United, States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5305)
PB95-179-388
BPA530-R-94-005m
March 1995
vvEPA
Inside the Hotline
A Compilation of 1994
Monthly Hotline Reports
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
-------
Hotline Phone Numbers:
National toll-free (outside of DC area) (800) 424-9346
Local number (within DC area) (703) 412-9810
National toll-free for the hearing impaired (TDD) (800) 553-7672
Local TDD number (within DC area) (703) 412-3323
This document is prepared by Booz, Allen & Hamilton and submitted in
support of Contract No. 68-WO-0039
EPA Project Officer:
Carie VanHook Jasperse
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washignton, DC 20460
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION iii
PART 1: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS l
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 3
Financial Assurance 3
Generator Requirements 5
Permits 8
Recycling 9
TSDFs 12
Used Oil 13
Waste Identification 15
Underground Storage Tanks (UST) 25
Financial Responsibility 25
Remediation Wastes 27
Tank Requirements 27
Superfund (SF) 29
ARARs 29
Cleanup Agreements 31
Environmental Justice 33
Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities 36
National Priorities List 38
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) 41
Emergency Planning and Release Notification 41
Hazardous Chemical Inventory Reporting 44
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory 48
PART 2: FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARIES 53
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 55
Underground Storage Tanks (UST) 65
Superfund (SF) 67
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) 73
PART 3: INDICES 77
Key Word Index 79
Regulatory Citation Index .-. 85
Statutory Index 91
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)/Underground Storage Tanks (UST),
Superfund, and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Hotline
was established to respond to inquiries from the regulated community and the public
concerning waste management, disposal, and emergency planning and response regulations.
In addition, the Hotline serves as point of contact for the Radiation Sites Cleanup Program
and the risk management program under the Clean Air Act §112(r). The Hotline also
functions as a referral point on the availability and distribution of program related
documents and published materials.
This document is a compilation of Questions and Answers and Federal Register summaries
from individual Monthly Hotline Reports for the period of January to December 1994. It is
divided into three parts: Questions and Answers, Federal Register summaries, and Indices
to the questions, according to subject matter, regulatory and statutory citations.
It is important that the reader understand the purpose and limitations of the information
in this document. Neither the questions nor the Federal Register summaries are intended to
fully represent or be used in place of the regulations. This document can be used to explore
the application of the regulations in different scenarios or to shed light on complex issues.
For an understanding of the actual regulatory requirements in any given situation, the
reader must consult the appropriate sections of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), pertinent Federal Registers and EPA guidance documents, as well as relevant State
regulations.
111
-------
AVAILABILITY
This document, Inside the Hotline: A Compilation of 1994 Monthly Hotline Reports, is
available for purchase from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical
Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161,
1 (800) 553-6847 or (703) 487-4650. The NTIS Order No. is: PB95-179 388
Other Hotline publications are also available from NTIS. Individual Monthly Hotline
Reports from 1982 up through the current report and Monthly Hotline Report subscriptions are
available, as well as the following:
Inside the Hotline: A Compilation of 1993 Monthly Hotline Reports PB93-127 966
Inside the Hotline: A Compilation of 1992 Monthly Hotline Reports PB93-159 572
Inside the Hotline: A Compilation of 1991 Monthly Hotline Reports PB92-131 390
Index to the Monthly Hotline Report Questions
(June 1982 to December 1994) PB95-179 396
On-LIne Availability
The Monthly Hotline Report Questions and Answers are also available for
downloading at no charge from EPA's Cleanup Information BBS (CLU-IN). CLU-IN
can be accessed via modem at (301) 589-8366 or via the Internet through the
Fedworld.gov gateway. The systems operator for CLU-IN can be reached at
(301) 589-8368 to provide help with downloading.
The complete text of the 1994 Monthly Hotline Reports may be accessed via the
Internet using a gopher. From the EPA Core Server at gopher.epa.gov, follow this
pathway: EPA Offices & Regions —> Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response —>
OSW (RCRA) -> RCRA: General -> RCRA/UST, Superfund & EPCRA Hotline
Reports -> 1994 Hotline Reports.
IV
-------
PART1: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
This section contains a compilation of all the questions and answers from individual
Monthly Hotline Reports for the period of January to December 1994. The questions in
these reports arise from actual Hotline calls. While the number of questions represent
only a small fraction of the total questions received, they do represent commonly asked
or significant questions received by the Hotline. During 1994 the Hotline responded to
over 200,000 questions regarding EPA regulations, programs, guidance documents, and
other related matters. Of the 225,717 questions received, over two thirds of the
questions concerned regulatory information and nearly one quarter were requests for EPA
documents. Seven percent of the queries were not within the Hotline's purview to
answer and were referred to an appropriate information source. Figure 2 breaks down
the questions by program area. The RCRA program received the highest number of
questions, nearly 55 percent. The number and type of questions in this report reflect the
percentages cited in Figure 2.
The questions and answers have undergone EPA technical and legal review and often
reference other pertinent sources of information such as CFR citations, Federal Register
notices, and Agency memoranda. These explanations and examples of regulatory
application are for informational purposes only, and do not represent the issuance of formal
policy or in any way affect the implementation of the regulations.
Keywords are provided in the left-hand margin at the beginning of each question. The
month the question appeared in the Monthly Hotline Report is cited at the end of the
entry. The questions in this section are grouped by EPA program area, then further grouped
under broad, general regulatory areas and titles. To pinpoint a subject or topic more specific
than the general regulatory area headings, please use the Indices in Part 3.
Documents
53,455
(24%)
Questions by Type
Referrals/
Transfers
16,838
(7%)
Figure 2**
Questions by Program
Superfund
26,735
(13%)
UST
10,392
(5%)
EPCRA
Regulatory Questions S%
155,424 (28/o)
(69%)
*Based on 225,717 questions received during 1994.
**Excludes 16,838 referrals and transfers made to other information sources.
RCRA
112,209
(54%)
-------
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY
ACT (RCRA)
Financial
Assurance
Key Words:
Cost adjustment; financial
assurance; implicit price
deflator
"Financial Assurance Cost Adjustments On a Quarterly Basis"
QUESTION: The financial assurance regulations of §§264/5.142(b)
require the owner/operator of a TSDF to annually adjust closure and
post-closure costs. For a facility adjusting costs via implicit price
deflator (IPD), the cost adjustments must be made within 60 days prior
to the anniversary of the establishment of the facility's financial
assurance (or within 30 days after the close of a facility's fiscal year
for owner/operators using the financial test or corporate guarantee). If
a facility's anniversary date of financial assurance (or fiscal year) does
not coincide with the issuance of the annual IPD, how should the
facility adjust its costs?
ANSWER: If a facility's financial assurance anniversary date or fiscal
year does not coincide with the issuance of the annual IPDs, the
owner/operator may use the latest IPD (for example, if a facility must
update their financial assurance in February of 1994, the facility may use
the 1992 annual IPD, despite the time lag). The U.S. Department of
Commerce usually publishes the annual IPD based on Gross National
Product (GNP) in March, and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) IPDs in
February; the owner/operator may use either figure. Alternatively, the
owner/operator may use quarterly IPD figures published by the
Department of Commerce, obtaining the inflation factor by dividing the
current quarterly IPD by the IPD for the same quarter in the previous year
(e.g., divide first quarter 1994 by first quarter 1993). If a facility's
anniversary date or fiscal year does not coincide with the issuance of the
annual IPD, the facility may use the most current annual or quarterly IPD,
however owner/operators must be consistent in their use of either annual or
quarterly IPDs to calculate the inflation factor. Some owner/opera tors may
-be required by their state regulations to update financial assurance cost
estimates on a quarterly basis. (June 1994 Hotline Monthly Report)
Key Words:
Cost adjustment; financial
assurance; implicit price
deflator
"GNP v. GDP for Cost Adjustments Under RCRA"
QUESTION: The RCRA financial assurance regulations at
§§264/5.142(b) require the owner or operator of a TSDF to provide
financial assurance to cover closure and post-closure costs. The
regulations require the owner or operator to calculate closure and post-
closure cost estimates and adjust them annually by either recalculating
the cost estimate in current dollars, or by multiplying the previous
estimate by an inflation factor. The inflation factor is calculated by
dividing the current Implicit Price Deflator (IPD) by the previous IPD.
For those owner/operators who choose this method, must
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
"GNP v. GDP for Cost Adjustments Under RCRA" (cont'd)
the inflation factor be calculated using the IPD based on Gross National
Product (GNP), or may the IPD based on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) be
used instead?
ANSWER: Although §§264/5.142(b) specifies using an IPD based on GNP,
EPA allows owners/operators to update cost estimates using the annual IPD
based on GDP. The IPD based on GDP produces similar results to the IPD
based on GNP, however, the IPD based on GDP is available to
owners/operators two months before the IPD based on GNP. The IPD based
on GDP was not available at the time this regulation was issued. When
financial assurance regulations were originally promulgated, the
Department of Commerce used GNP figures to calculate the IPD, but in recent
years has favored GDP as a basis for the IPD because the data better
represent national output. The IPD is a measure of the change in the
relative nominal value of a dollar due to inflation as well as to changes in
the composition of GNP or GDP. Because changes in inflation will affect the
value of a dollar, IPDs are used to accurately compare costs over time.
Whichever type of deflator is used, be it the IPD based on GNP or GDP, the
owner/operator must use only that type for all cost estimates and
adjustments, since each deflator is based on different data. An
owner/operator may choose to switch deflators, but must adjust previous cost
estimates accordingly. Annual IPDs based on GNP are usually published by
the Department of Commerce each March; annual IPDs based on GDP are
published each January. In the interest of maintaining as accurate records as
possible, the Department of Commerce reviews IPDs for the previous three
years each August, making any changes to previous figures as necessary.
Facilities' cost adjustments should reflect as soon as practicable any changes
to previous IPDs as a result of this review. Annual IPDs since 1987 are as
follows:
GNP GDP
1987 100.0 100.0
1988 103.9 103.9
1989 108.5 108.5
1990 113.2 113.3
1991 117.7 117.7
1992 121.1 121.1
1993 124.1 124.2
(June 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
Generator
Requirements
Key Words:
Conditionally exempt small
quantity generators
(CESQGs); recycling
facilities
"Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG)
Hazardous Waste Recycling Facilities"
QUESTION: Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) of
hazardous waste must ensure delivery of their wastes to appropriate
treatment, storage, recycling, or disposal facilities (see 40 CFR §§261.5(f)(3)
and 261.5(g)(3)). Under 40 CFR §§261.5(f)(3)(v) and 261.5(g)(3)(v), one
option CESQGs have for managing their waste is sending it to a facility
which beneficially uses or reuses waste; legitimately recycles or reclaims
waste; or treats waste prior to its beneficial use, reuse, legitimate recycling
or reclamation. In order to be eligible to receive CESQG waste, must such
recycling facilities comply with any federal or state permitting, licensing,
or registration requirements?
