground and on pallets, lead battery cells open to the atmosphere, acidic runoff flowing into the sinkhole area, and stressed vegetation

. USEPA testing
in 19 91 and 1993 revealed that onsite soil and water had been contaminated with barium, lead, and vanadium. USEPA testing in 1999 in the former battery crushing area revealed surface soil lead concentrations of 109,000 ppm

. Across the entire Scorpio site, the a verage surface soil lead concentration was approximately 18,000 ppm

. Release to area groundwater has occurred and is a potential threat to the aquifer and local drinking water supply. Over 1,000 tons of scrap metal
needed to be removed from the site

.

Sources of Information: Torres, Ramon (EPA RPM) (787) 977

- 5844, Interview 8 July 2005.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 450 USEPA. “EPA Places Contaminated Scorpio Recycling, Inc. Site in Toa Baja on the Superfund
National Priorities List.” 3 February 2000. 23 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region02/news/2000/00022.htm

USEPA. “NPL Fact Sheet Scorpio Recycling, Inc.” April 2004. 23 January 2006. http://www.e pa.gov/Region2/superfund/npl/0203570c.pdf

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Scorpio Recycling, Inc.” 22 October 1999. 23 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0203570.pdf

USEPA. “Scorpio Recycling, Inc.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 23 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csit info.cfm?id=0203570

USEPA. “Scorpio Recycling Corp.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 23 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110018864371

Additional Contacts: Juan Davila (SAM): (212) 637

- 4341 Ramon Torres (RPM): (787) 977

- 5844Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 451 Site Information :

Site Name: Sentco Paints
EPA ID No.: OHD981094212
Address: 1301 N Meridian Road, Youngstown, OH 44511 County: Mahoning
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Sentco Paints was a manufacturer and wholesale distributor of paint and asphalt products

. The facility accepted unused paint to recycle or rework into their products

.

Description of Contamination : There is soil contamination as a result of activities which took place in the 1980s

. Paint was found stored in leaking drums, buried under a loading dock, open burned, and drums of paint started showing up in dumpsters around town

. Roland Brothers, President of Sentco, Rick Brothers, Plant Manager, and Donald Cole, a company employee pleaded guilty in June 1992 to illegal disposal of hazardous waste for burying 5 6 drums of paint waste under a cement loading dock at the plant site

. The guilty pleas resulted in sentences of 15 months incarceration for Roland Brothers, 18 months incarceration for Rick Brothers, and 6
months home detention for Donald Cole

. On March 17, 1994, Sentco Paint Manufacturing Company, Inc. was sentenced to 3 years probation and an $8,000 fine for its part in violating RCRA through the illegal disposal of hazardous wastes

.

Sources of Information : Hale, Karen (Ohio EPA). Email correspondenc e to David Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste).
24 June 2005.

USEPA. “FY 1994 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report.” (n.d.) 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/reports/planning/results/fy94accomplishment. pdf

Additional Contacts: David Taliaferro (Region 5)Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 452 Site Informati on :

Site Name: Sierra Battery Sales
EPA ID No.: CAD983650128
Address: 977 Lochbrae RD, Sacramento, CA 95815 County: Sacramento
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0904607

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Sierra Battery Sales has been in operation since 1963. The facility bought and sold used automobile batteries and stored non

sellable batteries in the alley prior to shipment off

- site for recycling

. State funds have been
allocated to excavate and remove the contaminated soil on si te

. In 1995, task orders were being prepared to encumber the money for the removal action

. In 1996 a removal action was performed which consisted of excavation and disposal of approximately 477 cubic yards of lead
contaminated soils

.

DTSC settled its cos t recovery action with the defendants when the Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree was filed in the U.S. District Court on November 23, 1999

.

Description of Contamination : Historical activities at this site included the burial of battery parts underground in two locations in the alley. In 1988 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Surveillance and Enforcement responded to a complaint alleging the improper handling of batteries. 120 cracked batteries were observed. Soil samples collected on

site indicated hazardous waste levels of lead as high as 8,920 mg/kg

. The operator's private residence and a mobile home park, both adjacent to site, displayed lead contamination.

Sources of Information : California Department of Toxic Subs tances Control. “Sierra Battery Sales.” Site Cleanup

– Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database. (n.d.). 17 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/Calsi tes/CALP001.CFM?IDNUM=34360054

EPA Region 9. Email Correspondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 22 November
2005.

USEPA. “Sierra Battery Sales.” CERCLIS . 27 October 2005

. 24 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0904607

USEPA. “Sierra Battery Sales.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 17 January 2006.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 453 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110009268915Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 454 Site Information:

Site Name: Singleton Battery
EPA ID No.: FLD980845
Address: 551 North Ellis Road, Jacksonville, FL 322050 County: Duval
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : This facility was a battery recycling facility that discharged waste acid/lead to the ground at the facility

. The facility closed, but they are still in the process of cleaning up the site under a generator closure consent order

. Final RCRA closure was designated in February 2002.

Description of Contamination : This facility has off

- site contamination.

Sources of Information: Posner, Augusta. (State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection)

. Email correspondence to Dave Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 17 March 2005

.

USEPA. “Singleton Battery Co Inc” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 19 Ja nuary 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110002542589

Additional Contacts: John Saltford (Facility owner) (904) 783

- 0110 Augusta Posner (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) (850) 245

- 2285 augusta.posner@dep.state.fl.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 4 55 Site Information:
Site Name: Singleton Battery/TPA
EPA ID No.: FLD980845697
Address: 2120 N. 71 st Street, Tampa, FL 33619 County: Hillsborough
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Singleton Battery is a lead acid battery supplier, service, and repair facility

.

Description of Contamination: Operations resulted in soil and groundwater contamination (lead and low pH)

. The site is being cleaned up under a generator closure consent order

.

Sources of Information: Posner, Augusta. (State of Florida Department of Env ironmental Protection)

. Email correspondence to Dave Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 17 March 2005

.

USEPA. “Singleton Battery Co Inc” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 19 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110002531369

Additional Contacts: Fred Singleton (Facility Owner) (813) 621

- 4618 Augusta Posner (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) (850) 245

- 2285, augusta.posner@dep.state.fl.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 456 Site Information

Site Name: Smith Chemical
EPA ID No.: OHN000509086
Address: 1221 3rd Street N.E., Canton, OH County: Stark
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0509086

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The site includes a four

- story brick building with a basement; a parking lot; and the surrounding property

. The Smith Chemical Corporation was founded by George and John Smith and began operations in January 1976

. The company performed chemical manufacturing; custom chemical blending, packaging and brokerage; and chemical distribution to customers in Ohio and the five con tiguous states. The company's markets included chemical manufacturers, steel manufacturers, oil and gas producers, oil refiners, drillers and service companies, metal plating, and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)

. The company received molten sulfur i n bulk tank trucks and converted it into various solid forms as required by its customers in the steel industry

. In addition, the company performed chlorination of spent hydrochloric acid pickle liquor (SPL) and subsequently sold the resulting product (fer

ric chloride) as a treatment chemical for phosphate removal from wastewater at
POTWs

. The company also offered leased space in its Canton warehouse to other businesses

. On May 18, 1993, Smith Chemical Corporation filed a petition pursuant to Chapter 7 bankruptcy

. Service Chem of Ohio (SCO) began operating at the site in 1994 and reportedly ceased operations in November 2001

. SCO was owned and operated by the same individuals who owned and operated Smith Chemical Corporation

. The current site owner purch ased the property for $5 on December 18, 2002, at the County Auditor's Auction (Forfeited Land Sale)

. Reportedly the current owner planned to donate the property to a local charity for demolition and redevelopment into affordable, single

- family dwellings.

Description of Contamination: In September 2003, nearly 800 drums and smaller containers
were observed at the site

. Corrosive and flammable materials were present on the site as well as large pools of spilled liquid in the basement and first floor

. In add ition, containers in the on

- site laboratory that contain hazardous substances were small enough to be easily manipulated or transported off site

. Based on laboratory analyses, container labels, and the facility historical chemical inventory records, hazard ous substances existed on site and were contained in 55

- gallon drums and smaller containers in varying conditions.

Sources of Information:Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 457 USEPA. “Enforcement Action Summary Fiscal Year 2004 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).” (n.d.) 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region5/orc/enfactions/enfactions2004/law

- cercla.htm#freeman

USEPA. “Memorandum: Reports on Significant Developments and Activities Ending on May 7, 2004.” 7 May 2004. 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region5/superfund/significant _actions/2004/040507.txt

USEPA. “Smith Chemical.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 18 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0509086

USEPA. “Smith Chemical Freeman Environmental PRP.” On

- Scene Coordinator Profile. (n.d). 18 January 2006. http://www.epaosc.net/site_profile.asp?site_id=B58F(V

- W

- 04

- C779

Additional Contacts: Reginald Pallesen (EPA) 312

- 886

- 0555 James Augustyn (OSC) (440) 250

- 1742, augus tyn.james@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 458 Site Name: Smokey Mountain Smelters
EPA ID No.: TND098071061
Address: 1508 Maryville Pike, Knoxville, TN 37920 County: Knox
NPL Site: Yes
In CERCLIS Database: TND098071061

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Smokey Mountain Smelters (SMS) site was originally occupied by a series of fertilizer and agricultural chemical companies that operated from the 1920s to the 1960s. SMS, also known as Rotary Furnace, Inc., operated a secondary aluminum smelting operati on at the site from 1979 to 1994, and the site has been inactive since that time. The process involved the melting of scrap aluminum and aluminum dross (a waste by

- product of primary and secondary aluminum smelting) and casting molten aluminum ingots. Wast e material from the SMS operation was primarily saltcake, a residue from dross smelting with high salt and low metal content. Other waste materials included baghouse dust and discarded aluminum dross. Approximately four acres of the site are covered in a w aste pile consisting of saltcake and aluminum dross that was dumped directly on the land surface without a liner or drainage controls.

In 1983, the Tennessee Division of Solid Waste Management issued a notice to SMS with the
conclusion that the site was “ unsuitable for use as an industrial landfill;” however, landfilling on site continued for several years. In addition, the Knox County Department for Air Pollution Control (KCDAPC) documented numerous citizen complaints regarding excessive air emissions
fro m the site, and cited SMS for several air quality violations in the 1980s

. The 29

- acre, wooded site has been abandoned since the death of the owner/operator in 1994.

The SMS Superfund Site was placed on the N ational P riorities L ist on September 27, 2010. The listed site is approximately 13 acres in size and includes one large industrial process building, a small lagoon, a large outside saltcake waste pile, and three mid

- sized indoor dross waste piles. The process building is approximately 100 feet wide, 3 00 feet long, and 50 feet high

. It housed equipment and three 900 cubic

- yard (each) piles of aluminum dross. All of the buildings at the site were recently demolished, and all of the demolition debris from these buildings has been
taken off

- site for dispos al/recycling. Most of the secondary aluminum smelting waste (saltcake and dross) and other non

- recyclable waste still remains on site.

The spring

- fed lagoon on site measures approximately 25 feet wide by 100 feet long and is
located to the southeast of the process building. The saltcake waste pile is approximately 50,500 cubic yards in size and covers an area of about four acres on the south side of the process building. Surface runoff from the site generally flows to the southwest. Leachate and surfaceAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 459 runoff discharges to an unnamed tributary stream, reaching Flenniken Branch and, eventually,
the Tennessee River.

During a 2008 site visit, U.S EPA observed that access controls were not adequate to keep trespassers out of the property. A residential apar tment community with 560 residents was located 75 feet from the site, and holes had been cut in the perimeter fence where a path led from the apartment complex to the site. A limited time

- critical removal action was initiated to provide stronger security m

easures to keep trespassers away from the water

- reactive dross material. This included repairing a security fence surrounding the site to deter trespassers from entering the property. In addition, data were collected to determine if further waste removal o r treatment action was necessary.

In 2010 and 2011, EPA performed initial cleanup activities to address hazards and stabilize the
site

. EPA removed physical and chemical hazards

. Buried wastes were either removed from the site or safely landfilled onsite

. The land was graded to control rain water run

- off

. The lagoon was
removed

. The surface water drainage ditch and the creek were filled with rock to eliminate contact with potentially hazardous water or leachate

.

By June of 2011, EPA finished the partial clean

- up operation

. EPA will keep the site stabilized and plant grass

. The environmental work is not complete, and EPA’s on

- site and off

- site comprehensive investigation continues

. Work to maintain the site is expected to continue for several years

.

Des cription of Contamination : Approximately 2,700 cubic yards of aluminum dross and 75,000 cubic yards of salt cake remain on site in two uncontrolled waste piles. The dross residues contain extremely corrosive and water

- soluble salts containing aluminum nitr ide, sodium and potassium chlorides, and heavy metals. Arsenic was detected in groundwater on site in excess of
U.S. EPA's Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant levels

. Polychlorinated biphenyls
and arsenic were detected in on site soils in excess of U.S. EPA's risk screening levels . Cadmium was detected in the sediment of an unnamed tributary next to the site in excess of EPA's sediment screening value.

Multiple sampling events were conducted between 1997 and 2006 to characterize the composition and contaminant concentrations in the waste piles, the raw material piles, the on

- site lagoon, leachate to the unnamed tributary, and downstream impacts to the unnamed tributary and Flenniken Branch. Dross and saltcake are exothermically water

- reactive materi als that release heat and ammonia gas, and leach aluminum, ammonia, chlorides, and other contaminants.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 460 In 1997, the State of Tennessee collected surface water and waste samples at SMS. Elevated levels of ammonia, arsenic, lead, and aluminum were found in surface waters at the site. Elevated levels of aluminum, polyaeromatic hydrocarbon s, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide and
ammonia were found in the on

- site waste pile. Headspace air samples over the waste pile
measured elevated concentrations of ammonia. The State collected additional samples from the site in 2001, 2003, and 2004 to monitor on

- going surface water conditions. Analysis of these samples showed that arsenic, lead, and aluminum concentrations in surface waters leaving the
site had increased. Level s of chlorides were significantly above background levels in surface waters leaving the site that were. Elevated concentrations of ammonia, chlorides, and pH were found along the entire length of the unnamed tributary to the Fle nniken Branch downstream of
the s ite.