ANSWER: Recycling facilities meeting the criteria of 40 CFR
§§261.5(f)(3)(v) and 261.5(g)(3)(v) need not be permitted, licensed, or
registered by EPA or the state in order to receive CESQG waste. While
individual states may rule on the legitimacy of such CESQG waste recycling
operations and may impose more stringent requirements such as permitting,
federal regulations do not require any formal approval of a recycler in order
for CESQGs to send their waste to the recycler. (April 1994 Monthly
Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Biennial Report; generators;
quantity determination
"Biennial Reporting for Wastes Treated in Exempt Units"
QUESTION: In February 1993, a site generated 2,000 kg of hazardous
waste, of which 1,500 kg was a spent solvent classified as F001 and 500 kg
was characteristically ignitable (D001). The F001 was accumulated on-site
in accordance with the §262.34 generator standards and then shipped off-
site for disposal. The D001 was piped directly to a wastewater treatment
unit for subsequent discharge under a Clean Water Act permit
(§270.1(c)(2)(v)).
In order to determine RCRA hazardous waste generator status, and
applicable regulations, the site's owner/operator must count hazardous
waste generated in every calendar month. For example, a site which
generates greater than 1,000 kg of hazardous waste in a calendar month is
deemed large quantity and is subject to full generator standards, whereas a
site which generates less than 100 kg is subject to the reduced regulatory
requirements of §261.5. In determining generator status, the site must count
all wastes that are subject to the substantive standards related to storage,
transportation, treatment, or disposal of hazardous wastes (51 FR 10153;
March 24, 1986).
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
"Biennial Reporting for Wastes Treated in Exempt Units"
(cont'd)
In this situation, the F001 was subject to substantive regulation under
§262.34, therefore, the site counted the 1,500 kg in determining their
generator status. The generator or owner/operator did not, however, count
the 500 kg of D001 wastes, because this waste was not subject to substantive
regulation (51 FR 10152; March 24,1986). Therefore, in February, the site
was classified as a large quantity generator for the month and subject to all
of the standards of Part 262, including the biennial reporting requirements
of §262.41. The Biennial Report requires a description of the
characteristics and quantity of hazardous waste generated during the
reporting year. Must the site's Biennial Report address only wastes which
are counted toward the generation rate, or must other wastes generated at
the site, such as the D001, also be included?
ANSWER: Although the D001 waste would not need to be counted in
determining generator status, the owner/operator should identify this
waste, as well as the F001 waste, on the Biennial Report form. The
Biennial Report instructions specifically request generators to report on
waste treated in exempt units, if the site is required to file a Biennial
Report. The Biennial Report data is frequently used by states to analyze
the adequacy of hazardous waste management capacity and must,
therefore, be comprehensive (1993 Hazardous Waste Report Instructions
and Forms). (June 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Accumulation; containment
buildings; small quantity
generator
"Containment Buildings as Generator Accumulation Units"
QUESTION: On August 18,1992 (57 FR 37194), EPA promulgated
regulations for treatment and storage of hazardous waste in containment
buildings. Section 262.34(a) allows large quantity generators to use
containment buildings as hazardous waste accumulation units without
obtaining a permit or interim status. May small quantity generators
(generators of 100-1,000 kg. per month of hazardous waste) accumulate
hazardous waste in containment buildings and still be eligible for the
reduced requirements of 40 CFR §262.34(d)?
ANSWER: A small quantity generator may not accumulate hazardous
waste in containment buildings and remain eligible for the reduced
requirements of §262.34(d). The provisions for small quantity generators in
§262.34(d) and (e) allow accumulation of hazardous waste for 180 (or 270)
days provided that the generator complies with the specific requirements
of §§262.34(d)(l)-(5). The reduced requirements in §262.34(d) limit small
quantity generators to accumulation in containers and tanks. Only those
generators who comply with the requirements of §262.34(a) may use
containment buildings as accumulation units without obtaining a permit
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
"Containment Buildings as Generator Accumulation Units"
(cont'd)
or interim status. A small quantity generator who chooses to accumulate
hazardous waste in containment buildings does not meet the conditions of
§262.34(d). Therefore, in order to use containment buildings as accumulation
units without a permit or interim status, the small quantity generator must
comply with the more stringent requirements in §262.34(a). These include
the personnel training requirements of §265.16; the contingency plan
requirements of Part 265, Subpart D; and the closure requirements of
§§265.111 and 265.114. These regulations also limit a generator's on-site
accumulation without a permit or interim status to a maximum of 90 days.
(September 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Exported wastes; manifest
"Notification Requirements for Exported Wastes"
QUESTION: In addition to other requirements, a primary exporter of
hazardous waste must comply with the special requirements of 40 CFR Part
262, Subpart E, including providing notification of intent to export to EPA's
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 60 days prior to the initial
shipment (§262.53(a)), and originating the hazardous waste manifest
(§262.54). If a waste is not regulated as a hazardous waste in the United
States but is subject to Canadian regulations, must the exporter notify EPA
of the intent to export? If the waste is a hazardous waste but exempt from
regulation in the United States, must the exporter still notify EPA?
ANSWER: Part 262, Subpart E applies only to wastes which are subject to
Part 262, Subpart B manifest requirements (see also 51 FR 28664; August 8,
1986). For example, if the waste intended for export is a solid waste
according to §261.3 but is not regulated as a hazardous waste subject to
manifest requirements, the exporter would not be required to notify EPA of
the intent to export. Wastes which are hazardous but exempt from
manifest requirements would also be exempt from Part 262, Subpart E. For
example, scrap metal (§261.6(a)(3)(iii)) and lead-acid batteries
(§261.6(a)(2)(iv)) sent for reclamation are exempt from Subtitle C
hazardous waste regulations (including the manifest requirements), and
would therefore not be subject to Subpart E export requirements. Although
exporters may be exempt from the requirement to notify EPA, they are
advised to check with their Canadian counterparts for any applicable
regulations (for example, Canadian manifest requirements) before the
waste crosses the border. (December 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
Permits
Key Words:
Permit; permit renewal
"Permit Application and Renewal"
QUESTION: In order to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste, a
facility owner or operator must apply for and receive a RCRA permit. Once
a RCRA permit has been approved, it is valid for a period of up to ten years
(40 CFR §270.50). If an owner/operator wishes to continue an activity
regulated by the permit after its expiration date, the owner/operator must
apply for and obtain a new permit (§270.30(b)). What are the application
requirements for obtaining or renewing a hazardous waste permit?
ANSWER: To obtain the original hazardous waste permit, the
owner/operator must submit a two part application, consisting of part A and
part B. The part A (form 8700-23) requires owners/operators to supply basic
information such as facility name and address, description of hazardous
waste processes, and topographical maps. For the part B, owners/operators
must fulfill the information requirements of §§270.14-29. These sections
require an owner/operator to detail, in a narrative format, how they will
demonstrate compliance with the general TSDF standards, as well as the
unit-specific requirements (§270.1(b)).
When an owner/operator reapplies for a hazardous waste permit, the
owner/operator must submit an permit application, including parts A and B,
revised as necessary to reflect changed conditions since the previous
application. The revised part B should: fulfill all the requirements of a
new permit application; incorporate any new regulations that were
promulgated or came into effect since the issuance of the permit; and include
any approved permit modifications.
The owner/operator may continue operation under the existing permit
beyond the permit's expiration date while the renewal application is being
considered if the owner/operator submits the revised part B at least 180
days before the expiration date of the existing permit (§270.10(h)) and the
Regional Administrator, through no fault of the permittee, does not issue a
permit with an effective date on or before the expiration date of the
existing permit (§270.51(a)). Failure to file a timely application would
require the owner/operator to cease operations under the expired permit
and apply, as a new applicant, for a new hazardous waste permit.
(September 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
Recycling
Key Words:
Designated facility;
manifest; recycling facilities
"Designating Exempt Recycling Facilities on the Manifest"
QUESTION: A generator who transports, or offers for transportation,
hazardous waste for off-site treatment, storage, or disposal must prepare a
hazardous waste manifest and designate on the manifest one facility that
is permitted to handle the shipment (§§262.20(a) and (b)). Does the
requirement to designate a permitted facility preclude shipments of
hazardous waste to recycling facilities that are exempt from RCRA
permitting requirements?
ANSWER: No, the federal EPA requirement to designate on the manifest a
destination for each hazardous waste shipment does not prohibit
generators from sending waste to exempt recycling facilities. Box 9 on the
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest (EPA Form 8700-22) is reserved for the
name and site address of the "designated facility." As indicated in the
definition of "designated facility" under §260.10, the universe of sites to
which a generator may direct hazardous waste includes permitted
facilities, facilities operating under interim status, facilities which
reclaim precious metals from hazardous waste, and hazardous waste
recycling facilities exempt from permitting requirements under §261.6(c)(2).
(For further explanation of this provision see 50 FR 652; January 4,1985.)
Although the recycling process itself is exempt from RCRA regulation,
owner/operators of facilities that recycle hazardous waste must obtain an
EPA identification number and comply with the manifest requirements
under §§265.71 and 265.72 (§261.6(c)(2)). (April 1994 Monthly Hotline
Report)
Key Words:
Burning for energy recovery;
recycling; use constituting
disposal; waste
minimization
"Waste Minimization and Recycling Activities That Resemble
Conventional Waste Management Practices"
QUESTION: Large quantity generators of hazardous waste and treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities who generate and manage hazardous waste
on-site are required to certify that they have a waste minimization
program in place. Do recycling activities classified as burning for energy
recovery as defined in 40 CFR §261.2(c)(2) or use constituting disposal as
defined in 40 CFR §261.2(c)(D qualify as waste minimization?
ANSWER: Burning for energy recovery and use constituting disposal do not
qualify as waste minimization. The scope of the waste minimization
program encompasses source reduction and environmentally sound recycling
practices (58 FR 31114; May 28,1993). Source reduction involves decreasing
the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering
any wastestream prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal, while recycling
includes the use, reuse, or reclamation of hazardous waste. Recycling
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
"Waste Minimization and Recycling Activities That Resemble
Conventional Waste Management Practices" (cont'd)
activities closely resembling conventional waste management activities do
not qualify as waste minimization (58 FR 31115; May 28,1993). Burning for
energy recovery is considered a recycling process that closely resembles
incineration, a conventional waste management practice. Much like
incineration, burning for energy recovery disposes of hazardous constituents
by destruction as well as by releasing toxic constituents into the air (53 FR
522; January 8,1988). Similarly, any activity in which hazardous waste is
recycled by being placed on the land, for example as a dust suppressant or
soil conditioner, is considered use constituting disposal, and is analogous to
conventional waste disposal in land-based units, such as landfills and
surface impoundments (50 FR 628; January 4,1985). Since burning for energy
recovery and use constituting disposal are similar to conventional waste
disposal practices, neither activity would qualify as waste minimization.
(July 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Boilers and industrial
furnaces (BIF); conditional
exclusion; metals recovery
"Regulatory Status of Metals Recovery Under RCRA"
QUESTION: If an industrial furnace is burning or processing hazardous
waste to recover metal values, how is the furnace regulated?
ANSWER: Industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste are generally
subject to the boiler and industrial furnace (BIF) regulations in Part 266,
Subpart H. Owners and operators of smelting, melting, and refining
furnaces that process hazardous waste solely for metals recovery are
conditionally exempt from the BIF regulations except for the requirements
regarding management of wastes prior to burning (§266.101), management of
residues (§266.112) and the alternative requirements outlined in
§266.100(c). Specifically, the facility must: submit a one-time written
notification; sample and analyze the waste; maintain appropriate records;
and be engaged legitimate metals recovery. For purposes of this exemption,
EPA established three criteria to determine if hazardous waste is
processed solely for metal recovery: (1) the heating value of the waste
cannot exceed 5,000 Btu/lb (if so, the waste is considered to be burned for
energy); (2) the concentration of Part 261, Appendix VIII organic
constituents cannot exceed 500 ppm (if so, the waste is considered to be
burned partially for destruction); and (3) the waste must have recoverable
levels of metals 56 FR 42504,42507; August 27,1991).
Certain industries process wastes for metals recovery, yet normally do not
meet the criteria for legitimate metals recovery outlined above. For
example, secondary lead smelters process spent lead acid battery parts that
contain pieces of rubber or plastic, which generally have heating values
over 5,000 Btu/lb. In response, EPA promulgated special regulations for
lead, nickel-chromium furnaces, or metal recovery furnaces that burn
10
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
"Regulatory Status of Metals Recovery Under RCRA" (cont'd)
certain baghouse bags. EPA expanded the conditional exclusion to include
specific mercury-bearing wastes processed in exempt mercury recovery
furnaces (59 FR 47980; September 19,1994). Provided the units comply with
the alternative requirements of §266.100(c)(3), the metal recovery furnaces
would only be subject to §§266.101 and 266.112. Specific requirements found
in §266.103(c)(3) include: one-time written notification; restrictions on the
type of material burned; sampling and analysis; and maintenance of
records. In addition, EPA may subject the furnaces to full BIF regulation, if
the emissions from the unit pose a hazard to human health and the
environment.
Metal recovery units engaged in precious metals recovery are also
conditionally exempt from Part 266, Subpart H. Precious metal recovery is
defined as the reclamation of economically significant amounts of gold,
silver, platinum, palladium, indium, osmium, rhodium, ruthenium, or any
combination of these metals (§266.70(a)). Provided the owner or operator
of the unit complies with the alternative requirements of §266.100(f), the
unit would be exempt from all BIF requirements except for the regulations
regarding residue management (§266.112). Specific requirements include:
one-time written notice, sampling and analysis, and maintenance of records
(§266.100(f)). Management of precious metal wastes prior to recovery
would be covered by Part 266, Subpart F. (October 1994 Monthly Hotline
Report)
Key Words:
Batteries; recycling;
regeneration
"Regeneration Versus Reclamation for Spent Lead-Acid
Batteries"
QUESTION: In order to encourage environmentally sound recycling, EPA
has promulgated special standards for some recyclable materials and
exempted others from hazardous waste regulation. For example, reclaimed
spent lead-acid batteries are subject to the special requirements of Part 266,
Subpart G (§261.6(a)(2)(iv)). On the other hand, batteries returned to a
battery manufacturer for regeneration are exempt from hazardous waste
regulation (§261.6(a)(3)(ii)). Are spent lead-acid batteries returned to a
battery manufacturer for regeneration regulated under Subpart G of Part
266, or are they exempt from all hazardous waste regulation?
ANSWER: Spent lead-acid batteries returned to a battery manufacturer for
regeneration are not subject to Subpart G of Part 266, nor to any other
Subtitle C regulations. While the term "reclamation," when used in a
regulatory context, typically includes both materials recovery and
regeneration (§261.1(c)(4)), the standards governing the reclamation of
spent lead-acid batteries in Subpart G of Part 266 do not apply to the
11
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
"Regeneration Versus Reclamation for Spent Lead-Acid
Batteries" (cont'd)
regeneration of these batteries. Subpart G regulates materials recovery,
which involves the extraction from spent lead-acid batteries of distinct
end-products, such as scrap metal, lead values, ammonium sulfide, and
plastic. Regeneration, on the other hand, involves processing to remove
contaminants in a way that restores a product to its original, usable
condition. Because EPA determined that battery regeneration is similar to
the recycling of a commercial chemical product and presents minimal risk to
the environment (48 FR 14496; April 4,1983), battery regeneration,
including the regeneration of spent lead-acid batteries, is exempt from
Subtitle C regulation (§261.6(a)(3)(ii)). (November 1994 Monthly Hotline
Report)
TSDFs
Key Words:
Construction Quality
Assurance Program
(CQAP); leachate collection
and removal system;
minimum technology
requirement; surface
impoundment
"Surface Impoundment Leachate Collection and Removal
Systems"
QUESTION: According to 40 CFR §265.221 (a), owners or operators of new
surface impoundments, lateral expansions of surface impoundments, and
replacements of existing surface impoundments must install two or more
liners and a leachate collection and removal system in accordance with
§264.221(c), unless exempted under §§264.221(d), (e), or (f). When must an
owner or operator complete installation of the leachate collection and
removal system?
ANSWER: An owner or operator must complete installation of the
leachate collection and removal system at least 30 days prior to receipt of
waste. The installation completion date stems from the requirement for
owner or operators to have a construction quality assurance (CQA) program.
Surface impoundments required to comply with §265.221 (a) must have a
CQA program to ensure that the constructed unit meets or exceeds all design
criteria and specifications in the permit (§265.19). The CQA program
addresses various physical components of surface impoundment construction
including the leachate collection and removal system. An owner or operator
of a surface impoundment must certify to the Regional Administrator that
the CQA plan has been successfully carried out and that the unit meets the
requirements of 40 CFR §265.221 (a) at least 30 days prior to receiving
waste. Therefore, an owner or operator must complete installation of the
leachate collection and removal system at least by the date of this
certification. (April 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
12
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
"Elementary Neutralization Units Generating and Storing Non-
Corrosive Hazardous Wastes"
Key Words:
Corrosive; elementary
neutralization; F006
Used Oil
Key Words:
Energy recovery; on-site;
processing; used oil
QUESTION: The operator of an electroplating facility neutralizes
corrosive D002 wastewaters with lime in an on-site tank. The
neutralization process causes a sludge to accumulate at the bottom of the
tank. Although it does not exhibit the characteristic of corrosivity, this
sludge from the treatment of electroplating wastewaters meets the
definition of F006 listed hazardous waste (40 CFR §261.31). The
neutralization process thus causes a non-corrosive hazardous waste to be
generated and stored in the treatment tank. Can this tank meet the
definition of an elementary neutralization unit?
ANSWER: This treatment tank at the electroplating facility meets the
definition of an elementary neutralization unit, because the waste
originally treated in the tank is hazardous only due to corrosivity.
According to 40 CFR §260.10, an elementary neutralization unit is a device
which: (1) is used for neutralizing wastes that are hazardous only because
they exhibit the corrosivity characteristic, or are listed only because of
corrosivity; and (2) meets the definition of a tank, container, transport
vehicle, or vessel. As long as the original influent waste is hazardous only
due to corrosivity, generation of a new, non-corrosive listed or characteristic
hazardous waste during the neutralization process does not automatically
bar the tank from the elementary neutralization unit definition. This tank
is therefore eligible for the exemption for elementary neutralization units
found at 40 CFR §§264.1 (g)(6), 265.1(c)(10), and 270.1 (c)(2)(v). Units
qualifying for this exemption are not subject to permitting, generator on-site
accumulation time limits, weekly inspections, or other technical RCRA
standards. Since the elementary neutralization unit exemption applies
only to the tank and does not attach to wastes that are removed from the
unit, the F006 sludge formed during the neutralization process is subject to
full regulation as a hazardous waste once it is removed from the tank for
treatment and disposal. (December 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
"Energy Recovery On-Site Constitutes Reuse for the Generator
Processing Exemption"
QUESTION: A facility generates off-specification used oil that the used
oil generator wants to burn on-site for energy recovery. The used oil
generator filters the off-specification used oil in order to remove
impurities. After filtering the used oil, the generator burns it in an on-site
industrial furnace. Does the filtering activity meet the definition of
processing in §279.1 and, therefore, subject the generator to the used oil
processor standards in 40 CFR Part 279, Subpart F?
13
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
"Energy Recovery On-Site Constitutes Reuse for the Generator
Processing Exemption" (cont'd)
ANSWER: While filtering can meet the definition of processing, used oil
generators may filter, clean, or otherwise recondition their own used oil on-
site for reuse on-site without meeting the processor requirements (59 FR
10560; March 4,1994; §279.20(b)(2)(ii)(A)). The Agency believes that on-
site energy recovery constitutes reuse for purposes of this provision. If, on
the other hand, the generator filters the used oil for subsequent burning off-
site, the generator would be subject to the processor requirements in Part 279,
Subpart F.
Under the generator processing exemptions in §279.20(b), EPA allows on-
site but not off-site burning of used oil generated from on-site activities.
This approach best enables the Agency to encourage beneficial on-site reuse
and recycling activities that pose limited risks. At the same time, the
Agency ensures that activities undertaken primarily to make used oil
amenable for shipment to an off-site burner are regulated under the more
stringent processor standards (59 FR 10556; March 4,1994). (May 1994
Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Burning for energy
recovery; used oil; used oil
storage tank bottoms
"Used Oil Storage Tank Bottoms: Hazardous Waste or Used Oil
When Burned for Energy Recovery?"
QUESTION: A garage servicing automobiles and trucks generates
significant quantities of used oil, which it manages in compliance with the
federal regulations at 40 CFR Part 279. The used oil is not mixed with other
wastestreams from the facility. Instead, the operator of the garage
accumulates the oil in an on-site storage tank. A used oil transporter
periodically empties the tank and delivers the used oil to another company
that burns it for energy recovery. Over time, gravity causes solids and
heavier fractions to settle out of the used oil stored in the tank at the
garage. As a result, thick tar-like layers accumulate at the bottom of the
storage tank. The garage operator wishes to remove these tank bottoms
from the used oil storage tank and send them off-site to be burned for energy
recovery. Although only used oil has been placed in the tank, the
accumulated tank bottoms and the original used oil differ significantly in
physical form. The garage operator is concerned that the tank bottoms may
not qualify as used oil and may not be eligible for handling under 40 CFR
Part 279. Laboratory analysis shows that the bottoms typically exhibit
the toxicity characteristic for lead, cadmium, chromium, and benzene.