Sources of Information:

1. Tennessee Department of Health. Environmental Health Update Smokey Mountain Smelters (SMS), Knoxville, Knox County. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://health.state.tn.us/Environmental/PDFs/SMS

- factsheet

- 072511.pdf

2. USEPA. Facility Registry System. Facility Detail Report. Smoky Mountain Smelters.
Accessed Online. November 2011: http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=1100093
31222

3. USEPA. National Priorities List (NPL) Site Narrative. Smoky Mountain Smelters.
Accessed Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1817.htm

4. USEPA. On

- Scene Coordinator Profile. Smoky Mountain Smelters. Accessed Online.
November 2011: http://www.epaosc.org/site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=4643

5. USEPA. Region 4 Superfund Site Summary Profile, Smoky Mountain Smelters.
Accessed Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/npltn/smokeymtnsmeltn.htmlAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 461 Site Information

Site Name: SoGreen Waste Pile, Parramore Fertilizer, Barren Area (contiguous sites)
EPA ID No.: GAD984321661

Address: Highland Avenue., Tifton, GA, 31794 County: Tift
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0406099

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : SoGreen Waste Pile held a permit for storage of 500 cubic yards of K061 inside of a building. Their primary business was mixing the K061 with six parts of agricultural lime for sale as a micronutrient package. The business declined in 1986, and, in about seven months, the facility had accepted over 60,000 tons of K061
and stored it on t

he ground in piles up to 30 feet high. Various industrial wastewaters were applied to the pile for dust suppression.

Description of Contamination : This site has a known release of cadmium in groundwater at levels exceeding the reportable quantity. No huma n exposure via drinking water is suspected from this release. The nearest drinking water well is between one and two miles from the area affected by the release. Other substances in groundwater include lead, chromium, barium, and

mercury

. This site, which has unlimited access, has a known release of cadmium in soil at levels exceeding the reportable quantity. The nearest resident individual is between 301 and 1000 feet from the area affected by the release. Other substances on site: lead; chromium; arsenic; barium; beryllium; mercury; silver; selenium; thallium; benzo(a)anthracene; benzo(a)pyrene; benzo(b)fluoranthene; iso(2

- ethylhexyl) phthalate; chrysene; dibenzo(a,h)anthracene; fluoranthene; indeno(1,2,3

- cd)pyrene; phenanthrene; pyrene; acetone; dichlorom ethane; and
tetrachloroethene

. Although the recycling was legitimate, the facility accepted too much waste and poor management thereof led to damage

.

Sources of Information : Georgia Environmental Protection Division

. “Site Number 10142 Site Summary: SoG reen Waste Pile.” Hazardous Site Inventory

. 1 July 2004

. 20 January 2006

. http://www.dnr.state.ga.us/environ/gaenviron_files/hazwaste_files/hsi_100

- 199.pdf

.

Smith, Mark (Hazardous Waste Management Branch, Georgia Department of Natural Resources)

. Letter to Dave Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 21 February 2005.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 462 USEPA

. “Parramore Fertilizer.” CERCLIS

. 27 October 2005

. 20 January 2006

. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0406099

.

USEPA. “Parramore Fertilizer.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 20 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110009163056

.

Additional Contacts : Jim McNamara and Jan Simmons (Georgia Department of Natural Resources) (404) 656

- 7802Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 463 Site Information:

Site Name: South Brunswick Asphalt
EPA ID No.: NJD986630747
Address : Gladney Avenue, Berkley, NJ 08721 County: Ocean
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0203669

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The South Brunswick Asphalt facility
makes asphalt and recycles asphalt wastes, concrete and tree stumps. Since 1983, a large quantity of coal tar emulsion wastes mixed with sand and gravel were stockpiled on

- site in an unpaved
and unbermed outdoor area. Other environmental concerns at the South Br unswick Asphalt site include an inactive landfill area, abandoned drums, three waste oil lagoons and discarded
electrical transformers

.

Funding sources include a corporate business tax ($845,000) and hazardous discharge site cleanup fund ($150,000).

De scription of Contamination : Preliminary sampling conducted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in 1990 and 1992 confirmed that the soil and ground water at the property were contaminated with various chlorinated and non

- chlorin ated volatile organic compounds and semi

- volatile organic compounds.

Sources of Information: USEPA. “South Brunswick Asphalt.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 18 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0203669

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. “ NJ Publicly Funded Cleanups Site Status Report 2003 : South Brunswick Asphalt.” http://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/publications/site_status/2003/pdf/ocean.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 464 Site Information

Site Name: Spectron, Inc.
EPA ID No.: MDDD000218008
Address : 111 Providence Rd., Elkton, MD 21921 County: Cecil
NPL Site: Final: 5/31/1994
In CERCLIS Database: 0300192

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Spectron, Inc., site is comprised of approximately 8 acres, located just outside of Elkton, Maryland, in a rural residential area. In 1961, Galaxy Chemicals, Inc., began a solvent recovery operation that treated wastes generated by the electronics, pharmaceutical, paint, and chemical process industries. The site had previously been a paper mill. Galaxy Chemicals went bankrupt in 1975, and the facility was re

opened as Solvent Distillers, Inc., with primarily the same ownership. Solvent Distillers which later became Spectron, Inc., closed the facility in 1988 and declared bankruptcy

. At the time t he facility closed, all of its RCRA Part A permits were expired

.

Solvent recovery operations used several lagoons on

- site to store wastes. Nearby residents repeatedly complained about the odors emanating from the lagoons and from a sludge pit. The
site has a history of improper management of recyclables and disposal of residuals. During a joint USEPA and Maryland Water Resources Administration inspection at the site in 1979, approximately 1,500 drums were found in the area of the former evaporation lagoo n. Approximately 500 of these drums were damaged, rusting, open, and leaking. Adjacent to this lagoon was a sludge pit that received solid residues until it was filled in June, 1969. Also located on the site were between 50 and 73 tanks holding 582,000 gal lons of hazardous substances, including chlorinated solvents, other organic compounds, and heavy metals.

Description of Contamination : When Spectron went bankrupt and ceased operations, approximately 500,000 gallons of flammable liquids, 1,100 drums, and 67 large storage tanks containing hazardous chemicals and waste were left at the site. The USEPA disposed of these wastes and negotiated an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with potentially responsible parties to clean out flammable sludges from the t anks. Another AOC was signed in 1991 requiring over one hundred potentially responsible parties (PRPs) (the site has approximately 1,000 PRPs) to control seeps of contaminated groundwater along the west bank of Little Elk
Creek

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 465 The soil and groundwater are heavily contaminated with predominately chlorinated organic solvents. Little Elk Creek traverses the site and was contaminated, including pure product in the sediments, by site activities.

In April 1998, USEPA and Maryland Department of the Environme nt decided that a ground water containment, collection, and treatment system would be installed to catch and treat contaminated seeps discharging from the site

. Construction began in the fall of 1998 and was completed in September, 2000.

In March 2003, a Federal District Judge in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland finalized a settlement which required de minimis parties to pay $5.3 million toward the
clean

- up of the Spectron site. The de minimis settlement included approximately 500 parties who sent relatively small amounts of hazardous material to the site while it was in operation

. The estimated present worth cost of the remedy was $9,492,014 according to the September 16, 2004
Record of Decision.

S ources of Information:
EPA Re gion 3: Mid

- Atlantic Superfund. “Current Site Information: Galaxy/Spectron Inc.” 28 October 2005. 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/sites/MDD000218008/index.htm

Maryland Department of the Environment. “Facts about: Galaxy/Spectron Site.” 8 December 2005. 17 January 2006. http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/brownfields/spec tron.pdf

Sanchez, Robert (EPA RPM) (215) 814

- 3451, Interview 15 November 2001.

USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Spectron, Inc Site.” 16 September 2004. 17 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/sites/MDD000218008/rod/2004

- 09

- 16/index.htm

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Spectron Inc.” 31 May 1994. 17 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0300192.pdf

USEPA. “Spectron Inc.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 17 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0300192

USEPA. “Spectron, Inc.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.)

. 25 January 2006. http: //oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110001767268Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 466 Additional Contacts: Robert Sanchez, EPA Region 3 (215) 814

- 3451, sanchez.robert@epa.gov Carrie Deitzel, Community Involvement Coordinator (215) 814

- 5525 Rashmi Mathur, Remedial Project Manager (215) 814

- 5234, mathur.rashmi@epa.gov Kim Lemaster, Maryland Department of the Environment/Federal Superfund Division (410) 537

- 3440Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 467 Site Information

Site Name: Standard Chlorine of Delaware
EPA ID No.: DED041212473
Address: 745 Governor Lea Rd, PO 319, New Castle, DE 19720 County: New Castle
NPL Site: Final: 7/22/1987
In CERCLIS Database: 0300058

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Metachem, and its predecessor, Standard Chlorine (SC), was an organic chemical manufacturer that produced a variety of polychlorobenzenes for more than 35 years. The facility operated as Standard Chlorin e from 1966 to late 1998 when it was purchased by Connecticut

- based Charter Oak Capital Partners and
renamed Metachem

. The site was situated on 85 acres but only 46 acres of the property was actively used to produce chemicals

. Metachem and Standard Chlorin e were leading global producers of a class of highly specialized family of chemicals, known as polychlorobenzenes, composed of chlorine and benzene. Standard Chlorine and Metachem's line of chemical products included, but was not limited to: monochlorobenz ene (mono), paradichlorobenzene (para or pDCB for the process), orthodichlorobenzene (ortho), metadichlorobenzene (meta), and trichlorobenzene (tri) and tetrachlorobenzene (tetra) (the last of which was sold up until 1990)

.

The facility used approximatel y 4 million pounds of liquid benzene per month, transported to the plant by truck and rail cars and stored in above ground storage tanks. The facility also used approximately 7 million pounds of chlorine per month delivered either as a gas through a pipeli ne from the nearby OxyChem chlorine plant, or as a pressurized liquid in rail cars. Other raw materials used at the facility included: iron catalysts, wastewater treatment chemicals, ethylene glycol, refrigerants, lubricants, and oils purchased in drums or smaller containers and stored in the areas where they were used.

The chemical production process conducted onsite consisted of a series of reaction vessels and
distillation columns. The reaction of chlorine with benzene or various isomers of chlorinated benzene produced a "reactor mass" consisting of mixed polychlorobenzenes and anhydrous hydrogen chloride (HCl) as a byproduct. The primary benzene reaction produced para, meta and ortho. These three chemicals are all dichlorobenzenes and are produced in t he same reaction. In addition, tri and tetra were produced in this reaction but in smaller quantities. Thus, paradichlorobenzene, Metachem's most valuable product, could not be created without also producing other chlorobenzenes for which few buyers existe d.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 468 Other processes conducted at the facility included a crystallization process for para and a dehalogenation (a.k.a. recycler/hydrogenator) system. The crystallization process involved the purification and chilling of liquid para on a Sandvik belt system to produce a crystalline or flaked para product which is packaged in paper bags for shipment offsite (a.k.a. the Flaker Process)

. The dehalogenation process involved the heating of tetra in the presence of a metal catalyst and hydrogen to strip chlorine a nd recover tri, di, and meta

. Tetra is primarily produced during chlorination of benzene at the Main Plant and chlorination of para and ortho at the Tri Plant. The tetra is contained within the polychlorobenzene byproduct streams of these processes

. This

p olychlorobenzene byproduct was then stored for later processing at the recycler unit. Given that Standard Chlorine maintained stockpiles of mixed polychlorobenzenes with high concentrations of tetra on site, the dehalogenation process allowed Standard Chlo rine and Metachem to convert a byproduct material that would otherwise require costly disposal as a hazardous waste into a commercially useful product.

In late 1996, after proper construction and operating permits were secured from the Delaware Departmen

t of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), Standard Chlorine began operating the recycler

. The recycler, though beset with problems, operated periodically until the facility

- wide shutdown in May 2002. This process, with the accompanying stoc kpiles of

tetra

- laced polychlorobenzenes (regarded by investors as a potential "gold

- mine") was one of the prime reasons Charter Oak purchased the Standard Chlorine assets

. As part of the chemical production process, PCBs and dioxins were generated as a by product. The PCB/dioxin

containing waste stream became part of the distillation column bottoms, which were sent off

- site for incineration. The fact that this material was not regulated as a hazardous waste throughout the 1990s resulted in a significant sub sidy to the operations of Standard Chlorine and then Metachem, as significant management and disposal costs were not incurred.

In 2001, with Metachem continuing to allow large quantities of tetra

- laced material to build up, DNREC finally took forceful ac tion through the Stipulation of Final Judgment between Metachem and DNREC. Under that decree, the plant was obligated to recycle tetra at the rate of three gallons per minute, which would take seven years

. This consent decree in effect recognized that a sp eculative accumulation violation had occurred, and was an attempt to reduce the accumulated stockpile in an orderly and efficient manner.

In May 2002, in large part due to overwhelmingly adverse market conditions in the polychlorobenzene business, Metache m went bankrupt and the site was abruptly closed and
abandoned

.