When sent off-site to be burned for energy recovery, must these bottoms from
the used oil storage tank be handled as used oil or as characteristic
hazardous waste?
14
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
"Used Oil Storage Tank Bottoms: Hazardous Waste or Used Oil
When Burned for Energy Recovery?" (cont'd)
ANSWER: When burned for energy recovery, these tank bottoms from the
used oil storage tank qualify as used oil and may be handled in accordance
with the used oil recycling regulations of 40 CFR Part 279. Under current
EPA rules, residues or sludges resulting from the storage, processing, or re-
refining of used oil are considered used oil when they are recycled through
burning for energy recovery (40 CFR §279.10(e)(2)). EPA clarified the status
of such residues in the preamble to the May 3,1993, Federal Register (58 FR
26420, 26422). As is the case with all used oils sent for recycling, the fact
that the tank bottoms from the garage exhibit one or more characteristics of
hazardous waste identified in Part 261, Subpart C does not alter their
status as used oil (§279.10(a)). The tank bottoms recycled through burning
for energy recovery must be handled as hazardous waste only if they fail
the rebuttable presumption described at §279.10(b)(l)(ii), or if they have
actually been mixed with hazardous waste (§§279.10(b)(l) and (2)). If the
tank bottoms are not being recycled, however, they must be handled as
characteristic hazardous waste when disposed of or sent for disposal
(§279.20(a)). (September 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
Waste
Identification
Key Words:
TCLP; test methods; toxicity
characteristic
"Use of Total Waste Analysis in Toxicity Characteristic
Determinations"
QUESTION: A generator suspects that his waste may exhibit the toxicity
characteristic and thus be subject to regulation as a RCRA hazardous waste.
Since he is unsure of the types and concentrations of hazardous contaminants
present in the waste, he performs a total waste analysis. Can he use the
results of the total waste analysis to make a toxicity characteristic
determination, or must he perform Method 1311, the toxicity characteristic
leaching procedure (TCLP), to determine the waste's regulatory status?
ANSWER: While a toxicity characteristic determination under §261.24
typically involves application of the TCLP followed by analysis of the
TCLP extract, a generator may be able to use total waste analysis to
demonstrate that a waste does not exhibit the toxicity characteristic.
Section 1.2 of the TCLP states, "If a total analysis of the waste
demonstrates that individual analytes are not present in the waste, or that
they are present but at such low concentrations that the appropriate
regulatory levels could not possibly be exceeded, the TCLP need not be run."
This analysis can provide the generator with a convenient and cost-
effective means of determining if he needs to run the TCLP in order to
definitively characterize a waste.
15
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
"Use of Total Waste Analysis in Toxicity Characteristic
Determinations" (cont'd)
The means for using total waste analysis results to make a toxicity
characteristic determination reflect TCLP methodology and therefore vary
depending on whether the waste is defined as a liquid, a solid, or a dual-
phase waste. Under the TCLP, liquid wastes (i.e., those wastes that
contain less than 0.5% dry solids) do not require extraction. The waste,
after filtration, is defined as the TCLP extract (Part 261, Appendix II,
§2.1). A generator can therefore characterize a liquid waste by filtering
the waste, measuring total constituent concentrations in the resulting
filtrate, and comparing these concentrations to the appropriate regulatory
limits under §261.24.
Wastes which are either 100% solid (i.e., wastes that contain no filterable
liquid (Part 261, Appendix II, §7.1.1.1)) or which contain both a liquid and
a solid component require conversion of total waste analysis data to
estimates of constituent concentrations in the TCLP extract, or maximum
theoretical leachate concentrations. For instance, to evaluate the
regulatory status of a 100% solid, a generator can simply divide each total
constituent concentration by 20 and then compare the resulting maximum
theoretical leachate concentration to the appropriate regulatory limit (the
division factor reflects the 20-to-l ratio of extraction fluid to solid used in
the TCLP). If no maximum theoretical leachate concentration equals or
exceeds the appropriate regulatory limit, the solid cannot exhibit the
toxicity characteristic and the TCLP need not be run.
The generator of a dual-phase waste (i.e., a waste which has both a solid
and a filterable liquid component) can perform a total waste analysis on
the liquid and solid portions and calculate maximum theoretical leachate
concentrations for the waste as a whole by combining results
mathematically through use of the following formula:
[AxBI + TCxDI = M
B + [20L/kgxD]
where:
A= concentration of the analyte in the liquid portion of the sample
(mg/L)
B= volume of the liquid portion of the sample (L)
O= concentration of the analyte in the solid portion of the sample
(mg/kg)
D= weight of the solid portion of the sample (kg)
16
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
"Use of Total Waste Analysis In Toxicity Characteristic
Determinations" (cont'd)
M = maximum theoretical leachate concentration (mg/L)
For example:
A generator who receives the results of a total waste analysis wishes to
determine if his waste exhibits the toxicity characteristic for lead. Since
he knows the lead concentration in each phase of the waste (0.023 mg/L in
the liquid phase, 85 mg/kg in the solid phase), the volume of the liquid
phase (0.025 L), and the weight of the solid phase (0.075 kg), he can
calculate the waste's maximum theoretical leachate concentration:
TAxBI + fCxDI
[20L/kgxD]
f 0.023 mg/L x 0.025 LI + F85 mg/kg x 0.075 kgl
0.025 L + [20 L/kg x 0.075 kg
= 4.18 mg/L
Because the 4.18 mg/L maximum theoretical leachate concentration is
below the 5.0 mg/L regulatory limit, the generator determines that the
waste cannot exhibit the toxicity characteristic for lead.
If maximum theoretical leachate concentrations are less than the
applicable limits under §261.24, the waste does not exhibit the toxicity
characteristic and the TCLP need not be run. If, on the other hand, total
waste analysis data yield a maximum theoretical leachate concentration
that equals or exceeds the toxicity characteristic threshold, the data
cannot be used to conclusively demonstrate that the waste does not exhibit
the toxicity characteristic. The generator may have to conduct further
testing to make a definitive toxicity characteristic determination.
(January 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Gasoline; K052; petroleum
refinery wastes
"K052: Bottoms from Tanks Storing Leaded Gasoline at
Petroleum Refineries"
QUESTION: According to 40 CFR §261.32, the hazardous waste code K052
applies to "tank bottoms (leaded) from the petroleum refining industry." A
variety of petroleum fractions including leaded gasoline are stored in
product tanks at refineries. Bottoms from all of these tanks may contain
lead. Does the K052 listing apply only to bottoms from tanks storing leaded
gasoline, or does it apply to lead-containing bottoms from refinery tanks
storing any petroleum fractions?
17
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
"K052: Bottoms from Tanks Storing Leaded Gasoline at
Petroleum Refineries" (cont'd)
ANSWER: EPA intended the K052 listing to apply only to bottoms from
tanks storing leaded gasoline at petroleum refineries. The listing does not
apply to bottoms from tanks storing other petroleum fractions, like diesel,
even if those bottoms contain lead. Tanks bottoms that do not carry the
K052 code can still be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C if they exhibit one
or more characteristics of hazardous waste. (February 1994 Monthly
Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Commercial chemical
product: U122
Key Words:
De Minimis; F003;
hazardous waste definition
spent solvents
"Off-Specification Paraformaldehyde Meets Commercial
Chemical Product Listing"
QUESTION: A manufacturer stores product formaldehyde (CAS No. 50-00-
0) in containers before use in a manufacturing process. While in storage,
some of the pure formaldehyde polymerizes to form paraformaldehyde
(CAS No. 30525-89-4), which is unusable in the manufacturing process
because it does not meet required specifications. The manufacturer
separates the paraformaldehyde from the usable formaldehyde and sends
the off-specification chemical for disposal. Unused commercial chemical
products containing formaldehyde are listed as U122 when discarded (40
CFR §261.33(f)). Paraformaldehyde is not found on the P- or U-list (40 CFR
§§261.33 (e) or (f)). When discarded, is the off-specification
paraformaldehyde a listed hazardous waste?
ANSWER: In the above scenario, paraformaldehyde is an off-
specification form of formaldehyde and meets the U122 listing (40 CFR
§261.33(b)). When a commercial chemical product listed in §§261.33(e) or
(0 undergoes a chemical change that renders the chemical off-
specification, the applicable P- or U-listing for the original chemical
applies, even in cases where the chemical composition has changed
sufficiently to require assignment of a different CAS Number. (March 1994
Monthly Hotline Report)
"Technical Grade Solvent Formulations and the F003 Listing"
QUESTION: The F003 listing in 40 CFR §261.31 includes "all spent solvent
mixtures/blends containing, before use, only [certain specified] spent non-
halogenated solvents." This language implies that, to meet the hazardous
waste listing, the solvent mixture must be pure before use (i.e., contain 100%
F003-listed solvents). In the process of manufacturing some of these solvents
however, small amounts of chemical impurities or contaminants may be
generated, and remain with the product when distributed for use. For
example, incomplete chemical reactions which take place during xylene
manufacturing commonly generate minute quantities of benzene and toluene;
rather than being 100% pure, the distributed solvent
18
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
"Technical Grade Solvent Formulations and the F003 Listing"
(cont'd)
product may therefore contain 99.98% xylene and 0.02% benzene and
toluene, or other similar concentrations of impurities. Would a solvent
formulation consisting of 99.98% xylene and 0.02% benzene and toluene meet
the F003 listing when used for its solvent properties and discarded?
ANSWER: A solvent formulation consisting of 99.98% xylene and 0.02%
benzene and toluene meets the F003 listing when used for its solvent
properties and discarded. The F003 listing covers pure solvent mixtures, as
well as technical grade solvent formulations, which are used for their
solvent properties. The term "technical grade" refers to all grades of a
chemical which are marketed or recognized for general usage by the
chemical industry. Solvent formulations containing de minimis percentages
of manufacturing contaminants or impurities are considered technical grade
products, provided that they are available for purchase and use in this
form. Therefore, when determining if a given spent solvent mixture contains
"only" the solvents specified in the F003 listing, generators should include
in their evaluation each solvent constituent present in a mixture before use,
provided that a particular solvent constituent is not a contaminant or
present in de minimis concentrations (50 FR 53317; December 31,1985). In
other words, a technical grade solvent could contain small concentrations of
contaminants or manufacturing impurities and still meet the F003 listing
after being used for its solvent properties.
In the example presented above, the commercially available solvent that
contains 99.98% xylene and 0.02% benzene and toluene (as impurities from
the manufacturing process) qualifies as a technical grade formulation. The
technical grade solvent formulation, once spent, meets the F003 listing
despite containing, before use, less than 100% of the non-halogenated
solvents specified in the listing description.
The purity of a technical grade formulation will vary from compound to
compound and may range from highly purified to very impure. EPA has not
established specific percentages or other criteria for use in determining
when contamination is considered de minimis; such a decision must be made
on a case-by-case basis by the appropriate regulatory agency. (June 1994
Monthly Hotline Report)
19
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
"Unused Formulations Containing Sodium Pentachlorophenate
are F027"
Key Words:
Chlorophenolic
compounds; F027; unused
formulations
QUESTION: The F027 hazardous waste listing includes discarded, unused
formulations containing tri-, tetra-, or pentachlorophenol, as well as
compounds derived from these chlorophenols (40 CFR §261.31). Does an
unused chemical formulation that contains sodium pentachlorophenate
meet the F027 listing when discarded?
ANSWER: Unused formulations containing sodium pentachlorophenate
meet the F027 listing when discarded. Sodium pentachlorophenate, a wood
surface protectant used to prevent sapstaining in freshly cut lumber, is a
compound derived from pentachlorophenol by dissolving
pentachlorophenol in sodium hydroxide (58 FR 25706, 25708; April 27,
1993).
Chlorophenolic compounds and their chlorophenoxy derivatives, such as
sodium pentachlorophenate, have serious adverse health effects (48 FR
14514,14516; April 4,1983). Formulations containing these compounds also
contain chlorinated dioxins and dibenzofurans. For these reasons, wastes
meeting the F027 listing are designated as acutely hazardous (50 FR 1978,
1979-1982; January 14,1985). (August 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Ash; municipal solid waste;
municipal waste combustion
"Status of Municipal Waste Combustion (MWC) Ash"
QUESTION: In 1990, the United States generated approximately 196
million tons of municipal solid waste. Sixteen percent of this waste, over 31
million tons, was managed in about 150 municipal waste combustion (MWC)
facilities which burned the waste for destruction or energy recovery. These
facilities generate ash, which weighs approximately 25% of the weight of
the original solid waste (59 FR 29372, 29373; June 7,1994). This ash is
primarily landfilled, with less than 10% used in building materials. How
does EPA regulate the management of this MWC ash?
ANSWER: The regulatory history of MWC ash is complex. EPA first
promulgated hazardous waste regulations under RCRA in May 1980. These
regulations included an exemption from all RCRA Subtitle C hazardous
waste regulations for household waste (40 CFR §261.4(b)(l)). In the
preamble to this rule, EPA interpreted this provision to exempt all residues
resulting from the treatment of household hazardous waste, such as MWC
ash, from hazardous waste regulations (45 FR 33084, 33099; May 19,1980).
The preamble, however, did not address ash from the combined combustion
of household hazardous waste and non-hazardous commercial or industrial
waste.
In 1984, Congress amended RCRA by adding §3001(0, which states that a
resource recovery facility recovering energy from the mass burning of
20
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
"Status of Municipal Waste Combustion (MWC) Ash" (cont'd)
municipal solid waste and non-hazardous commercial or industrial waste
shall not be deemed to be treating, storing, disposing, or otherwise
managing hazardous waste under certain circumstances. In 1985, EPA
interpreted this provision to exempt certain municipal resource recovery
facilities from RCRA permitting requirements but not to exempt MWC ash
from RCRA regulation (50 FR 28702,28725; July 15,1985). In November
1990, Congress enacted an amendment to the Clean Air Act prohibiting EPA
from regulating ash as a hazardous waste under §3001 of RCRA for a period
of two years. On September 18,1992, EPA Administrator William K.
Reilly announced in a memorandum that EPA had reinterpreted §3001 (i) to
include an exemption for MWC ash.
The Environmental Defense Fund filed citizen suits to enforce the EPA's
1985 interpretation of the statute in two U.S. District Courts. On May 2,
1994, after a series of appeals, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of City
of Chicago, et al. v. Environmental Defense Fund, et al.. No. 92-1639 (511
U.S. ), that MWC ash is not exempt from RCRA regulation. The Court
stated that §3001 (i) only exempts resource recovery facilities from RCRA
treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) regulations; it does not
exempt the ash, nor does it exempt the facility from regulation as a
generator of hazardous waste. The Supreme Court opinion makes ash
generated at resource recovery facilities, whether generated from only
household waste or a mixture of household and non-hazardous industrial or
commercial solid waste, subject to RCRA regulation if the ash is found to be
a hazardous waste. Therefore, facilities generating hazardous MWC ash
are fully subject to the RCRA Subtitle C generator regulations, and
facilities managing hazardous ash are subject to the RCRA TSDF
regulations of Parts 264 and 265.
Although no hazardous waste listing applies to MWC ash, the ash would
be a hazardous waste if it were to exhibit a characteristic of hazardous
waste as defined in §§261.20-261.24. MWC facilities generally produce two
kinds of ash: bottom ash and fly ash. Bottom ash is collected at the base of
the combustion unit and generally accounts for 75 to 80% of ash generated at
a facility. Fly ash is collected in air pollution control devices and accounts
for the remaining 20 to 25% of ash at a facility. Studies have shown that
fly ash, more than bottom ash, can exhibit the toxicity characteristic of a
hazardous waste, typically for lead and cadmium.
The Agency recognizes that immediate compliance with the Supreme
Court's decision may be difficult because many facilities have been
operating consistent with the Agency's previous interpretation that MWC
ash was excluded from regulation under Subtitle C and because of the
financial investment required for full compliance with RCRA Subtitle C.
21
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
"Status of Municipal Waste Combustion (MWC) Ash" (cont'd)
Therefore, on May 27,1994, the Agency issued an implementation strategy
memorandum (Herman and Laws to Regional Administrators) outlining
EPA's strategy for implementing the court's decision. In addition to the
implementation strategy, the Agency has made available two other
documents relevant to implementation of the court's decision.
On May 24,1994, EPA began distributing copies of its draft guidance
Sampling and Analysis of Municipal Refuse Incineration Ash (EPA530-R-
94-020). This guidance includes recommended procedures for MWC facility
owners and operators to follow for ash sampling and analysis. The Agency
also published a Federal Register notice on June 23,1994 (59 FR 32427),
requesting comment on the draft guidance. The comment period ended on
September 21,1994. On June 7,1994, the Agency published a Federal
Register notice (59 FR 29372) that: (1) extends the deadline within which
owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of ash
determined to be a hazardous waste can file their hazardous waste Part A
permit applications; and (2) interprets ash from waste-to-energy facilities
as a "newly identified" waste for the purposes of the RCRA land disposal
restrictions (LDR), thereby delaying the application of these requirements
for facilities that generate a hazardous ash. (October 1994 Monthly
Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Delisting petitions;
petroleum refinery wastes;
Skinner list
"Delisting Petitions for Hazardous Wastes From The Petroleum
Industry"
QUESTION: A petroleum refinery is submitting a delisting petition to EPA
for its listed refinery hazardous waste. Does EPA provide a list of
constituents typically found in petroleum refinery wastes that should be
used in developing such a delisting petition?
ANSWER: The EPA publication, Petitions To Delist Hazardous Wastes: A
Guidance Manual (EPA/530-R-93-007, March 1993) contains a list of
constituents of concern for hazardous wastes from the petroleum industry
(Exhibit 6-3). This list (referred to as the delisting "petroleum list")
identifies the specific hazardous constituents of concern that typically may
be found in petroleum wastes. As delisting is "generator-specific",
individual petitioners should also investigate if other hazardous
constituents are present in their particular wastes. The guidance manual
provides details about developing an analytical plan.
EPA initially provided such a petroleum list in the first edition (1985) of
the delisting guidance manual. This list was based on the "Skinner List"
developed by OSW in 1984 for land treatment associated with petroleum
refinery wastes. The 1985 version of the delisting petroleum list has since
22
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
"Delisting Petitions for Hazardous Wastes From The Petroleum
Industry" (cont'd)
been modified based on new data from various sources. The current
petroleum list in the 1993 delisting manual provides the most recent federal
guidance for submitting a delisting petition. States that are authorized for
delisting implement the RCRA delisting program in lieu of the Federal
program; therefore, petitioners in these states may have additional
requirements. Furthermore, facilities should consult with other
appropriate EPA and/or state regulating authorities to determine if this
list should be used in other aspects of the RCRA program, such as RCRA
permitting. (November 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
23
-------
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
Financial
Responsibility
Key Words:
Financial responsibility;
occurrence, underground
storage tank (UST)
"Occurrence Definition for Underground Storage Tank (UST)
Financial Responsibility"
QUESTION: The financial responsibility requirements of Part 280 require
owners or operators of USTs to demonstrate that they can pay for accidental
leaks and spills of petroleum products on a per-occurrence, as well as an
aggregate basis. For the purposes of the UST financial responsibility
regulations, how is the term "occurrence" defined?
ANSWER: EPA interprets the term occurrence to refer to all contamination
discovered during a single site investigation. For example, if two tanks are
discovered to be leaking during the same site investigation, regardless of
whether they are part of the same UST system or two separate tanks, EPA
considers it to be one occurrence, with one cleanup conducted. This is
consistent with the insurance industry's policy, which would require the
owner or operator to pay only one deductible in such a situation. Leaks
discovered at different times from the same UST system, as a result of
unrelated investigations, however, would be considered two occurrences,
with two deductibles paid by the owner/operator. (April 1994 Monthly
Hotline Report)
Key Words:
LUST; Trust fund: UST
"Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund"
QUESTION: In 1986, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) amended Subtitle I of RCRA and added RCRA §9003(h) which
established a program to address releases from petroleum underground
storage tanks (USTs). Congress created the Leaking Underground Storage
Tank (LUST) Trust Fund to help ensure that money was available for the
cleanup of petroleum releases at facilities which are unable to pay for the
cleanup. How can EPA and states use the LUST Trust Fund to pay for
cleanups at sites with leaking petroleum USTs?
ANSWER: The LUST Trust Fund program provides EPA with funding to
initiate cleanup at sites contaminated by leaking petroleum USTs as
necessary to protect human health and the environment. This program is
similar to EPA's Superfund Program, which establishes a Fund for the
cleanup of hazardous substance sites. As with Superfund, the LUST Trust
Fund is available to EPA and states to help pay for the cleanup of releases
when a responsible party capable of performing corrective action cannot be
identified. The Fund is financed through a 0.1 cent per gallon excise tax on
25
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
"Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund" (cont'd)
gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuels, and is appropriated to EPA by
Congress. EPA distributes Fund money to states who have signed
Cooperative Agreements with the Agency. The Cooperative Agreements
give states the authority to initiate corrective action at sites with leaking
petroleum USTs and specify the actions states will take when responding to
releases.