Metachem was guilty of a speculative accumulation violation

. There was no commercially viable market for tetrachlorobenzene in and of itself after 1990. Before 1990, tetra was used as anAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 469 intermediate or raw material in the production of herbicides, insecticides and defoliants. It was also used to manufacture other chemicals such as 2,4,5 trichlorophenol and 2,4,5 trichlorophenoxyacetic acid. When Metachem came into the picture, they appare ntly viewed the accumulated stockpile of tetra

- laced polychlorobenzene as free feedstock, provided they could convert the waste chemical, via the hydrogenation process, to the marketable products di and tri. However, Metachem surely was aware that this pot ential "free feedstock" carried with it a significant risk. Without the use of the recycling system, Metachem would be required to dispose of roughly 13 million pounds of tetra as hazardous waste, at a cost of 50

- 65 cents per pound. Only a handful of facil ities nationwide could have properly handled the disposal of this chemical. In the face of such risk, it is surprising that Metachem did not conduct more extensive due diligence about the efficacy of the recycling process.

Before Standard Chlorine was bo ught by Metachem, DNREC issued 16 Notices of Violation (NOV) between January 22, 1988 and July 16, 1998. During Metachem's existence, it was issued 9 Notices of Violation (NOV) by DNREC between October 26, 1999 and November 13, 2001.

This site did not ho ld a RCRA permit

.

Description of Contamination: The site was listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) of most hazardous waste sites in 1987 due to a 1981 chlorobenzene spill which occurred while workers were filling a railroad tanker car on the prope rty. An additional spill occurred in 1986; 569,000 gallons of various volatile organic compounds (VOCs) spilled after a 375,000

- gallon tank of VOCs split open, collapsed, and damaged three nearby tanks of VOCs, causing the latter tanks to partially spill

. Chlorobenzenes from spilled material have been found in the groundwater, soil, sediments, and surface water. Wetlands near the site are also contaminated. Environmental assessments that occurred after the 1986 spill revealed facility leaks into the groundw ater dating
back to the mid

- 1970s

. The state maintains a fish consumption advisory on Red Lion Creek for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxin.

Due to its bankruptcy, Metachem was unable to perform further cleanup, so USEPA is completing the remain

der of the original cleanup under the CERCLA Emergency Removal provisions

. Initially, USEPA and DNREC discovered approximately 43 million pounds of chemicals throughout the former manufacturing facility at the time of its bankruptcy in 2002

. USEPA consolid ated liquid chemicals from over 100 holding tanks, cleaned the empty tanks,
and demolished and removed some of the tanks from the site

. USEPA and DNREC have removed millions of pounds of chemicals from the site

. Some of the chemicals were products
and some were wastes

. This removal has generated more than $245,000 for site cleanup operations

. USEPA has completed steam

- cleaning of the distillation equipment and piping, removing and any chemical residuals

. Although the wastewater treatment plant operations ha veAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 470 ended, USEPA is continuing to keep technology available until all products and wastes are
removed from the site

. Facility structures are being dismantled

. Currently, USEPA is concentrating on removing the remaining estimated 20 million pounds of chemica ls from the
site

. Removal activities are about 80 percent finished

.

To date, the remedial design (RD) for the Columbia Aquifer barrier wall and pump

- and

- treat system is 95 percent complete

. Construction for the barrier wall and pump

- and

- treat system, als o called the “remedial action” or RA, should begin this winter

. While the wall is being constructed, the pump

- and

- treat system will also be installed

.

Potomac Aquifer well samples, collected in June 2005, found no signs of site

- related
contamination

.

T he total cost of this remedial action is estimated to be $75 million or more

. As of September 2004, cleanup expenditures at this site amounted to $20,242,784.80. USEPA has approved over $10 million for the remedial cleanup at the Standard Chlorine site

. Th e Columbia Aquifer containment barrier wall and the pump

- and

- treat system will account for approximately $4.2 million. The chemical disposal associated with the removal action will account for about $6.26 million. As part of the Record of Decision (ROD) Am endment #1, the USEPA’s remedial program will properly dispose of liquid chemicals that remain on

- site

.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 3 "EPA August 1992 RCRA Inspection Report," 17 September 1992

. 21 January
2006. http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/Divisions/AWM/do/MetachemTaskForce/EP A%20Documents/EPA%20Aug ust%201992%20RCRA%20Inspection%20Report.pdf

EPA Region 3 "EPA January 1999 SC Reinspection Report," 15 January 1999

. 21 January 2006. http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/Divisions/AWM/do/MetachemTaskForce/EP A%20Documents/EPA%20January%201999%20SC%20Reinspection%20Report.pdf

State of Delaware. "Task Force on Responsible Management of Facilities Handling Hazardous Waste Products (The Metachem Task Force)," 30 May 2003. 21 January 2006. http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/library/metachemfinal.pdf

USEPA. “EPA S uperfund Record of Decision: Standard Chlorine of Delaware.” 9 March 1995. 21 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0395193.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 471 USEPA. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). 30 September 2004. 15 January 2006.

USEPA. “MidAtlantic Superfund: Current Site Information.” September 2005

. 25 January 2006

. http://epa. gov/reg3hwmd/npl/DED041212473.htm

USEPA. “MidAtlantic Superfund: Standard Chlorine Inc.” September 2005. 21 January 2006

. http://epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/sites/DED041212473/

USEPA Proposed Remedial Action Plan Summary: Standard Chlorine Delaware. “EPA Seeks Public Comment on Proposed Remedial Action Plan.” April 2004

. 21 January
2006. http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/Divisions/AWM/do/Spring%202004% 0Standard%20Chlorine%20PRAP%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

USEPA. “Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005

. 21 January 2006

. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0300058

USEPA. “Standard Chlorine of Delaware.” RCRAInfo . 13 September 2000

. 21 January 2006.

USEPA. “Standard Chlorine of Delaware Site (AKA Metachem).” On

- Scene Coordinator
Profile . (n.d.). 21 January 2006. www.epaosc.net/metachem

USEPA Superfund Site Cleanup Progress Update. “Fact Sheet #15

– St andard Chlorine of Delaware (aka Metachem) Site.” September 2005

. 21 January 2006. http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/Divisions/AWM/do/FactSheet15.pdf

Additi onal Contacts: Hilda Burgos, ORC Region 3 Douglas Fox (OSC) (215) 814

- 3262 Trish Taylor (CIC) (215) 814

- 2938 Hilary Thornton (RPM) (215) 814

- 3323 Michael T Towle (OSC) (215) 814

- 3272Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 472 Site Name: Supreme Asset Management and Recovery
EPA ID No.: NJR000071902
Address: 1950 Rutgers University Boulevard County: Ocean
NPL Site: Yes
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Supreme Asset Management and Recovery (Supreme Recycling) operates a 100,000 square foot facility on a 13

- acre property in Lakewood, New Jersey. The facility’s primary operation is the recycling of waste fluorescent light bulbs, batteries, cathode ray tubes (CRTs), and other recyclable technologies. During operation the facility had a solid wa ste permit for these materials, though as of late 2011

, this permit is expired and Supreme Recycling is in the process of getting it renewed. Although the facility is operated by Supreme Recycling, the property is owned by Preferred Enterprises.

From 2006 to 2008, Supreme Recycling accepted spent fluorescent bulbs, for which the facility has a permit assuming the bulbs are intact. Inspections of the facility found that many of these fluorescent bulbs had been crushed, resulting in a release of mercury, and becoming a hazardous waste for which the facility was not permitted. In April 2008, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP) issued a notice of violation to Supreme Recycling for accepting the crushed bulbs and failing to prevent the release of mercury, which had been noted by NJ DEP as having leaked into the environment. During subsequent inspections U.S. EPA also found corroded and leaking batteries, and in 2009 took steps to revoke Supreme Recycling’s permit as a recycler. This was followed in 2009 by the U.S. EPA ordering, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act authority, the facility to stop accepting crushed bulbs, to move their current inventory to a properly permitted facility, and to take action to clean up previous leaks and other possible sources of contamination. In 2009, Supreme was also cited by U.S.EPA for illegally exporting CRT monitors overseas, settling the case for a $90,000 penalty. This was followed by a 2011 inspection that found Supreme Recycling to hav e accumulated approximately one million pounds of leaded CRT glass, which is also a hazardous waste. U.S. EPA is currently in negotiation a settlement and penalty regarding this violation.

Description of Contamination: The primary damage at the Supreme Re cycling facility is related to the acceptance and improper management of unapproved hazardous wastes. The main case noted by state and federal authorities occurred between 2006 and 2008, when Supreme Recycling was found to have accepted a considerable amou nt of crushed fluorescent light bulbs. NJDEP identified from records and inspections several instances where the improperly managed crushed bulbs may have released mercury into the environment. Further inspections also found improperly contained spent batt eries which were corroded and leaking, as well as CRT leaded glass which is also classified as a hazardous waste, and therefore would not be acceptable underAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 473 the facility’s permitting. These incidents all resulted in violations from either the NJDEP or U.S

. EPA, often with an attached penalty. The U.S. EPA is also working with Supreme Recycling under RCRA authority to make sure all the crushed bulbs go to properly permitted facilities and that this and other potential sources of environmental release are pr operly managed and previous spills are cleaned up.

Sources of Information:

1. USEPA. Facility Registry System. Facility Detail Report. Supreme Asset Management & Recovery

. Accessed Online

. November 2011: http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=1100358
37609

2. Senn, John. USEPA. Newsroom. EPA Orders Two New Jersey Co mpanies to Halt Improper Management of Hazardous Waste at Facility in Lakewood, NJ

. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/2569781CA4F9106D852575A500595015

3. Wil k, John. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

– Region 2, Personal communication (email) with Amanda Kohler , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regarding Potential Damage cases. November 2011.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 474 Site Name: Sybill Oil
EPA ID No.: MIR000022400
Address: 111 Military Ave, Detroit, MI, 48209 County: Wayne
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: MIN000508502

S ite History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Sybill Oil Superfund site is an abandoned used oil transporter, used oil processor, and marketer of on

- and off

- specification used oil fuel facility in Detroit, Michigan. Sybill Inc. operated from 1992 through 2001 when it sought bankruptcy protection . The facility was originally part of the former Fisher Body Plant waste water treatment facility that operated here prior to its closing in 1991, but was substantially modified. The outdoor tanks were part of the former General Motors facility

. Sybill ins talled the indoor tanks. A RCRA administrative complaint was issued to Sybill on September 24, 1998 for failure to notify and for operating without a hazardous waste storage permit (used oil presumed to have been mixed with a halogenated hazardous waste li sted in Subpart D of 40 CFR part 261). On March 27, 2000, Region 5, with state and local regulators, began a multimedia inspection of the facility for compliance with Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and RCRA permits and regulations.

Sybill Inc. abandoned the site with flammable wastes stored on site and a potential for hazardous runoff. Due to these issues, the City of Detroit and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) referred the site to the U.S. EPA Superfund Program. In 2003, U.S. EPA reached an administrative settlement with potentially responsible parties, including GM, Ford Motor Company, Detroit Diesel Corporation, Rouge Steel Company, Sybill, Inc. and the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee for V.C. Madias. These "Settling Parties" agreed to fund and implement a removal action to address waste oil contamination at the site. The $1 million cleanup project was carried out between July and December 2003. The Settling Parties also agreed to pay for U.S. EPA’s future oversight costs.

Description of Contamination: During its years of operation from 1991 to 2001, Sybill Oil was cited by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department and MDEQ for RCRA used oil and hazardous waste, wastewater and air quality regulatory violations.

In 2001, the Sybill Oil site was abandoned with 26 above

- ground storage tanks, 36 tons of bulk waste, 1 million gallons of waste liquids, more than 200 chemical drums and other containers, and a laboratory area. In 2002, before the Superfund administrative settlement, GM and Rouge Steel voluntarily removed more than 1.3 million gallons of waste oil and other liquid waste. Cleanup of the remaining waste materials under the administrative settlement was completed in
2003.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 475 Total cleanup costs for the site include $1 milli on paid by the PRPs under the administrative settlement, and unknown cost incurred by GM and Rouge Steel for the 2002 voluntary removal, and $56,000 incurred by U.S. EPA for investigative and emergency containment costs. U.S. EPA’s emergency containment ac tions included sealing eight sewer drains and upgrading fences
and locks.

Sources of Information:

1. Brauer, Sue. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

- Region 5. Personal communication (email) with Amanda Kohler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 23, 2012.

2. enviro.blr.com

. Detroit Waste Oil Site Cleanup Completed. December 15, 2003.
Accessed Online. December 2011: http://enviro.blr.com/environmental

news/waste/superfund/Detroit

- Waste

- Oil

- Site

- Cleanup

- Completed /

3. USEPA. Proposed Agreement Pursuant to Section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA ) for the Sybill Used Oil Processing Plant Site in Detroit, MI. Accessed Online. December 2011: http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2003/07/30/03

- 19284/proposed

- agreement

pursuant

- to

- section

- 122h1

- of

- the

- comprehensive

- environmental

- response

4. USEPA. Federal Registry System. Facility Detail Report. Sybill. Accessed Online.
December 2011: http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=1100118
82230Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 476 Site Information:

Site Name: Tetra Micronutrients (formerly American Microtrace)
EPA ID No.: NED000610550
Address : 71025 569th Avenue, Fairbury, NE 68352

- 5519 County: Jefferson
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Tetra Micronutrients is a zinc micronutrient fertilizer producer that sells one

- half of its product to animal feed suppliers

. They produce the zinc micro fertilizer from non

- hazardous galvanized zinc fines and hazardous brass
fume dust from foundries

. The facility was built in 1979 and operated by Eagle Picher Industries

. In August 1988, American Microtrace, Inc began operations only to sell to Tetra Technologies,
Inc in 1995

. Obtained multiple Part A RCRA permits, but never a Part B permit due to confusion between USEPA and Nebraska Dep artment of Environmental Control

. The federal ruling on the issue was that zinc fume dust was a solid waste in this case even though it was being recycled because it was being recycled into a product that was to be applied to the ground (fertilizer)

. This facility received an administrative order of conduct in September 1998

.