States play the primary role in implementing corrective action at UST
sites, and determine when and how to utilize Trust Fund money. When
states initiate corrective action at a particular site, they can use Fund
money only for activities directly related to responding to actual or
suspected releases from petroleum USTs subject to Subtitle I regulation.
Such activities include inspecting the tank and identifying suspected
releases, developing and enforcing corrective action orders, performing
corrective action (including exposure assessment, cleanup, provision of safe
drinking water to residents), and recovering costs of Fund-financed
activities from responsible owners and operators. The Fund cannot be used
for addressing releases from hazardous substance USTs or from USTs that
are not subject to Subtitle I.
States will require responsible owners or operators to perform and pay for
corrective action when petroleum releases are discovered. The LUST Trust
Fund will be used to pay for corrective action in situations when a
responsible owner or operator cannot be identified, when an owner or
operator refuses to comply with a corrective action order, or when an owner
or operator cannot afford the full cost of cleanup right away. When Fund
money is used, states have the authority to recover corrective action costs
from a responsible party that has the ability to pay for corrective action.
There are certain limitations on the use of the LUST Trust Fund at
government facilities. The Fund may not be used to clean up actual releases
from petroleum USTs at state and federal facilities. It may, however, be
used for site investigations, enforcement actions, and to address emergency
situations at these sites as necessary to protect human health and the
environment. States can utilize the Trust Fund to initiate corrective action
and pay for the cleanup of releases at local government UST sites, similar
to other responsible party sites. (December 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
26
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
Remediation
Wastes
Key Words:
Carbon filters; corrective
action; petroleum
contaminated media and
debris
"UST Remediation Wastes"
QUESTION: Petroleum contaminated environmental media and debris
from an underground storage tank (UST) corrective action are excluded from
the definition of hazardous waste if they only exhibit the characteristic of
toxicity for TC constituents D018-D043, per §261.4(b)(10). When activated
carbon filters are used to remediate these wastes, are the filters also
eligible for the exclusion?
ANSWER: The exemption does not apply to spent carbon filters used to
remediate petroleum contaminated UST corrective action wastes. The
carbon filters are newly generated wastes. Whether disposed of or
reclaimed for future reuse, the filters, once spent, would be considered solid
wastes (§261.1(c)(3)). The filters would, therefore, need to be handled as
hazardous waste if they exhibit any characteristic of hazardous waste.
(November 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
Tank
Requirements
Key Words:
Annual; retesting; tank
tightness testing; UST
"Definition of Annual and 'Every Five Years' for Purposes of
Tank Tightness Testing"
QUESTION: Owners/operator of new and existing underground storage
tank (UST) systems are required to provide release detection for spill and
leaks of regulated substances (280.40(a)). As a temporary method of release
detection, owners/operators can use a combination of tank tightness testing
and manual monthly inventory to meet the release detection requirements
(280.41(a)(l)-(2)). For USTs which have not met the performance
standards of §280.20 or §280.21, the owner or operator is required to conduct
monthly inventory control and annual tank tightness testing
(§280.41(a)(2)). For USTs which have met the performance standards,
owners/operators must conduct monthly inventory control and tank
tightness testing every five years. For purposes of these requirements, how
are annual and "every five years" defined?
ANSWER: As explained in a March 1993 memorandum, in terms of tank
tightness testing, annual means once every 12 months, not once every
calendar year (Regulatory Interpretation from Zielgle to UST/LUST
Regional Program Managers, March 17,1993). Further, the date to use
when calculating the 12 month period is the tank tightness testing date and
not the date by which the facility had to comply with release detection.
Section 280.40(c) states that all UST systems must comply with the release
27
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
"Definition of Annual and 'Every Five Years' for Purposes of
Tank Tightness Testing" (cont'd)
detection requirements by December 22 of the appropriate year. Therefore,
the tank tightness test must be first conducted within the 12 month period
before the compliance date, and again, on or before the anniversary date of
the original test (§280.41(a)(2)). For example, if the deadline for meeting
the release detection requirements was December 22,1993, and the UST
system was tested on January 1,1993, the UST system was in compliance
with the release detection requirements. To remain in compliance, the
owner/operator needed to perform the next tank tightness test on or before
January 1,1994.
The definition of the phrase "every five years" is similar. "Every five
years" means on or before the date five years later. For example, if a the
UST system performed its initial tank tightness test on January 1,1993, the
owner/operator would be required to retest the UST system on or before
January 1,1998. (July 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Corrosion protection;
release detection; routinely
contains product; UST
"The Definition of 'Routinely Contains Product' for UST
Regulation"
QUESTION: Owners and operators of new and existing underground storage
tank systems must provide one or more release detection methods that can
detect a leak from any portion of the tank that routinely contains product
(40 CFR §280.40). Similarly, underground components of a tank system that
routinely contain product must be protected from corrosion (§§ 280.20,280.
21, and 280.31). What parts of the tank are considered to "routinely contain
product" for the purposes of these provisions?
ANSWER: EPA defines the areas of the tank that "routinely contain
product" as those sections of the tank and/or piping that are typically
filled. The parts of the tank that frequently carry regulated substances are
susceptible to releases; therefore, leak detection equipment and corrosion
protection are necessary to prevent leaks from these areas (58 FR 37127;
September 23,1988). The equipment at the top of the tank such as vent
lines/fill pipes, and bungs is generally not required to be covered by release
detection or corrosion protection, since these components of the tank system
do not ordinarily hold the regulated substance and will rarely be the source
of a leak, particularly if the spill and overfill requirements at §§280.20
and 280.30 are met (58 FR 37143). (September 1994 Monthly Hotline
Report)
28
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
ARARs
Key Words:
ARARs; generators;
hazardous waste
generators; remedial action;
satellite accumulation
"Satellite Accumulation Standards as ARARs"
QUESTION: During the planning of Superfund remedial activities, any
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) need to be
identified (40 CFR §§300.400(g) and 300.430(d)(3)). Only the substantive
provisions of the ARARs, however, must be complied with during the
activity. The substantive provisions of an ARAR are generally those
requirements that pertain directly to actions or conditions in the
environment, such as incinerator performance standards, land disposal
restrictions (LDR) treatment standards, or hazardous waste storage
standards (OSWER Directive 9234.2-04FS). If the hazardous substance
managed at a National Priorities List (NPL) site meets the definition of a
RCRA hazardous waste, then any applicable substantive portions of the
RCRA regulations will be ARARs.
During a remedial action at an NPL site, a RCRA hazardous waste may be
generated. The generator may wish to accumulate the hazardous waste at
the initial point of generation (i.e., a satellite accumulation area) to avoid
moving small amounts of hazardous waste to the main waste storage area.
Can hazardous waste generated at a Superfund site be kept in satellite
accumulation areas prior to being moved into accumulation tanks or
containers in the main waste storage area?
ANSWER: The substantive provisions of the hazardous waste
accumulation regulations in §262.34, including the satellite accumulation
standards of §262.34(c), are applicable to hazardous waste generated at
Superfund sites (and may be relevant and appropriate for other wastes).
Hazardous waste at Superfund sites may accumulate in satellite areas that
meet the requirements specified in the satellite accumulation standards of
§262.34(c). That rule allows a hazardous waste generator to accumulate up
to 55 gallons of hazardous waste or one quart of acutely hazardous waste at
or near the point of generation where wastes initially accumulate. When
55 gallons of hazardous waste or one quart of acute hazardous waste has
accumulated at the satellite area, the generator has three days to move
the hazardous waste to the main waste storage area at the NPL site (i.e., a
storage area meeting the more stringent design and operation requirements
specified in §262.34(a)). Once the waste leaves the satellite area by being
placed in tanks or containers at the main waste storage area it becomes
subject to the substantive waste storage requirements, such as the secondary
containment standards, of 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265, Subparts I and J (and
other requirements in §262.34(a)). (August 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
29
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Key Words:
ARARs; permit waivers;
private party responses
"Waivers of ARARs and Permits by Private Parties in CERCLA
Response Actions"
QUESTION: CERCLA provides authority for several different persons to
take actions to mitigate or eliminate releases of hazardous substances.
These include actions taken by EPA, states, or tribes under CERCLA
§104(d)(l) response authority, as well as actions taken by persons pursuant
to an administrative order or consent decree issued under CERCLA §§106 or
122. Any private party may also undertake a response action on its own
initiative. While these private party actions are not carried out under
CERCLA authority, the party undertaking the cleanup may seek to recover
its response costs from those responsible for the release under the cost
recovery provisions in CERCLA §107 if the party has complied with the
procedures set forth in the NCP. May private parties conducting response
actions take advantage of any of the regulatory waivers provided by the
NCP?
ANSWER: Private party actions are not eligible for waivers of permits or
applicable requirements. The NCP makes clear that only sites addressed
under CERCLA authority are eligible for waivers (40 CFR
§300.700(c)(5)(iii)). CERCLA requires that remedial actions comply with
Federal cleanup regulations, as well as state environmental or facility
siting laws that are deemed to be applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs; CERCLA §121(d)). Actions at CERCLA sites must
comply only with the substantive requirements of ARARs, which include
cleanup standards and other environmental protection criteria.
Administrative requirements, such as reporting, record keeping, or
permitting, do not need to be complied with at sites, since these
administrative requirements could unnecessarily delay cleanups. CERCLA
§121(e)(l) specifically mandates that no federal, state, or local permits are
required for response actions that occur entirely on-site. This permit waiver
applies to any site addressed under CERCLA removal or remedial
authority.
The National Contingency Plan (NCP) requires compliance with ARARs
both during remedial actions, and, to the extent practicable considering the
exigencies of the situation, during removal actions (40 CFR §300.430(0;
§300.415(0). ARARs may be waived only in certain circumstances
specifically authorized under CERCLA §121(d)(4): if the remedial action
selected is only part of the total remedial action; if compliance with the
ARAR will result in greater risk to human health and the environment; if
compliance is technically impracticable; if the remedial action selected
will attain an equivalent standard of performance to the ARAR; if a state
ARAR is identified that is not consistently applied to other sites; or if the
cost of attaining the ARAR in relation to the added degree of protection
provided would jeopardize remedial actions at other sites. Since private
party actions (other than those subject to an order under CERCLA §106 or a
30
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
"Waivers of ARARs and Permits by Private Parties in CERCLA
Response Actions" (cont'd)
consent decree under CERCLA §122) are not conducted under the authority of
CERCLA, they are not eligible for permit waivers or waivers of applicable
requirements. However, relevant and appropriate requirements may be
waived if the criteria in CERCLA §121(d)(4) are met. (December 1994
Monthly Hotline Report)
Cleanup
Agreements
Key Words:
Consent decree; financial
assurance; PRP; remedial
design/remedial response
(RD/RA)
"Consent Decrees: Assurance of Ability to Complete Work"
QUESTION: A potentially responsible party (PRP) enters into a consent
decree with EPA to perform the remedial design and remedial action
(RD/RA) at a Superfund site. A consent decree is a legally binding
agreement, approved by a judge, which outlines the actions or payments to
be provided by the settling party. Is the PRP required to show that funds
will be available to finance the remediation?