Description of Contamination: Potential sources of contamination at the facility include: permitted air emissions; precipitation runoff from the roofs; releases from previous raw mat erial and waste material handling practices; runoff from residual contamination in soil; releases from the sulfuric acid tanks; and releases from the former soil pile. The primary contaminants of concern at the facility are metals, including lead, cadmium, and zinc.

The site was cited with six counts of failure to maintain facility to minimize release, three counts of storage, maintaining an illegal hazardous waste pile, and failure to maintain facility operating
records

. Employees were walking around kne e deep in zinc dusts resulting in extremely elevated
blood lead levels in several instances

. The dust was stored on the ground in open piles in addition to being stored in large bins and transported by rail cars in super sacks

. Recycling processes also

gen erate lead sulfate and cadmium sulfate as wastes that were stored on

- site

. There was contamination onsite to a nearby wetland

.

Sources of Information:

Davis, Mike (EPA Official) (913) 551

- 7328, Interview 12/20/2005.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 477 EPA Region 7. “Environmental I ndicators at Tetra Micronutrients.” 12 August 2002. 17 January
2006. http://www.epa.gov/Region7/waste/pdf/tetramicronutrientsCA725.pdf

USEPA. “

Economic Analysis for Regulatory Modifications to the Definition of Solid Waste for
Zinc

- Containing Hazardous Waste

- Derived Fertilizers.” November 2000. 17 January 2006.

USEPA. “Tetra Micronutrients.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 17 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000447767

USEPA. “Tetra Micronutrients.” RCRAInfo. 5 May 2005. 20 January 2006.

Contacts:

Belinda Holmes, Associate Re gional Counsel, Region VII, (913) 551 7714 Jody Hudson, EPA, RCRA Corrective Action and Permits (913) 551

- 7179 Pat Murrow, EPA, RCRA Corrective Action and Permits (913) 551

- 7627 Don Toensing, EPA, RCRA Enforcement (913) 551

- 7446 Mike Davis, EPA, 913

- 55 1

- 7328Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 478 Site Name: The Battery Recycling Company
EPA ID No.: PRR000004655
Address: St 2 KM 72.2 Bo Cambalache, Arecibo, PR County: Arecibo
NPL Site: Not on the NPL
In CERCLIS Database: PRR000004655

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Founded in 1994, The Battery Recycling Company of Arecibo, Puerto Rico is a secondary lead smelter that processes approximately 55,000 metric tons of used car batteries a year, obtained mostly from Puerto Rico
and other Caribbean islands. After breaking the batteries down, it melts the lead component to form lead bars/ingots which it resells, often back to battery manufacturers. The facility produces approximately 30 tons of lead per day.

The facility has had a permit to operate as a stationary source of air pollutants since October 2005. The permit allows the facility to emit 20.39 tons of promethium, 59.68 tons of sulfur dioxide, 9.58 tons of nitrous oxides, 1.26 tons of carbon monoxide, 0.60 tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and 1.24 tons of lead per year.

In June 2011, U.S. EPA reached an agreement with The Battery Recycling Company requiring the company to take measures to prevent lead contamination from spreading. The agreement
followed the results of lead testing of approximately 150 children who may have been exposed to lead from the facility. Twenty percent of the children had lead in their blood above levels considered safe among health professionals.

The agreement required The Battery Recycling C ompany to start preventative and cleanup actions. Preventative actions included daily cleaning of vehicles and providing separate clothes changing areas. The company also agreed to clean lead from the contaminated vehicles and
homes of current and former e mployees. U.S. EPA will take samples after the cleaning to ensure that the lead has been removed. Rental cars will be provided and employees and their families will be temporarily relocated while the cleaning takes place. The company will remove lead

conta minated soil from adjacent properties and restore the land. The agreement also requires the company to reimburse U.S. EPA for the costs of overseeing the cleanup work.

On July 13, 2011, U.S. EPA issued an order to The Battery Recycling Company to reduce w ater pollution at the site. In particular, U.S. EPA required the company to improve the way it

manages run

- off from rainwater and correct violations of the federal Clean Water Act.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 479 On August 10, 2011, U.S. EPA issued an order to The Battery Recycling Comp any to reduce air pollution at the site. The orders require improved monitoring and reporting, preventative actions and operational improvements by the company. This order requires the company to properly operate its leak detection system immediately to de tect and reduce dust from escaping into the air. The company must conduct daily lead monitoring of the lead levels at its baghouse and record and report these levels to U.S. EPA.

Description of Contamination : U.S. EPA investigated the site in 2007 and not ed that the company reconstructed and tested a furnace at its facility without properly notifying U.S. EPA. The company built another furnace in 2010 and informed U.S. EPA, but failed to notify the agency of its testing of pollution control equipment. In b oth cases, the company failed to notify U.S. EPA of the date the furnaces went into operation. In addition, U.S. EPA found that the system for detecting leaks of lead emissions was not being properly operated to detect soot. One of the revolving doors on t he dust collection system, called a baghouse, was not functioning at full capacity and potentially allowed dust to escape into the air.

The site has been cited for mismanagement of secondary lead smelter baghouse dust (RCRA Waste Code K069). Specifically , the facility was cited for alloying emissions of K069 to the environment mainly from storage containers that did not comply with RCRA requirements.

In addition to the lead contamination observed in children, there is soil contamination found in an adjac ent property to the site. The company has agreed to excavate and remove lead

contaminated soil from a cattle pasture adjacent to the facility, backfill or restore the land, and dispose of any contaminated materials at a licensed disposal facility.

Sources of Information:

1. Environmental Leader. Environmental Enforcement: Battery Recycling Co. to Clean Up After Lead Found in Children. June 13, 2011. Accessed Online. November 2011 : http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/06/13/battery

- recycling

- co

- to

- clean

- up

- after

lead

- found

- in

- kids/

2. USEPA. EPA Orders Battery Recycling Company to Reduce Air and Water Pollution at Arecibo, Puerto Ric o Lead Smelting Facility. August 10, 2011. Accessed Online.
November 2011 : http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/625C8CB0D35315FB852578E80063D49F

3. USEPA

. EPA T akes Action on Lead Problems at Arecibo, Puerto Rico Battery Recycling Facility. June 9, 2011. Accessed Online. November 2011 :Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 480 http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/b609baa a64b7b23b852578aa005c370b!OpenDocument

4. Wilk, John. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

– Region 2, Personal communication (email) with Amanda Kohler , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regarding Potential Damage cases. August 2011.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 481 Site Information

Site Name: ThermoFluids Inc.
EPA ID No.:
Address: 6400 SE 101 st St., Portland, OR County: Multnomah
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Thermo Fluids facility conducts used oil recycling

.

Description of Contamination : The Thermo Fluids facility was also the location of a four

- alarm fire the morning of March 15, 2004

. A main operations b uilding that contained a used oil pit, with a capacity of nearly 37,000 gallons ignited and quickly engulfed the building despite the efforts of over 140 firefighters that responded to the four

- alarm fire

. Firefighters from several jurisdictions responded to a fire which was fueled by the oil recycling activities of the business

. The fire quickly engulfed the building and spread ash and soot into the air and downwind

. Water that was poured onto the fire to contain its spread overwhelmed the industrial prope rty's oil and water separator unit and spread used oil and other potential hazardous chemicals into an adjacent drainage ditch which flows into Johnson Creek, a tributary of the Willamette River

. The source of what ignited the used oil pit that began the f ire is unclear

. In addition, on April 28, 2003 there was a discharge of 2,500 gallons of used oil from its vehicle which contaminated surface water.

Sources of Information : USEPA. “Docket No.: CWA

- 08

- 2003

- 0085.” Region 8. 11 August 2003. 22 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region8/compliance/pdf/CWA0820030085ECAFO.pdf

USEPA. “Thermo Fluids Incorporated Transfer Facility.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 23 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110012561389

USEPA. “Thermo Fluids.” On

- Scene Coordinator Profile. 22 March 2 004. 22 January 2006. www.epaosc.net/Thermofluids

USEPA. “Thermo Fluids.” Pollution Reports. 22 March 2004. 22 January 2006. http://ww w.epaosc.org/polrep_profile.asp?site_id=763
Additional Contacts : Chris Kaufman (State OSC) kaufman.chris@deq.state.or.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 482 Dan Heister (OSC) heister.dan@epa.gov Michael Szerlog (OSC) szerlog.michael@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 483 Site Information

Site Name: Thermochem Inc.
EPA ID No.: MID044567162
Address: 4331 Evanston Ave, Muskegon, MI 49443 County: Muskegon
NPL Site: Proposed: 10/15/84; Final: 06/10/86
In CERCLIS Database: 0502486

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Thermo

- Chem, Inc., a subsidiary of the Thomas Solvent Co., owned and operated waste solvent reprocessing and storage facilities at this
site from 1961 to October 1986

. It reclaimed solvents such as tri chloroethylene and methylene chloride, paint wastes, and antifreezes

. Waste sludges and residues from the process were
incinerated on

- site and waste waters were discharged to a clay

- lined lagoon and two seepage lagoons

. At one time, 3,500 drums of waste so lvents and a 20,000

- gallon tank of liquid waste
contaminated with C

- 66 (a pesticide residue) were present on

- site. The company has since
removed them

. These operations resulted in high concentrations of volatile, semivolatile and inorganic contamination of soils and groundwater

. The site is being addressed through federal, state, and potentially responsible parties’ actions

The operation received Interim Status under Subtitle C of RCRA when the owner filed Part A of a permit application for storage tanks

.

Description of Contamination : Site operations resulted in high concentrations of volatile, semivolatile, and inorganic contamination of soils and groundwater

.

Potentially responsible parties (PRPs) have been conducting cleanup activities under a Unilat eral Administrative Order, dated May 6, 1992. To date, PRPs have completed Remedial Action (RA) for Operable Unit 1 (OU1) Record of Decision (ROD) : Phase IA, Debris Removal; Phase IB, Soil Excavation, Treatment and Removal; Phase II, Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System; and Phase III, In

- Situ Soil Vapor Extraction/Air Sparge System. For OU2, the Remedial Investigation is complete and indicates that no further RA is necessary

. An Explanation of Significant Difference was issued in September 2002 for OU1 ROD to explain and justify this
course of action

. Monitoring at the site will continue at the site, based on the Operations & Maintenance Plan. The estimated cost of cleanup was $24,000,000

.

There was some concern that the extraction system was not in tercepting and capturing the plume and that contamination was being allowed into the wetlands. The ESD specified that the plume be captured. A study was conducted by Subterranean Research for U.S. EPA in the fall of 2003Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 484 that indicated the plume was curren tly being captured, but that the plume capture was integrally associated with the hydraulic gradient north of the extraction system. Changes will be made to the O&M procedures to calculate the required pumping extraction rate as a function of the hydraulic gradient to insure capture of the plume. Additional extraction wells may be required if the groundwater levels at the site return to pre

- remedy levels. In addition, changes will be made to the groundwater monitoring program to insure that the groundwater in the flood plain continues to improve. A new monitoring well will be installed at the western edge of the plume to detect any potential migration of contamination to the west.

Sources of Information: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. “Pu blic Health Assessment: Thermo Chem Incorporated.” 20 February 2006. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/thermochem/the_p1.html#_1_2

USEPA. “EPA Record of Decision: Thermo

- Chem, Inc.” 30 September 1991. 20 February 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0591174.pdf

USEPA. “NPL Fact Sheet: Thermo Chem, Inc.” 12 July 2005

. 20 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region5/superfund/npl/michigan/MID044567162.htm

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Thermo

- Chem, Inc.” 10 June 1986

. 20 February 2006.] http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0502486.pdf

USEPA. “Thermo Chem Inc.” CERCLIS . 31 January 2006

. 20 February 2006

. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0502486

USEPA. “Thermo Chem Inc.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.) 20 February 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110003594021

Additional Contacts : John Fagiolo (RPM) 312

- 886

- 0800, fagiolo.john@epa.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 485 Site Information

Site Name: Tonolli Corporation
EPA ID No.: PAD073613663
Address: Rte 54, Nesquehoning, PA 18240 County: Carbon
NPL Site: Final: 10/4/1989
In CERCLIS Database: 301087

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : From the early 1920s to 1972 the site was used as a disposal area for coal mine spoils and incinerator ash from a nearby Pennsylvania Power and Light (PP&L) power generating station

. In 1972, Tonolli Corporation purchased 30 acres of the site and from 1974 to January 1986, operated a battery recycling and secondary lead

sme lting plant onsite. Operations included storage, breaking, processing, and smelting of used batteries, battery components, and other lead

- bearing materials. The site consists of a battery receiving and storage area, crushing operation, smelter, refinery, w astewater treatment plant,
above

- ground 500,000

- gallon wastewater storage tank, a rubber

- lined waste lagoon, and a 10

- acre rubber lined solid waste landfill. Four primary waste streams were generated from site operations and included slag from the secondar y lead smelting process, which was disposed of in the landfill; calcium sulfate sludge from air pollution control scrubbers, which was pumped to the landfill; plastic battery casings and bakelite chips, which were disposed of in the landfill; and

excess pr ocess water, battery acid, and stormwater runoff, which went to the wastewater lagoon to be neutralized and recirculated back into the lime slurry air scrubbers. In October 1985, Tonolli filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Federal bankruptcy code.

The site did not have a RCRA permit

.