ANSWER: Section 104(a)(l) provides that EPA may allow a PRP to carry
out a response action "[w]hen the President determines that such action will
be done properly and promptly" by such PRP. One method that EPA
utilizes to assure that a PRP will carry out the response action "properly
and promptly" is to require the PRP to provide financial assurance of its
ability to complete the work. For instance, pursuant to the terms of Section
XIV of EPA's Model CERCLA Remedial Design/Remedial Action Consent
Decree (56 FR 30096; July 8,1991; OSWER Directive 9835.17), when EPA
and a PRP enter into a consent decree for remedial design/remedial action
(RD/RA), the settling defendants must provide a specified amount of
financial assurance within 30 days of entry of the consent decree into court
records.
The model RD/RA consent decree provides that the PRP may use:
• a surety bond guaranteeing performance of the work
• a letter(s) of credit equaling the total estimated cost of the work
• a trust fund
• a guarantee to perform the work by one or more parent corporations
that have a substantial business relationship with at least one of
the settling defendants
• a demonstration that one or more of the settling defendants satisfy
the RCRA financial test requirements in 40 CFR §264.143(0.
The model RD/RA consent decree also provides that if EPA finds the
financial assurances provided inadequate, the settling parties must obtain
and present to EPA for approval one of the other forms of financial
31
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Key Words:
Administrative settlements;
PRP; public participation
"Consent Decrees: Assurance of Ability to Complete Work"
(cont'd)
assurance listed above. Pursuant to Section XIV of the model, the inability
of the settling defendants to demonstrate adequate financial assurance to
complete the specified work, however, does not exempt them from
performing any activities required under the consent decree (56 FR 31004).
Although the presumption is that Regions will use the model RD/RA
consent decree provisions, Regions have the flexibility to modify provisions
of the model in developing the proposed consent decree in a particular case;
Headquarter concurrence is required for some modifications. (June 1994
Monthly Hotline Report)
"Public Participation Requirements for Administrative
Settlements"
QUESTION: CERCLA authorizes EPA to enter into settlements requiring
persons, including potentially responsible parties (PRPs), to conduct or pay
for response actions. If EPA and a PRP enter into an administrative
settlement, is the agreement subject to public notice and comment?
ANSWER: Different administrative agreements are subject to different
public notice requirements. Settlements that are entered into pursuant to
CERCLA §122(g) (de minimis settlements) or §122(h) (cost recovery
settlements) are subject to the notice and comment requirements set out in
§122(i). In order to allow adequate time for the public to submit comments,
EPA must publish notice of the proposed settlement in the Federal Register
at least 30 days before the settlement becomes final. The notice required
under §122(i) must identify the facility concerned and the parties to the
proposed settlement. EPA must consider all comments filed in determining
whether to consent to the proposed settlement. If comments disclose facts or
considerations which indicate that the proposed settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate, EPA may withhold consent on all
or part of the settlement (OSWER 9230.0-03C). EPA guidance also directs
Regional staff to provide notice of proposed settlements under §122 by
publishing a press release, providing notice to affected persons, or
advertising in the local newspaper to supplement the Federal Register
notice (OSWER 9837.2B).
Section 122(i) is only applicable to settlements under §§122(g) and (h).
Therefore, if a settlement for a response action, such as a removal or a
remedial investigation and feasibility study, does not include a cost
recovery claim pursuant to §122(h) and/or does not rely on §122(g) de
minimis settlement authority, it is not subject to the notice and comment
provisions of §122(i). The response activities themselves are, however,
32
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
"Public Participation Requirements for Administrative
Settlements" (cont'd)
subject to the public participation requirements of CERCLA §117 that are
set forth in the National Contingency Plan at 40 CFR §§300.415(m) and
300.430(c). (September 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
Environmental
Justice
Key Words:
Brownfields; Environmental
Justice; Executive Order
12898
"OSWER's Environmental Justice Initiative"
QUESTION: From the time Carol Browner assumed her position as
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator in 1993, she has
made the pursuit of environmental justice one of the Agency's top priorities.
Although EPA has made considerable progress in protecting and cleaning up
the environment, many poor and minority communities are burdened by
pollution from threats such as landfills, municipal waste incinerators, and
hazardous waste sites. In response to ,this problem, President Clinton signed
Executive Order 12898 on February 11,1994. This order requires each
federal agency to develop an agency-wide environmental justice strategy to
identify and address adverse human health and environmental effects that
may result from its programs. How will EPA incorporate environmental
justice issues into the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response's
Superfund, RCRA, UST, and EPCRA programs?
ANSWER: Executive Order 12898 requires each federal agency to include
environmental justice as an integral part of its work. An interagency
federal Working Group on Environmental Justice has been created to advise,
coordinate, and provide guidance to each federal agency as it develops its
environmental justice strategy. The Working Group is composed of
representatives from various federal agencies and designated government
officials. Each federal agency is required to provide a copy of their final
environmental justice strategy to the Working Group for review to ensure
that the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of programs,
activities, and policies are undertaken in a consistent manner.
To implement EPA's environmental justice goals, OSWER established an
Environmental Justice Task Force to broaden the discussion of environmental
justice-issues and make recommendations specific to waste programs. The
Task Force met with representatives from citizen groups, industry, Congress,
and state, local, and tribal governments, to identify environmental justice
issues and influence OSWER's environmental justice strategy. On April 28,
1994, OSWER announced the availability of the OSWER Environmental
Justice Task Force Draft Final Report which identified key environmental
justice issues and recommendations. The recommendations outlined in the
report are divided into those which cut across all waste programs
(OSWER-wide) and others primarily directed toward specific regulatory
areas. To implement the environmental justice goals, Elliott Laws,
33
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
"OSWER's Environmental Justice Initiative" (cont'd)
Assistant Administrator of OSWER, issued a memorandum on September 21,
1994, directing Regional offices to integrate environmental justice into all
stages of OSWER policy, guidance, and regulatory development (OSWER
Directive 9200.3-17).
The major OSWER-wide environmental justice recommendations focused on
the following categories: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act; communication,
outreach, and training; economic redevelopment; cumulative risk; contract,
grant, and labor issues; federal interagency issues; and Native American
tribal issues. One of the most significant OSWER-wide recommendations
made is to prevent and respond effectively to Title VI complaints affecting
waste programs. The Task Force also focused substantially on ways to
improve communications, develop trust and involve low-income and
minority communities. Other recommendations applicable to all programs
include assisting in economic redevelopment by expanding the current
"brownfield" redevelopment pilot program aimed at identifying,
decontaminating and redeveloping contaminated properties, identifying
multiple sources of contamination through cumulative risk assessments,
expanding employment of local labor in affected communities through the
use of contractors, and identifying a mechanism to increase technical
assistance to tribal governments and initiating environmental pilot
programs on tribal lands.
The Task Force also made recommendations specific to each OSWER
program area to assess communities affected by OSWER programs and
ensure appropriate emphasis on public participation. The following
sections address the recommendations developed for the Superfund, RCRA,
UST, and EPCRA programs.
The Superfund program includes formal community relations provisions to
encourage public participation throughout the decision making process.
Community relations activities under Superfund include developing a site-
specific community relations plan, establishing an information repository
and administrative record, providing technical assistance, holding public
meetings, and providing public comment periods. Although Superfund
community relations provisions are in place, the Task Force identified
recommendations to incorporate awareness of environmental justice issues
into current procedures.
Under the Superfund program, one of the major environmental justice
recommendations includes developing Community Advisory Groups. These
groups would act as site information clearinghouses for the affected
community, assist in establishing land use expectations, and provide
community support for remedial decisions. The Task Force recommends that
the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) work with the
34
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
"OSWER's Environmental Justice Initiative" (cont'd)
Regions to develop proactive site assessment efforts and incorporate issues
such as multiple exposures and unique risk scenarios into risk assessment
protocol.
The most significant issue that the Task Force identified for the RCRA
program concerned the siting of new hazardous waste facilities.
Environmental justice groups have expressed concern that hazardous waste
facilities may be sited disproportionately in low-income and minority
communities. The Task Force found that under the current RCRA statute
and regulations, EPA has limited authority to determine where a facility
will be sited. Thus, OSWER established a Siting Workgroup in April 1994.
The Workgroup is developing recommendations regarding issues that
impact technical location standards for sensitive geologic areas,
cumulative risk, and expanded public involvement.
The flexibility of the Underground Storage Tank (UST) program allows
states to run programs based on the needs and demands of their own
regulated communities. In the draft report, the Task Force recommends that
states consider environmental justice as they set priorities for UST
compliance programs and cleanup activities. States can apply for grants to
develop outreach materials and compliance programs that address
environmental justice issues specific to their state program.
The states also play a significant role in the implementation of EPCRA.
EPCRA created state emergency response commissions (SERCs) and local
emergency planning committees (LEPCs) to inform the public about the
storage and use of chemicals in their community and to develop emergency
response plans for dealing with accidental releases of chemicals.
Specifically, EPCRA §301 requires that, at a minimum, each LEPC include
representatives from community groups or organizations, elected state or
local officials, law enforcement offices, health officials, hospitals, and
transporters. To ensure that SERCs as well as LEPCs are representative of
the designated areas, recommendations in the Task Force report encourage
the Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO) to
issue letters to SERCs, LEPCs, and Tribal Emergency Response Commissions
(TERCs) explaining ways to address areas with environmental justice
concerns. It is also recommended that EPA expand the availability of
LandView, a PC program that contains information on sources of pollution
from six EPA databases and demographic and economic data from the
Bureau of the Census. LandView can be used to identify geographic areas
and populations that may be subject to a disproportionate burden of
pollution.
The OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force establishes an ambitious
timetable for the development of draft implementation plans in each of
these program areas. The Task Force recommended that each OSWER
program office and Region submit a draft implementation plan in June 1994,
35
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
"OSWER's Environmental Justice Initiative" (cont'd)
outlining an environmental justice strategy specific to its OSWER program.
OSWER will coordinate the implementation of these plans with Agency-
wide efforts to address environmental justice concerns in communities where
OSWER-regulated facilities are located.
Executive Order 12898 requires EPA to submit its finalized environmental
justice strategy to the interagency Working Group by February 1995.
(October 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
Hazardous
Substances and
Reportable
Quantities
"Mineral Spirits and the CERCLA Definition of Hazardous
Substance"
QUESTION: Are mineral spirits considered petroleum derivatives and
therefore excluded from the CERCLA definition of hazardous substance?