Description of Contamination : The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sediment, debris, ground water, and surface water were metals, including arsenic, cadmium, and lead. Occasionally, liquid from the impoundment has found its way into the landfill. The impoundment held waste water containing arsenic, cadmium, lead, and chromium

. On

- site monitoring wells contained arsenic and cadmium in 1985.

Contamination definitely occurred prior to 1980 and cont amination also probably occurred after
1980

. As of September 2004, cleanup expenditures at this site amounted to $3,625,983.96.

Sources of Information: Cron, Mitch (RPM) (215) 814

- 3286, Interview 18 November 2005.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 486 USEPA. “EPA Superfund Explanation of Significant Differences: Tonolli Corp.” 7 January 1997. 23 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e0397015.pdf

USEP A. “EPA Superfund Explanation of Significant Differences: Tonolli Corp.” 12 March 1999. 23 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/e0399129.pdf

USEPA. “E

PA Superfund Record of Decision: Tonolli Corp.” 30 September 1992. 23 January
2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0392156.pdf

USEPA. “Five Year Review Repor t Tonolli Corporation Superfund Site.” 2003. 23 January
2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f03

- 03018.pdf

USEPA. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). 30 Sep tember 2004. 23 January
2006.

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Tonolli Corp.” 4 October 1989. 23 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0301087.pdf

USEPA. “NPL Fact Sheet: Tonolli Corporation.” June 2005. 23 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/npl/PAD073613663.htm

USEPA. “Tonolli Corp.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 23 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0301087

USEPA. “Tonolli Corporation.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 23 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110008471073

USEPA. “Tonolli Corp Superfund Site.” RCRA Info. 13 September 2000. 18 January 2006.

Additional Contacts: Mitch Cron (RPM) (215) 814

- 3286 Richard M. Fetzer (215) 814

- 3263 William D. Hudson (215) 814

- 5532Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 487 Site Information

Site Name: Tri

- City Oil Conservationist, Inc.
EPA ID No.: FLD070864541
Address: 8767 1⁄2 N. 50 th St, Tampa, FL 33617 County: Hillsborough
NPL Site: Deleted: 09/01/1988
In CERCLIS Database: 0400733

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Tri

- City Oil Conservationist Corporation property, occupying about 1/4 of an acre, housed a heating oil business from the 1960s to 1975. From 1978 to 1983, the facility acted as a waste oil storage and distribution center. Three aboveground storage ta nks and one known underground storage tank were on site. While it operated, people complained to the state about the odor and sloppy practices at the facility. In 1982, 3,000 gallons of oil were spilled. When the owner failed to clean up the site at
the re quest of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER), the USEPA
removed the bulk of the oil and later removed contaminated soil. Tri

- City was dissolved involuntarily in 1983, and the owners are in bankruptcy

.

Description of Contamination : E levated levels of lead were found in initial sampling of the groundwater, but none were found in later samples. Soil excavated from the area was heavily contaminated with volatile organic compounds and heavy metals from former site activities.

In Februar

y 1984, USEPA spent approximately $50,000 for immediate removal action at the site.

Tri

- City Oil Conservationist Corporation was involuntarily dissolved on November 10, 1983

. The removal of contaminated soils and sludges in1984 has eliminated the threats t o human health
and the environment.

Other owner/operators are in bankruptcy

. A cost of recovery action against the potentially responsible parties may be initiated under the authority of sections 107 and 122(H) of CERCLA

. Florida spent approximately $55, 000 for a contamination assessment and $145,000 for its May 1985 removal action. The state is currently pursuing a civil cost recovery action against the owner/operators of the site

.

Tests of soil, groundwater, and sediment in 1986 showed that the source of contamination was
removed

Sources of Information:Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 488 USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Tri

- City Oil Conservationist Inc.” 21 September
1987

. 20 January 2006

. http://ww w.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0487023.pdf

.

USEPA

. “NPL Site Narrative for Tri

- City Oil Conservationist Inc.” 21 September 1984

. 20 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0400733.pdf

.

USEPA. “Tri

- City Oil Conservation One

- Page Summary.” 29 June 2004

. 20 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/super fund/programs/recycle/success/1

- pagers/tricity.htm

.

USEPA

. “

Tri

- City Oil Conservationist Inc .” CERCLIS

. 7 December 2005

. 19 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0400733

USEPA. “

Tri

- City Oil Conservationist Inc ” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 20 January
2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=1100083
28087

Additional Contacts: K. Cleghron (RPM) (404) 257

- 2643Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 489 Site Information

Site Name: U.S. Antimony Corporation Mine and Smelter
EPA ID No.: MTD050261833
Address: 1250 Prospect Creek Road; Thompson Falls, MT 59873 County: Sanders
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: U.S. Antimony Corporation (USAC) operated a mine and smelter on Prospect Creek, about 18 miles southwest of Thompson Falls, Montana. Until 1984, USAC was mining and processing its own ore and generated “old slag” that went into tailings ponds just below t he smelter. The facility beneficiated antimony concentrates by leaching ore in a solution of sodium hydrosulfide and caustic soda. Spent barren solution was regenerated and recycled before being discharged to one of three tailing ponds. Due to poor current efficiency in the electrowinning circuit, as well as precautions against the potential generation of stibine gas (a deadly poison), high solution concentrations (6,000

- 10,000 mg/L) of antimony were deposited in the flotation mill tailings ponds. The taili ng ponds were located on U.S. Forest Service land under a Forest Service special use permit. While most of the antimony and arsenic was precipitated as stable sulfides, soluble antimony concentrations of 10

- 150 mg/L remained in the tailings.

The facility closed in 1984, and reopened in 1987, under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit stipulating a new method for processing antimony and handling process wastes. This method precipitated any soluble arsenic or fugitive antimony as
environ mentally stable sulfides. In addition, when the facility re

- opened, it began processing antimony from other sources instead of mining its own ore and this “new slag” was shipped to a refinery in British Columbia. In consultation with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, USAC agreed to address environmental concerns about the “old slag” in the tailings ponds that had continued to feed into the creek bottom. USAC cleaned up the site by digging up the “old slag” and reprocessed it through the smelt er and then shipped it to a refinery in British
Columbia.

Description of Contamination: Tailing pond water containing soluble antimony and arsenic leached into the underlying aquifer, which recharged Prospect Creek. The U.S. Forest Service inspected the s ite in 1984, and discovered that the tailings piles were accessible to game animals, especially elk and deer, due to damage to the wildlife fence surrounding the affected area. The Forest Service determined elk, deer, and other animals, attracted by minera l salts in the tailings, were ingesting antimony and arsenic, thus exposing humans and other predators toAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 490 contamination. The Forest Service inspection also revealed windblown tailings being deposited beyond the permitted tailings disposal area.

Sources of Information: USEPA. “Human Health and Environmental Damage from Mining and Mineral Processing Wastes.” December 1995. 29 January 2008. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/min ing/minedock/damage/index.htm

USEPA

. “United States Antimony Corporation.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.) 25 March
2008. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110000497472Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 491 Site Name: U.S. Oil Recovery
EPA ID No.: TXN000607093
Address: 400 and 200N Richey Street, Pasadena, TX, 77506 County: Harris
NPL Site: Proposed, September 2011
In CERCLIS Database: TXN000607093

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : U.S. Oil Recovery (USOR), located at 400 North Richey Street, Pasadena, Texas, operated as a centralized waste water treatment facility and as an used oil recovery facility since October 2003. In December 2008, the President of USOR, purchased the a wastewater treatment facility located next to USOR at 200 North Richey Street from the City of Pasadena and established the new company known as MCC Recycling L.L.P. (MCC). While MCC and USOR are distinct companies, the facilities are linked in the treatment process and appear to have the same ownership.

USOR is located on approximately 12.2 acres in an industrial, commercial, and residential area adjacent to Vince Bayou that connects to the San Jacinto River Basin in Pasadena, Texas. In March 2009, USOR began sending its waste water to MCC for further tr eatment and recycling of oil. The MCC facility is divided into two parts by Vince Bayou, which flows across the site. The east and west plants are connected by a foot bridge over the bayou. MCC was registered as a Used Oil Handler with the Texas Commiss ion on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). On July 29, 2003, USOR registered as an Used Oil Handler with TCEQ, which includes: marketer who directs shipments to burner, marketer who first claims used oil, processor, and transfer facility. Also, USOR registere d as an Used Oil Filter Handler, which includes a storage facility and processor activities. On December 5, 2007, TCEQ issued a Waste Permit that authorized USOR to operate as a hazardous waste and nonhazardous waste solid wastewater treatment facility an d as a nonhazardous industrial solid waste storage facility. USOR is authorized to receive industrial waste, certain characteristic hazardous waste, used oil, oily water, and recyclable hydrocarbons. At the end of USOR treatment process, the oily water i s piped to MCC for further treatment. At MCC, the oily water is further treated to remove additional oil that is then trucked back to USOR, and MCC biologically treats and clarifies the remaining wastewater. At the end of MCC treatment process, the waste water is supposedly treated to categorical pretreatment standards. The treated wastewater is then returned by MCC to USOR’s sampling station located the MCC facility. From the USOR sampling station, USOR discharges the treated waste to a publicly owned t

reatment plant owned by the City of Pasadena via the city’s sewer collection system.

On November 16

- 20 and November 30

- December 1, 2009, EPA, along with County and TCEQ, conducted a Multi

- media Compliance Evaluation Inspection at USOR and MCC. Based on th e Inspection, numerous areas of concern regarding noncompliance of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act were identified.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 492 During operation, the USOR facility had a history of environmental compliance issues, starting with a Texas Commission on Enviro nmental Quality (TCEQ) investigation in that began in December 2003 and resulted in a Notice of Violation to USOR. This was followed by further state inspections in the following years including tests of soil samples that found concentrations of arsenic, l

ead, mercury, pesticides, volatile organic compounds and a number of other contaminants above state commercial/industrial protective concentration levels. Some of these samples showing exceedances of the state limits for arsenic, lead and mercury were fro m locations on downgradient offsite properties, north of the USOR facility. On March 14, 2009, the facility reported its first major spill which extended 200 feet offsite to the north, though affected soil was removed to a landfill. This was followed throu ghout 2009 by reports from state, county, and other agencies of spills or unauthorized discharges, unpermitted activities, leaking storage containers and other sources of ongoing or potential damage. The frequencies of spills/discharges lead to an injuncti on by the Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services (County) for USOR to cease accepting liquid wastes. On May 29, 2009, County determined there had been a spill that led to the bayou. On June 8, 2009, Harris County and TCEQ filed a suit in s tate court against USOR and MCC, and requested a temporary injunction, a permanent junction, and civil penalty for violations of the Texas Clean Air Act, the Texas Solid Waste and Disposal Act, and the Texas Clean Water Act, which required cessation of all unauthorized discharges, remove contents from bioreactor, stop intake to MCC until an engineer certifies the integrity of MCC units, and cease discharges from MCC, among other orders. The County has filed several amended petitions, injunctions, and tempo rary restraining orders. On November 30, 2009, the County issued a temporary restraining order to cease unauthorized emissions of benzene and other volatile organic pollutants, remove and properly dispose contents from leaking roll

- off containers holding hazardous waste from the bioreactor, and cease discharge ignitable wastewater to the City of Pasadena.

In July of 2010, a large rainfall event prompted the state to report a potential release of hazardous wastes, which resulted in the U.S. EPA initiating an Emergency Response and Removal Action. U.S. EPA found the site abandoned and that hazardous materials were being released through overflow or leaks in a number of areas. Throughout 2010 and into 2011, U.S. EPA enacted site stabilization activities at th e site, mostly in response to incidents resulting from heavy rain. As of September 2011, the site is proposed addition to the National Priorities List (NPL) Presently, the USOR Superfund site is a closed wastewater treatment facility.

Description of Conta mination: Spills, leaks, discharges, and operations at the site led to considerable contamination. The most severe contamination occurred in 2009 and 2010 following a series of spills and leaks, a number of which were related to periods of heavy rainfall. During the facility’s operation, most of the contamination occurred from improper discharges or inadequate storage of hazardous materials, including a number of structural failings. The site is now abandoned and a considerable amount of waste remains onsit e. Although many of the sources have been stabilized in previous efforts, there is still risk of significant release and exposure.

Contaminants found on

- site in soils and waste include, among others, arsenic, barium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, sil ver, vanadium, volatile organics, and several pesticides. Many ofAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 493 these contaminants have been found in soils and surface water onsite, as well as offsite in the sediment and surface waters of the Vince Bayou and other nearby properties.

State and county agencies cited USOR and MCC a number of times during their operation for the improper management of wastes at the sites and a number of improper discharges and leaks. The result of these investigations and citations was an injunction for the repeated viol ations that ordered USOR to stop accepting wastes. This was followed by U.S. EPA investigations of the site, including Emergency Response actions which took place in 2010 and 2011. U.S. EPA’s actions to date have involved the stabilization of source materi als, but no waste removal. The site is currently proposed for addition to the NPL, and further cleanup actions may occur in the future.

Sources of Information:

1. USEPA. “

EPA Region 6 Updates Its National Priorities List of Superfund Sites

- Two
Sites Added and One Proposed”

. Accessed Online

. November 2011: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/9CD864B7B7A7444C8525790C00678C1F

2. USEPA . Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record. US Oil Recovery

. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/docrec/pdoc1854.pdf

3. USEPA. National Priorities List (NPL) Site Narrative. US O il Recovery. Accessed
Online. November 2011 : http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1854.htm

4. USEPA. Superfund Information Systems. Cleanup Activities at US Oil Recovery.
Accessed Online . November 2011: http://cfpub2.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.CleanupActs
&id=0607093

5. USEPA. Superfund Information S ystems. Superfund Site Progress Profile. Accessed
Online. November 2011 : http://cfpub2.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0607093

6. USEPA. RCRA Compliance Inspection dated March 23, 2010Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 494 Site Name: U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Incorporated
EPA ID No.: IND047030226
Address: 5300 Kennedy Blvd, East Chicago, IN, 46312 County: Lake
NPL Site: Yes
In CERCLIS Database: IND047030226

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Inc. (USS Lead) operated as a primary lead refinery in East Chicago, Indiana from 1920 to 1972. From 1972 to 1973, USS Lead converted the facility to a secondary lead smelter, recovering lead
from automobile batteries. In 1985, the facility ceased operations, and in 1987, USS Lead filed for bankruptcy.

Two primary waste materials were generated as a result of the smelting operations, blast furnace slag and lead

- containing dust emitted by the blast furnace stack. Blast furnace slag was stockpiled south of the plant building and once a year was spread over an adjoining 21 acres of
wetlands. The lead

- containing dust, which was collected in bag filters, was stored in a three

- to five

- acre area for future recycling.

In 1975 and 1985, USS Lead received a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit to discharge furnace cooling water and storm water runoff to the Grand Calumet River. According to the Indiana Department of Environmental Mana gement (IDEM), permitted discharge levels were exceeded for several pollutants. In the 1980s, several state and federal enforcement actions were taken against the company. In September 1985, the Indiana State
Board of Health found USS Lead to be in violati on of state law because lead particles were found downwind of the site. Releases from the facility were deemed to pose a health risk because approximately four million people were served by drinking water from intakes drawn primarily into Lake Michigan, wh

ich is 15 miles downstream from the facility, and approximately 7,500 people worked or attended school within two miles.

Lead

- contaminated soils within the boundaries of the USS Lead facility were subject to remediation and management under the Resource C onservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action program. The Corrective Action for the site included construction of an on

- site Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU)

. The CAMU was used for disposal of lead contaminated soil, sediments, debris, and slag from the site

- wide cleanup along with residual soil contamination from various hazardous waste piles subject to IDEM closure and post

- closure requirements. Waste material consolidated in the CAMU also included debris from former site buildings, blast furnace slag, battery chips, lead contaminated soil, and contaminated sedimentAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 495 from the on

- site canal (stabilized with lime). Baghouse dust and calcium sulfate sludge from the waste piles were transported off

- site for proper disposal.

The soil excavatio n and disposal activities were completed in November 2002

. U.S. EPA also sampled soil in the residential areas north of USS Lead as a part of the RCRA Corrective Action investigation. These sampling results showed that some yards in the East Chicago reside ntial area had high levels of lead contamination.

In 2004, lead was detected in additional residential soils to the north of USS Lead. In 2005, the U.S. EPA RCRA Corrective Action program referred USS Lead to the Superfund program for the cleanup of the r esidential properties associated with the site, partly because USS Lead's inability to pay for any additional cleanup work.

In 2006, RCRA Corrective Action amended the referral to include the wetlands portion of the
site. U.S. EPA conducted a limited cleanup of yards in the nearby residential area during 2008 using Superfund removal autho rities. U.S. EPA finalized the s ite on the N ational P riorities L ist on April 8, 2009

. U.S. EPA began a Superfund remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) at
th e site in June 2009

. The draft RI Report is currently under review and the FS is underway

. U.S. EPA expects to select a final cleanup plan for the site during 2012.

Description of Contamination : Wastes from secondary smelting including blast

- furnace dust, slag, and blast furnace slag water, were disposed of on site and resulted in lead contamination in
soil and sediment on site and off site

. USS Lead also discharged blast furnace non

- contact process cooling water into the Grand Calumet River, and p ermitted discharge levels for lead, cadmium, copper, arsenic, and zinc all were exceeded.

The engineered cap design for the CAMU was modified to include a native vegetative cover in
coordination with the Natu ral Resources Damage Assessment for the Grand Calumet R iver. Lake Michigan, the Grand Calumet River, and the Indiana Harbor Canal are nearby fishing areas. The Grand Calumet River Natural Area, located one

- quarter mile southeast of the site, has two endangered species. Hammond Beach Marina is four miles west o f where the canal enters Lake Michigan. Lake Michigan, Wahala Beach, and several other major recreation areas are
located within 15 miles of the site. These areas were at risk of contaminant migration.

The lead contamination posed a threat to nearby resid ents. The lead contamination also posed a threat to the wetland on the USS Lead property which is the habitat for two state designated endangered species.

Sources of Information:Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 496 1. USEPA. Facility Registry System. Facility Detail Report. U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Inc. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://iaspub.epa.g ov/enviro/fii_query_detail.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=11000
9284489

2. USEPA. Region 5 Superfund Fact Sheet, U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Inc. Accessed
Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/R5Super/npl/indiana/IND047030226.htm

3. USEPA. USS Lead Joint Fact Sheet. Accessed Online

. November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/region5/cleanup/usslead/factsheet20 0710.htm

4. USEPA. National Priorities List (NPL) Site Narrative. U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Inc. East Chicago, Indiana. Accessed Online. November 2011: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1788.htmAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 497 Site Information

Site Name: UNC Recovery Corp.
EPA ID No.: FLD984166942
Address: 1 1/2 Mile East of Highway 37 on State Road 640, Mulberry, FL
33860 County: Polk
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: UNC reclaimed cadmium and nickel
from 1988

- 1991.

Description of Contamination: Soil and groundwater contamination are being remediated by subsequent owner under a state generator consent order

.

Sources of Information: Posner, Augusta. (State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection)

. Email correspondence to Dave Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 17 March 2005

.

USEPA. “

UNC Recovery Corporation .” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 20 January
2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110007435374

.

Additional Contacts: Augusta Posner (Florida Department of Environmental Pro tection) (850) 245

- 2285, augusta.posner@dep.state.fl.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 498 Site Information

Site Name: Union Foundry Company
EPA ID No.: ALD047158266
Address: 1501 West 17 th Street, Anniston, AL 36201 County: Calhoun
NPL Site No
In CERCLIS Database: 0400182

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : Union Foundry produces ductile iron pipe waterworks fittings

. The fittings are manufactured from smelted scrap metal received from
local dealers

.

Description of Contamination : This site was brought to the attention of EPA in 1981, and a subsequent site inspection and preliminary assessment were conducted in 1985

. The site was
archived under CERCLIS in 1994

. In 2000, EPA sampled waste water outfalls near Union Foundry and found low levels of PCBs

. A Site Inspection Prioritization (SIP) was completed, assigning a low priority for further assessment

. After ADEM issued consent orders to impose corrective measures related to RCRA violations and problems i n 2001 and 2006, the site was reopened in 2006

. In September 2007, the site was reassessed to resolve the site’s Superfund status, and the determination was made that no remedial action was planned

.

On September 6, 2005, Union Foundry was sentenced to pa y a $3.5 million criminal fine, perform a $750,000 environmental community service project and serve five years probation by
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

. The facility was sentenced to these violations for pleading guilty to violating both RCRA and an OSHA regulations

.

The facility violated RCRA by knowingly allowing its employees to treat toxic dust containing lead and cadmium, and considered hazardous waste under RCRA, without a permit

. The dust
came from an air filtratio n devise known as a “baghouse” that controlled pollution from scrap iron melting

.

In February 2008, Union Foundry agreed to pay a $100,000 fine from the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) for improperly disposing of dust in its non

- haz ardous waste landfill in May 2006

. The foundry did not determine if the dust needed treatment as a hazardous waste before disposal

. This action did not result in immediate environmental damage; however, Union Foundry will submit a contamination assessment and cleanup plan to ADEM as part of the cleanup process.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 499 Sources of Information: Holmes, Cory

. Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), (334) 270

- 5630, Interview: 21 March 2008

.

The Birmingham News. “Alabama Department of Environmental Management fines Anniston company $100,000.” 9 February 2008

. 20 March 2008

. http://ww w.al.com/business/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/business/12025485202812
20.xml&coll=2

US Department of Justice. “Division of McWane, Inc. Sentenced to $4.25 Million in Criminal Fines & Community Service Related to Worker Safety, Environmental Crime.”
7 September 2005

. 20 March 2008. http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/September/05_enrd_458.html

USEPA. “Alabama Foundry Sentenced to Pay $4.25 Million for RCRA and OSHA
Violations.” E

PA Newsroom

. 22 September 2005

. 20 March 2008

. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/e51aa292bac25b0b85257359003d925f /7f96e1 42c9c124f285257084005671cf!OpenDocument

USEPA. “Mead Corp./Former Union Foundry.” CERCLIS . 20 March 2008. 20 March
2008

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/cerclis_w eb.report?pgm_sys_id=ALD047154232

USEPA. “Mead Corp./Former Union Foundry.” Superfund Site Information

. 16 October
2007. 20 March 2008. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csit info.cfm?id=0400182

USEPA. “Union Foundry Company.” RCRAInfo . (n.d.) 20 March 2008

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/rcris_web.report?pgm_sys_id=ALD047158266

USEPA Region 4. “Response to Public Comments: Section 122 Administrative Agreement and Order on Consent for Removal Action.” 13 January 2006

. 24 March 2008

. http://www.epa.gov/Region4/waste/sf/annistonsf/annistonsect112011306.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 500 Site Information

Site Name: United Metal Recovery
EPA ID No.:
Address: 12403 United Street, Mojave, CA 93501 County: Kern
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : This 8

- acre site was a copper recovery operation consisting of a house trailer, warehouse, and a furnace inside an aluminum shed, which operated from 1963 to 1988 under various owners and operators

. The United Metal Recovery operation purchased copper wire from different scrap dealers and burned off the insulation in a furnace. The site contains several piles of old wire, oil well flanges, glass and aluminum, and
used automobile batteries.

In 1989 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) issued an Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Determination to the site owner and started cleanup actions which included stabilization of the site and the development of a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study

. Dioxins were reportedly measured at over 75 ppb

. DTSC reached a cost recovery
settlement with two fo rmer owner/operators and obtained a judgment from the federal court against a third former owner/operator for all past and future costs

.

Description of Contamination: In 1988, the metal recovery business was identified by Kern County Health

. At this time high concentrations of dioxins, furans, copper, lead, zinc, and low concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, were found in the onsite soils and ash piles

. In 2004, DTSC announced the "(h)azardous waste at the site was cleaned to an industrial
health

- based cleanup level and the site can now be developed for industrial/commercial purposes." It is unclear when the contamination occurred

. Cleanup costs are estimated at $300,000.00

Sources of Information:

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Department Certifies Cleanup of United Metal Recovery.” 5 November 2004. 17 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PressRoom/upload/NEWS_2004_T

- 70

- 04.pdf

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “United Metal Recovery.” Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database 13 October 2004. 17 January 2006.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 501 http://www.d tsc.ca.gov/database/Calsites/CALP001.CFM?IDNUM=15330007

Domingo, Danny California Department of Toxic Substances Control (Project Manager), Email
12/8/2005.

EPA Region 9. Email Correspondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 22 November
2005.

A dditional Contacts:

Danny Domingo (Project Manager) (559) 297

- 3932, ddomingo@dtsc.ca.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 502 Site Information:

Site Name: United Metals, Inc.
EPA ID No.: FLD098924038
Address: Highway 71 South, Marianna, FL 32446 County: Jackson
NPL Site: Final: 4/30/2003
In CERCLIS Database: 0400804

Site History and/or Description of Recycling Operation: From 1979 until 1991, United Metals, Inc., processed and recycled lead

- acid and nickel

- cadmium batteries

. In 1981, the facility processed as many as 10,000 to 12,000 batteries per week, resulting in 2,500 gallons of acidic wastes per day

. Until 1981, treated and possibly untreated wastewater from the recycling process flowed into a settling basin, then into concrete basins, and finally through a ditch to an u nlined holding pond

. In 1982, the wastewa ter system was modified so that wastewater could be neutralized in storage tanks and recycled back into plant operations, which eliminated wastewater discharges to the holding ponds. A second holding pond was const ructed to provide additional capacity, but allegedly was never used

. The wastewater system eventually was modified so that the wastewater was stored in tanks, eliminating the discharge to the holding pond. The holding ponds subsequently were abandoned, dre dged, and backfilled

. Dredged sediments from the holding ponds and from contaminated drainage ditches currently are stockpiled in the recycling building on site.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) considered the recycling practice

to be legitimate at the time

. The facility operated under a recycling exemption from RCRA

. In August 1981, FDEP and United Metals, Inc., entered into a Consent Order that required numerous actions to be undertaken by United Metals, including payment of a fine, submittal of a detailed plan evaluating the wastewater system, identification of environmental problems, completion of a limited ground water assessment, and proposal of corrective actions

. In July 1986, USEPA conducted a RCRA inspection and noted th at RCRA violations persisted, including improper closure of the holding ponds following sediment removal, improper storage of hazardous wastes, inadequate ground water monitoring, and operating without appropriate permits for hazardous waste storage and tr eatment

. As a result of these violations, USEPA issued an Amended Complaint and Compliance Order.

United Metals discontinued recycling operations and sold the facility to Anrich Industries, Inc

. Anrich subsequently renovated the facility and began battery

- cracking operations in May 1991

. On May 22, 1991, FDEP conducted a Hazardous Waste Inspection of the facility and notedAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 503 several RCRA violations and, in July 1991, ordered that all operations cease

. The site is now
abandoned and listed on the NPL

.

Descri ption of Contamination : Releases of lead, chromium, and other metals have been documented in facility soils, in a nearby wetland, and in a habitat used by a federally threatened species. The release also poses a threat to a downstream recreational fishery and additional
wetland areas.

In June 1993, a site inspection included collection of 15 soil samples and the installation of five monitoring wells

. Soil samples collected from the facility production area and drainage ditches
were contaminated with l ead

. In 1994, an Expanded Site Investigation confirmed the presence of lead at significant levels in facility soils and in the drainage ditch that flows into the wetland

area.

In March 1995, the USEPA Removal Assessment Team conducted a site visit to dete rmine the site’s eligibility for a removal action

. USEPA collected six surface soils samples, four waste samples from 55

- gallon drums and three storage tanks, and two water samples to identify the nature and extent of contamination and to identify the imme diate threat to the public and
environment

. Lead was detected in soils, a flammable liquid was discovered in drums, and 800 gallons of sulfuric acid was found in an on

- site storage tank.

The main area of concern at the United Metals facility is contamina ted soil where the battery recycling activities were performed, as well as contaminated soil along the drainage route to the wetland area located west of the facility

. Metals contamination has been documented in the
wetland.

Sources of Additional Information: EPA Region 4

. Email Correspondence to Amy Lile (EPA Office of Solid Waste)

. October 2005.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

. “United Metals, Inc.” n.d. 2 January 2006. http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/225_UnitedMetals.pdf

.

Posner, Augusta. (State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection)

. Email correspondence to Dave Fagan (EPA Office of Solid Waste) 17 March 2005

.

USEP A

. “NPL Site Narrative for United Metals Inc.” 30 April 2003

. 20 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0400804.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 504 USEPA

. “

United Metals Inc .” CERCLIS

. 27 October 2005

. 19 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0400804

USEPA. “

United Metals .” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 20 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110012597430

Contacts: Augusta Posner, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, (850) 245

- 2282 augusta.posner@dep.state.fl.us Jim Byer (Hazardous Waste Section Supervisor) Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Northwest District, (850) 595

- 8360 ext 1264, James.Byer@dep.state.fl.us Joe Alfano (Remedial Project Manager) EPA Region 4Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 505 Site Information
Site Name: V&M / Albaladejo
EPA ID No.: PRD987366101
Address : Route 160, Almirante Norte Ward, Vega Baja, PR 00694 County: Vega Baja Municipality
NPL Site: Deleted: 10/22/2001
In CERCLIS Database: 0202869

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: This site consists of more than five contiguous areas where unknown individuals dumped and burned plastic

- coated electrical cables, batteries, and electrical equipment for metals recovery

. The sites are on the boundary of the V&M and Albaladejo Farms, both of which are privately owned

. Open burning of refuse began at an unknown point in time and contin ued until 1986 on the V&M property and until 1988 on the Albaladejo property

. The Agency spent about $2.4 million on the site cleanup, which took four months to complete.

Description of Contamination : A soil removal action was conducted in early 1998 in which nearly 3,000 cubic yards of soil was removed from five identified burn areas where soil was contaminated with various metals, including antimony, cadmium, copper, lead, and silver

. Four rounds of groundwater sampling, conducted through groundwater

- mo nitoring wells, indicate that contamination associated with the metals recovery activities is not present in the groundwater

. High levels of lead, arsenic, copper, zinc, antimony and cadmium were detected and heavy metal
contamination was also found in sur face water on the site and in sinkholes within the immediate vicinity of the site

.

As of October 2000, USEPA spent $2.4 million on the site cleanup.

Sources of Information: USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: V&M/Albaladejo.” 29 September 2000. 23 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0200511.pdf

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for V&M/Albaladejo.” 23 December 1996. 23 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0202869.pdf

USEPA. “V&M/Albaladejo.” 9 September 2005. 23 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/Region2/superfund/npl/0202869c.htm

USEPA. “The V&M / Albaladejo Farms Superfund Site in Vega Baja No Longer a Threat: No
Further Federal Action Warrant ed.” 3 October 2000. 23 January 2006.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 506 http://www.epa.gov/Region2/news/2000/00180.htm

USEPA. “V&M/Albaladejo.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 23 January 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0202869

USEPA. “NPL Site Fact Sheet V&M/Albaladejo.” January 2004. 23 January 2006.
h ttp://www.epa.gov/Region2/superfund/npl/0202869c.pdf

USEPA. “Federal Register Notice of Direct Final Action.” 22 October 2001. 23 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/d01 1022.htm

Additional Contacts:

Juan Davila (EPA Site Assessment Manager) (212) 637

- 4341 Caroline Kwan (EPA Remedial Project Manager) (212) 637

- 4275Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 507 Site Information:

Site Name: Victor Industrial Battery
EPA ID No.:
Address: 138 N. San Fernando Rd, Los Angeles, CA 90031 County: Los Angeles
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: No

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The site was previously a battery recycler whose owner, Victor Pena, was under investigation by Los Angeles County and the LA City Attorney's Office for the illegal discharge of hazardous waste onto the subject property. The waste materials were being discharged into an unlined pit in the rear of the property and the driveway. The responsible party was subsequently convict ed of illegal discharge of hazardous waste, sentenced and ordered to remediate the site.

Description of Contamination : In 1994, it was found that the maximum concentration of lead in the soil was 30,000 mg/kg and minimum pH was 0.48

. Groundwater contamina tion is suspected

.

Sources of Information: California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Victor Industrial Battery.” Site Cleanup

– Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database . (n.d.) 17 January 2006. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/Calsites/CALP001.CFM?IDNUM=19360528

Additional Contacts: Johnson Abraham (PM) Ph: 714

- 484

- 5476, jabraham@dtsc.ca.govAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 508 Site Information:

Site Name: Voda Petroleum, Inc. (Ultra Oil)
EPA ID No.: TXD061287918
Address : Duncan Road, Clarksville City, TX County: Gregg
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0604923

Description of Recycling Operation : The Voda Petroleum, Inc site operated as a waste oil recycling facility from October 1981 until it was abandoned in November 1991. The site is located in a residential neighborhood with occupied residences located directly on the east and
west sides

. During the decade Voda was in busi ness, the facility operated as a 600

- barrel

- per

- day maximum design capacity, vacuum distillation waste oil recycling facility

. Voda Petroleum, Inc., received, stored, and processed lubricating oils, transmission oils, hydraulic oils, diesel oils, kerosene, gasoline, aromatic and paraffinic solvents and marketed the heavy residual oil and lubricating oil. Wastes from this process were accumulated in 55

- gallon drums for on

- site storage and/or in storage tanks prior to refining and blending.

On February 1, 19 93, in the Northern District of Texas, Ronald L. Voda, Sr., owner of Voda Petroleum, Inc. was sentenced for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) violations by a U.S. District Judge

. On February 10, 1989, during execution of a search warr ant at the Voda Petroleum, Inc. facility, federal agents observed a ditch cut through a levee surrounding the process area. Wastewater being discharged from this ditch exceeded limits set for the Voda Petroleum, Inc. NPDES permit. The investigation was con ducted by the USEPA Criminal Investigation Division with assistance from the FBI.

Description of Contamination : Releases from the site have been documented onto adjacent residential property and into a tributary of Campbell's Creek. A review of the facili ty waste management activity records revealed that Voda Petroleum received, stored and processed waste gasolines, oily wastes, used oil mixed with methyl ethyl ketone, varsol, trichloroethane, toluene, and hexane, crude oil, greases and waxes. In 1996, USE PA contracted an emergency removal of
462 55

- gallon drums of grease or oily wastes; 14 55

- gallon drums of corrosive wastes; 16 above

ground tanks and associated contaminated soil. Post

- removal analysis of soil samples indicated
some contamination remained above health

- based levels. Contaminates include heavy metals and volatile organics.

The site did not have a RCRA permit.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 509 Sources of Information: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

. “Voda Petroleum Inc. (Ultra Oil).” 11 May 2005

. 21 January 2006. http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/superfund/state/voda.html.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

. “Community Relations Plan for Voda Petroleum Proposed State Superfund Site Clarksville City, Gregg County, Texas.” January 2001

. 21 January 2006

. http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/remediation/superfund/register/pdf0157.pdf

.

USEPA

. “Site Information: Voda Petroleum.” CERCLIS

. 27 October 2005

. 21 January 2006

. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0604923.

USEPA. “

Voda Petroleum Inc. Facility Detail Report.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse . (n.d.). 21 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=1100050
56009.

USEPA. “Voda Petroleum Inc.” RCRA Info. 2 September 2000. 18 Jan uary 2006.

Additional Contacts: Carol Boucher (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) (512) 239

- 2501 or (800) 633

- 9363, cboucher@tceq.state.tx.usAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 510 Site Information

Site Name: Waste Research & Reclamation Co.*
EPA ID No.: WID990829475
Address : Route 7, Eau Claire, WI 54701 County: Eau Claire
NPL Site: Deleted: 2/5/1993
In CERCLIS Database: 0505256

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : This site was occupied by a roofing company from 1970 to 1981

. Since 1975, Waste Research & Reclamation Co. has recycled oil
and solvents from industrial sources at the 19

- acre site in Eau Claire, Wisconsin

. Hazardous wastes were also treated and stored on the privately owned and operated si te. It is located about 0.5 miles east of Lowes Creek, a tributary of the Chippewa River.

The techniques used to handle and store drums allowed wastes to spill on the site. Runoff from waste processing was collected in unlined impoundments. Organic solve nts from the site contaminated ground water, according to analyses conducted by the state

. However, to date, no residential wells are contaminated. This operation was primarily a reclamation and recycling facility for hazardous liquid waste. Waste material s handled included solvents and flammables

. The site received RCRA permits in September 1988 and August 2003.

On June 22, 2007, a fire erupted at the Waste Research & Reclamation site

. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) said the fire was accidental. Waste Research & Reclamation will not face any fines, but they are responsible for cleaning up the site

. The DNR and federal and state agencies will work with the company to help supervise the clean

- up

. On July 18, 2007, the DNR received the Si te Investigation Workplan which states the objectives of the investigation to determine the degree and extent of the contamination

.

Description of Contamination: The groundwater, soil, and surface water are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (V OCs) due to poor waste handling and storage procedures

.

This site was addressed in a long

- term remedial phase, focusing on cleanup of the entire site. The site was divided into six solid waste management units for investigation and cleanup purposes:
drum storage sheds; trailer parking, product warehouse, and abandoned drum storage area; pole
barn

- cooling water discharge area and abandoned drum storage area; abandoned lagoon, existing holding tank and existing collection sump for surface water runoff; a re clamation area, known as the LUWA area, located in the central and western portions of the site; and a reclamation area, known as the Kontro area, located in the south central portions of the site.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 511 The potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for site cont amination conducted an investigation into the nature and extent of groundwater, surface water, and soil contamination at the site

. In 1983, the state signed a consent order with the PRPs to implement a long

- term monitoring program. After adding this site t o the NPL, USEPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that no immediate actions were required at the site while studies were taking place. These investigations determined that the site should be managed under the authority of RCRA, instead

o f CERCLA. Therefore, the site was deleted from the NPL on February 5, 1993

. Clean up costs at the site for the remedial phase amounted to $6,470.32.

Well sampling performed shortly after the 2007 fire at Waste Research & Reclamation indicated
that there w ere ketone and alcohol constituents in wells near the areas where fire suppression
water was released

. Two weeks later, further sampling indicated that there were no longer ketone and alcohol contaminants in groundwater from wells on the site

. Wisconsin De partment of Natural Resources is not aware of any residual effects in aquifers; however, residual effects in confined aquifers are yet undetermined. The only costs associated with the contamination from the fire are the sampling costs which were paid for b y Waste Research & Reclamation

.

Sources of Information: Schoen, Jill

. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, (715) 839

- 2788, Interview: 25 February 2008.

USEPA Region 5

. “NPL Fact Sheets for Wisconsin: Waste Research & Reclamation Co.” January 2004. 18 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/region5/superfund/npl/wisconsin/WID990829475.htm

USEPA

. Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS)

. 30 September 2004. 18 January
2006.

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Waste Research & Reclamation Co.” 7 October 2004. 18 January 2006

. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar727.htm

USEPA. “Permit Series List.” RCRAInfo . 19 January 2006.

USEPA. “Superfund Site Progress Profile for Waste Research & Reclamation Co.” CERCLIS

. 12 October 2006. 23 October 2006 http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0505256Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 512 WEAU Channel 13. “WRR Fire Environmental Impact.” 22 June 2007. 20 February 2008

. http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/8142612.html

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau for Remediation and Redevelopment Tracking System (B RRTS) . “WRR Environmental Services Remediation Activity Details.” 28 November 2007. 22 February 2008. http://botw.dnr.state.wi.us/botw/GetAct ivityDetail.do?detailSeqNo=33784&siteId=15292
00&crumb=1&s=B

Willcom, Mae

. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, (715) 839

- 3748, Interview: 27 February 2008.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 513 Site Name: Webb Mineral/TNT General Contracting Site

EPA ID No.: Webb Mineral: MOILIHHSM001
TNT GC: MOR000537373

Address: TNT GC Site: Rural Route 3, Box 83, Kahoka, Clark County, MO Webb Minerals LLC: 1261 Maine street. Quincy, IL County: Clark
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: NA

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : TNT General Contracting Inc. (TNT) operates a facility on Rural Route 3 in Kahoka, Missouri. At this facility, TNT stores and mixes a number of zinc bearing materials on behalf of Webb Minerals LLC (Webb), a company based in Quincy, Illinois. Th

e actual property is owned by a third group, The Carl and Carol Trump Trust, which was formed and took ownership from Gary and Carol Trump in April 2000.

While TNT is responsible for the site operations, Webb owns all the zinc bearing materials brought to the facility, as well as all resulting mixtures (and wastes). The processed ingredients are sold by Webb primarily to commercial fertilizer manufacturers for addition as a zinc nutrient

. The zinc is processed from a number of materials, including hazardou s wastes from metal plating or galvanizing facilities

. In 2006, the facility suffered a fire as zinc oxide waste started smoldering after getting wet in the rain. Although the fire department did respond to the incident, reports do not indicate any signif icant damage. In 2010, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) conducted an inspection of the facility operations and collected soil and water samples. These inspections found spilled or abandoned materials without proper labeling and the prese nce of a number of potentially hazardous materials in the wastes and/or surrounding soils. The sampling also determined there were unauthorized discharges into a tributary or Weaver Branch and violations of water quality in this tributary resulting from im proper management of wastes.

Description of Contamination: Contamination at this site has been caused primarily by improper management of hazardous materials. Inspections in 2010 found piles of abandoned materials including bags, totes, and drums stored or disposed of on site and lacking proper hazardous waste determination. Sampling of these materials found the presence of zinc, barium, mercury, nickel, 2

- Butanone, tetrahydrofuran, toluene, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead in
the wastes or surrounding soils. Materials also demonstrated hazardous waste characteristics for toxicity and ignitability (shown in example by a 2006 fire). The inspections also indicated unauthorized discharges into a tributary of the Weaver Branch, and water sampl es indicatedAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 514 pollutants including boron, arsenic, copper, ammonia, zinc, chromium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, selenium, aluminum, barium, cadmium, and 2

- butanone

. Based on these inspections and testing, MDNR issued an administrative order to Webb, TNT,

an d the property owner that required them to obtain proper permits, cease the reception of hazardous waste until federal requirements are met, and identify a plan for cleanup and future management practices.

Sources of Information:
1. U. S. EPA. Region 7. Unil ateral Administrative Order. TNT General Contracting Inc, Webb Minerals LLC, Gary and Carol Trump Trust. 2010. Accessed Online. November
2011: http://www.epa.gov/region07/businesses/consent_agree_final_order/2010/tnt_general_co ntracting_inc_webb_minerals_llc_and_trump_trust_kahoka_mo_090210.pdf

2. U. S, EPA. Facility Registry Systems. Facility Detail Report. TNT General Contracting.
Accessed Online. November 2011: http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry _id=1100422
53263

3. Kahoka Fire Department. Incident Report. TNT. Sent to MDNR November 2010.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 515 Site Information

Site Name: Yellow Water Road Dump
EPA ID No.: FLD980844179
Address: 1190 Yellow Water Road, Baldwin, FL 32234 County: Duval
NPL Site: Deleted 5/18/1999
In CERCLIS Database: 0400933

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The 14

- acre Yellow Water Road Dump site is a former storage area for PCB

- contaminated liquids and electrical equipment and began in 1981 as a salvage operation for transformers

. The property, originally purchased in 1940 for commercial development, was later acquired by the American Environmental Energy Corporation (AEEC)

. In 1981, AEEC entered into a joint venture with two other corporations
with the intent of m

oving an incinerator to the site to destroy PCBs and began onsite storage of
PCB

- contaminated liquids and electrical equipment at the former operational area in anticipation of upcoming onsite incineration operations. The proper permits for the incinerator
were never obtained

. In 1982, PCB

- contaminated oils were spilled at the site during onsite salvage operations to remove valuable metal parts from transformer carcasses

. The operation ended in 1984 when the property was rezoned

. An estimated 150,000 gallon s of PCB

contaminated fluids were stored at the site

. Much of this fluid leaked from storage vessels and contaminated site soils and the underlying surficial aquifer.

Description of Contamination: Groundwater, sediment and soil are contaminated with PCBs

. In 1984, EPA conducted a removal action that included cleaning and storing 719 electrical transformers; securing 100,000 gallons of PCB liquids in onsite holding tanks; and excavating and storing 3,000 cubic yards of PCB

- contaminated soil onsite. In 1988 , EPA directed a second removal action that included demolishing an onsite warehouse; disposing of warehouse debris and stockpiling contaminated soil offsite; incinerating 78,854 gallons of PCB liquids offsite; and disposing of 704 transformers and 18,690 pounds of capacitors offsite.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 4. “Florida NPL/NPL Caliber Cleanup Site Summaries.” 13 December 2005. 19 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/nplfln/yellowfl.htm

USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Yellow Water Road Dump.” 28 September 1990. 19 February 2006. http://www.epa. gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0490067.pdfAppendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 516 USEPA. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Yellow Water Road Dump.” 30 June 1992. 19 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/s ites/rods/fulltext/r0492103.pdf

USEPA. “Federal Register Notice

– Notice of Deletion of Yellow Water Road Dump Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL).” 18 May 1999. 19 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/d990518.htm

USEPA. “Final Five

- Year Review Report Second Five

- Year Review for Yellow Water Road Superfund Site.” September 2005. 19 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f05

- 04018.pdf

USEPA. “NPL Site Narrative for Yellow Water Road Dump.” 10 June 1986. 19 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/ superfund/sites/nplsnl/n0400933.pdf

USEPA. “Superfund Site Progress Profile: Yellow Water Road Dump.” CERCLIS. 10 January 2006. 19 February 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercp ad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0400933

USEPA. “Yellow Water Road Dump Superfund Site Five Year Review Report.” 13 September 2000. 19 February 2006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f00

- 04025.pdf

Additional Contacts: Dave Keefer (RPM) (404) 562

- 8932Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 517 Site Information

Site Name: Zimble Drum EPA ID No.: MAN000103183 Address: 61 Endicott Street, Norwood, MA 02062 County: Norfolk
NPL Site: No In CERCLIS Database: 0103183

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: The Zimble Drum site is located on a
13

- acre property and is a defunct scrap metal recycling facility

. The site includes four 1

- story buildings. Three of the buildings are brick/masonry construction and one is pre

- finished metal. One of the brick buildings has an unfinished basement, additional office space, and a loading dock. A second building also has an unfinished basement where a number of containers were staged

. The Zimble Drum site is a "removal only" site, meaning the Site Assessment program has not had any involvement at this location

.

Description of Contamination: In May 2002, a number of containers, drums, and cylinders
were found left behind at the site

. There were approximately 100 containers scattered throughout the four buildings. These included seven cylinders, eight capacitors with “Pyranol” labels, indicative of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) containing oil, a number of 55

- gallon drums, and

va rious sized smaller containers. Some of the cylinders were unlabeled

. Stained floors indicated past leaks

. Many of the 55

- gallon drums were labeled as containing oil or oil

- like product, but they did not appear to be virgin drums. Other container labels in dicated the presence of sulfuric acid and mercury

. Lead was found at higher than normal levels in the soil and some soil samples
contained semi

- volatile organic compounds as well as asbestos

.

According to the November 30, 2005 Federal Register Notice, Gi ll Pond Realty Trust agreed to pay $300,000 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund and to complete remediation of
contaminated surface soils on Site.

Sources of Information: EPA Region 1. “Waste Site Cleanup & Reuse in New England: Zimble Drum.” 9 October 2002.
17 November 2005. http://yosemite.epa.gov/R1/npl_pad.nsf/0/3bcec1dfa2d37d0785256c4d00498046?OpenD

ocument

Federal Register (Volume 70, Number 229 ) Page 71846

- 71847. “Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement; Gill Pond Realty Trust, Zimble Drum Superfund Site, Norwood, MA.” 30 November 2005. 25 January 2006

.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 518 http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA

- WASTE/2005/November/Day

- 30/f6697.htm

USEPA. “Zimble Drum.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 17 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0103183

USEPA. “Zimble Drum.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.). 25 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/en viro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110013802288

Additional Contacts: Gary Lipson (OSC) (617) 918

- 1274 lipson.gary@epa.gov Nancy Smith (SAM) (617) 918

- 1436 Alex Sherrin, 617

- 918

- 1252Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 519 Site Information

Site Name: Zollo Drum Company
EPA ID No.: CTD075394254
Address: 100 Railroad Ave, Beacon Falls, CT 06403 County: New Haven
NPL Site: No
In CERCLIS Database: 0100184

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation: Zollo Drum Company is a 0.75

- acre site that consists of a drum storage area and a gravel parking area. Ownership and operational activities at this site prior to 1964 are unknown

. From 1964 to 1990, a small drum reclamation facility operated on the proper ty under various owners and operators

. Operations on the property have included the storage of solvents and waste oils in two 20,000

- gallon USTs located on the adjacent southern property, and the transportation and storage of waste oils and chemical wastes

, including industrial sludges and wastewater

. Hazardous wastes that have been disposed of, used, or stored on the property include metal sludges, oily wastes, halogenated and nonhalogenated solvents, lacquer thinner, acids, paints, pigments, dyes, inks, r ubber solvents, flyash, pickling liquors, and laboratory and pharmaceutical wastes

. In 1977, a fire occurred in an on

- site warehouse; it is unknown whether drum contents were released during the fire

. In 1984, the transportation of hazardous waste for disp osal ceased, and site activities until 1990 consisted of the collection of empty drums for reclamation

. This site has been deferred to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)

. It is difficult to determine the exact time of site
contami nation

. It is unclear if the site was abandoned

.

Zollo Drum Company did not have a RCRA permit

.

Description of Contamination: Analytical results of soil samples collected from the property and the adjacent southern property in 1989 indicated the presen ce of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethane; inorganic elements, including lead, arsenic, chromium, and zinc; semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs); and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

.

Sources of Information : Hatzopoulos, Tom (On

- scene Coordinator) Interview, 12/8/2005

USEPA. “National Oil Services.” RCRAInfo. 1 September 2000. 18 January 2006.

USEPA. “Waste Site Cleanup & Reuse in New England: Zollo Drum Company.” 15 July 2002.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 520 17 July 2006. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r1/npl_pad.nsf/0/78b5b20e7d4b468e85256b4200605353?OpenD

ocument

USEPA. “Zollo Drum Company.” CERCLIS . 8 December 2005. 17 Janua ry 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0100184

USEPA. “Zollo Drum Company.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse

. (n.d.)

. 24 January
2006

. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110003018350

Additional Contacts:
Richard

- A Zollo (203) 729

- 6538 Tom Hatzopoulos (OSC) 617

- 918

- 1284
Gerardo Millan

- Ramos (SAM) 617

- 918

- 1377 Patricia DeRosa, 860

- 424

- 3501Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 521 Site Information:

Site Name: Zschiegner Refining Co. EPA ID No.: NJD986643153 Address : 1442 Maxim

- Southard Road, Howell Township, NJ 07731 County: Monmouth NPL Site: Final Remedy Selected 9/30/2004 In CERCLIS Database: 0203757

Site History and Description of Recycling Operation : The Zschiegner Refining Company operated from 1964 to 1992 as a precious metals recovery facility

. On

- site operations included chemical stripping of precious metals, like gold, silver, platinum and nickel from watch bands, film, and electrical components. In October 1992, the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration raided the facility based on suspicions of illegal drug manufacturing and found the facility owne r had been manufacturing methamphetamine. Approximately 3,000 different chemicals (including peroxide, cyanide, caustics, and acids) were found improperly stored throughout the site

.

A USEPA August 2004 proposed Superfund Cleanup Plan estimates total cos ts at the site as $6.7
million

.

Description of Contamination: Operations at the site resulted in contamination of the building, soil, sediment, ground water, and adjacent wetlands with arsenic, chromium and cyanide. Former employees of the site have note d that spent acid solutions, too weak for "stripping" metals, were regularly decanted into floor drains or emptied by hose. During initial removal actions, approximately 2,000 gallons of acidic solutions, 1,600 gallons of basic solutions, and 1,400 small

c ontainers of hazardous substances were transferred to acceptable containers and disposed of off site. The presence of organic and inorganic contamination in soil, sediments, surface water, and ground water, and inorganic contamination in the building, was found during the remedial investigation.

Herbert Zschiegner pled guilty on April 26, 1995, to illegally dumping chemicals into a Monmouth County brook and adjacent wetlands during the period from 1990 to 1992. Zschiegner admitted to violating three counts of the Clean Water Act by illegally discharging, without a permit, acids, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, zinc and iron from his metals recovery operation into the Haystack Brook and surrounding wetlands between January 1990 and October 31, 1992. On September 28, 1995, Zschiegner was sentenced to 16 months in jail on each of the three counts and 3 years probation. As part of his plea agreement and sentence, Zschiegner is also required to pay $650,000 to the USEPA as partial restitution for the cost s incurred by the Agency in cleaning up the former business site.Appendix 1 December 2014

Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

1

- 522 Sources of Information: EPA Region 2. “August 2004 Superfund Proposed Plan: Zschiegner Refining Co.” 24 August 2004. 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/zschienger_proposal_plan.htm

EPA Region 2

- Newsroom. “EPA Proposes Cleanup Plan for Howell Superfund Site.” 24 August
2004. 18 J anuary 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region02/news/2004/04132.htm

EPA Region 2

- Superfund. “ EPA to Clean Up Howell Superfund Site.” 13 October 2004. 18 January 2006. http://www.epa.gov/region02/news/2004/04157.htm

New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services. Public Health Assessment: Zschiegner Refining Co.” 1 July 1999. 18 January 2006. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/zschiegner/zsc_toc.html

USEPA. “NPL Site Fact Sheet: Zschiegner Refining.” (n.d.) 18 January 2006. http://www.epa .gov/region02/superfund/npl/0203757c.pdf

USEPA. “Zschiegner Refining.” CERCLIS. 27 October 2005. 25 January 2006. http://cfpub1.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=02 03757

USEPA. “Zschiegner Refining.” Envirofacts Data Warehouse. (n.d.). 25 January 2006. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/multisys2.get_list?facility_uin=110004239280

Additional Contacts: Stephanie Vaughn (Project Manager) (212) 637

- 1866 or vaughn.stephanie@epa.gov