ANSWER: CERCLA addresses cleanup of hazardous substance sites and
response to emergencies involving releases of hazardous substances.
CERCLA §101(14) specifically excludes petroleum from the definition of
hazardous substance, consequently petroleum releases are not subject to
CERCLA reporting and liability provisions. The petroleum exclusion
includes "crude oil or any fraction" of petroleum unless the fraction is
specifically listed or designated under the statute. Mineral spirits, also
known as stoddard solvent, naphtha, or white spirits, are usually derived
from refined petroleum distillates from the light end of crude oil but could
possibly be derived from coal. Mineral spirits that are distilled from
petroleum are considered petroleum for the purpose of CERCLA §101(14)
and, therefore, are excluded from the definition of hazardous substance.
Mineral spirits often contain substances, such as toluene, that are CERCLA
hazardous substances. If these substances are present naturally or are
added to petroleum-derived mineral spirits in the normal refining process,
then they would be excluded as petroleum as well. However, hazardous
substances added to mineral spirits outside the refinery process or which
increase in concentration solely as a result of contamination during use are
not part of the "petroleum" and, thus, are not excluded from CERCLA
regulah'on. In such cases EPA may respond to releases of the added
substance, but not the mineral spirits itself.
There are circumstances in which mineral spirits could be regulated as a
hazardous substance. For instance, coal-derived mineral spirits would not
qualify for the petroleum exclusion and potentially could be regulated as a
Key Words:
Hazardous substance;
mineral spirits; petroleum
derivatives
36
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
"Mineral Spirits and the CERCLA Definition of Hazardous
Substance" (cont'd)
hazardous substance. In addition, the exclusion would not apply if the
mineral spirits were "specifically listed or designated" under one of the
provisions cited in §101(14) of CERCLA. (February 1994 Monthly Hotline
Report)
Key Words:
Hazardous substance;
release; reportable quantity
"Reportable Quantity Adjustments Under CERCLA and the
CWA"
QUESTION: In CERCLA §102, Congress established reporting requirements
for hazardous substances released to the environment, and directed EPA to
assign and adjust their applicable reportable quantities. CERCLA's
definition of hazardous substance includes any substances designated
pursuant to §311(b)(2)(A) of the CWA. A substance designated pursuant to
the CWA is assigned a reportable quantity (RQ) based on aquatic toxicity
criteria. This substance is automatically included as a CERCLA hazardous
substance, with the CWA RQ serving as the CERCLA statutory RQ. To
determine the final RQ, EPA evaluates the possibility of harm from a
release of the hazardous substance, and may adjust the CERCLA RQ based
on scientific and technical criteria including ignitability, reactivity,
chronic toxicity, and potential carcinogenicity. The adjustment of a
CERCLA RQ could potentially cause a conflict between the CERCLA and
CWA reporting thresholds. How is this conflict resolved?
ANSWER: When an RQ is adjusted under CERCLA the applicable RQ
under the CWA is also adjusted so that the RQs under both programs are
always consistent. In the April 4,1985, final rule, EPA added specific
regulatory language to the CWA regulations at 40 CFR §117.3 and the
CERCLA regulations at 40 CFR §302.4 to ensure that RQs adjusted under
CERCLA would be similarly adjusted for the CWA requirements (50 FR
13456,13473). A release is reportable under CERCLA if an RQ of a
hazardous substance is released to the environment within a twenty-four
hour period. Reporting under the CWA is required when an RQ of a
substance is released to navigable waters within a twenty-four hour period.
Because "releases to navigable waters" is a subset of "releases to the
environment" (CERCLA §101'(8)), different RQs would render notification
requirements more confusing for the regulated community.
EPA employs an RQ adjustment procedure to ensure that RQs are always
consistent. An example of this procedure can be found in the rule that
adjusted the reportable quantities (RQs) for lead metal, lead compounds,
lead-containing hazardous wastes, and methyl isocyanate (58 FR 35314;
June 30,1993). Lead acetate, designated under CWA §311, received a CWA
RQ of 5000 pounds. The 5000 pound RQ acted as the statutory CERCLA RQ
until the June 30,1993, rule adjusted it to 10 pounds (58 FR 35314). The 10
37
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
National
Priorities List
Key Words:
Hazard Ranking System
(HRS); National Priorities
List (NPL); response
process
"Reportable Quantity Adjustments Under CERCLA and the
CWA" (cont'd)
pound RQ is the final RQ for purpose of both CERCLA and CWA reporting.
In the same rule, EPA adjusted the final CERCLA RQ for lead chloride.
This substance had been evaluated using CERCLA criteria and received a
final RQ of 100 pounds (51 FR 34535,34542; September 29,1986). New data
on the chronic toxicity of lead, however, prompted EPA to readjust the RQ
to 10 pounds. The same methodology for making RQs consistent between
CERCLA and the CWA applies to this situation, so that the 10 pound RQ
replaces the 100 pound RQ under both programs. When a hazardous
substance is released to navigable waters, one report to the NRC will
satisfy the reporting requirements of CERCLA and the CWA. (May 1994
Monthly Hotline Report)
"National Priorities List Format"
QUESTION: In accordance with §300.425(d)(4) of the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) and CERCLA §105(a)(8)(B), at least once each
year EPA must update the Federal Register notice containing the revised
Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). Beginning in 1984, EPA proposed
federal facility sites for the NPL, and in 1987 (56 FR 27620) EPA divided
the NPL into federal and non-federal sections — each organized by rank
according to Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scores. Sites in the General
Superfund Section were listed sequentially by HRS score in groups of 50,
with Group 1 containing the sites with the 50 highest HRS scores, while
sites in the Federal Facilities Section were assigned numbers corresponding
to the HRS-based groups delineated in the General Superfund Section (e.g.,
EPA assigned a "2" to any Federal site with an HRS score falling between
the highest and lowest scores from Group 2 of the General Superfund
Section). As of October 14,1992 (57 FR 47180), EPA began to arrange both
sections of the NPL alphabetically by state and ceased to list the sites by
rank in Appendix B of the Federal Register. Why did EPA change the
format of the NPL?
ANSWER: EPA altered the HRS-based format of the NPL primarily to
make the list easier to use. Citizens typically want to know whether a
given site in a certain state is on the list. As the NPL grew from the
original 406 to over 1,200 sites, it became increasingly difficult to find sites
based on name and location alone. EPA therefore opted to change the NPL
format and publish the list alphabetically by state rather than
sequentially by HRS score (57 FR 47180,47184; October 14,1992). The
Agency has not, however, eliminated the HRS score information from NPL
rulemakings. The preamble to each NPL proposal and final rule now
identifies the HRS-based group into which each new site falls. For
38
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
"National Priorities List Format" (cont'd)
instance, a "2" would indicate that a site's HRS rank falls between 51 and
100.
In addition to making the NPL easier to use, the new format also more
accurately reflects the roles of the HRS and the NPL in the Superfund
program. EPA's Hazard Ranking System is one of the three methods used to
determine a site's eligibility for inclusion on the Superfund National
Priorities List. EPA uses the HRS to determine, based on the relative
threat associated with actual or potential releases of hazardous substances
from a site, whether or not the site should be placed on the NPL and thus
qualify for a fund-financed remedial response (§300.425(b)). HRS scores
alone do not determine the order in which sites will be addressed. The
results of remedial investigation/feasibility studies (RI/FSs), the outcome
of negotiations between EPA and potentially responsible parties, the
relative urgency of response actions, and other factors also play a role in
the establishment of funding and response priorities (57 FR 47183; October
14,1992). EPA's decision to change the NPL format and list sites
alphabetically by state instead of by HRS rank reflects the fact that the
HRS simply serves as a preliminary screening device, and that the
fundamental purpose of the NPL is to let the public know which sites may
warrant a remedial action, rather than to indicate EPA's cleanup priorities
or indicate absolute risk. Although the NPL updates printed in the
Federal Register are now listed by state, the list of NPL sites by HRS rank
is still available upon request to EPA. (October 1994 Monthly Hotline
Report)
39
-------
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
Emergency
Planning and
Release
Notification
Key Words:
By-product; coincidental
generation; produce;
release
"Coincidental Production of Hazardous Chemicals Requires
Reporting Under EPCRA §304"
QUESTION: Pursuant to EPCRA §304(a)(2), the owner or operator of a
facility must report to the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC)
and the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) any releases of
extremely hazardous substances (EHSs) or CERCLA hazardous substances
which equal or exceed established reportable quantities (RQs). This
requirement only applies, however, to owners and operators of facilities at
which hazardous chemicals are produced, used, or stored. For purposes of
EPCRA emergency release notification, is a hazardous chemical considered
"produced" if it is generated solely as a by-product which is immediately
released to the air? Does the facility become subject to release reporting
requirements even if this by-product is the only hazardous chemical present
on-site?
ANSWER: Generation of a hazardous chemical as a by-product is
considered "production" under EPCRA §304(a)(2), and any facility
generating a hazardous chemical in this manner must evaluate EHS and
CERCLA hazardous substance releases for EPCRA notification purposes.
EPA considers the term "produce" to be synonymous with "manufacture"
under EPCRA §313, and according to the definition in 40 CFR §372.3,
manufacturing includes coincidental generation of a chemical by-product
during the production, processing, use, or disposal of another chemical
substance or mixture. Releasing the chemical by-product to the air
immediately following production in no way alleviates the facility's
reporting burden. Further, when a facility produces substances which
themselves are not hazardous chemicals, but which after release rapidly
form hazardous chemicals in the environment, the hazardous chemicals are
also considered "produced" for purposes of EPCRA emergency release
notification (51 FR 34534; September 29,1986). Therefore, facilities at
which hazardous chemicals are produced as a by-product of facility
operations, including those rapidly formed in the environment subsequent to
their release, are required to notify the SERC and LEPC of any EHS or
CERCLA hazardous substance release which equals or exceeds an RQ
within a 24-hour period. {April 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
41
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
Key Words:
Emergency notification;
facility; release
"Notification Requirements for an Emergency Release on a
Public Roadway"
QUESTION: The EPCRA emergency notification regulations require
facility owners and operators to immediately report releases into the
environment of extremely hazardous substances or CERCLA hazardous
substances if the releases exceed specific reportable quantities (40 CFR
§355.40(a)). The notification must be provided to the appropriate State
Emergency Response Commission and Local Emergency Planning Committee,
except in the event of a transportation-related release where only 911
notification is required. The EPCRA emergency notification requirements
do not apply when a release generates no potential for exposure to persons
outside the boundaries of a facility (40 CFR §355.40(a)(2)(i». If there is a
release from a facility onto a public roadway that runs through the
facility, will that release be reportable?
ANSWER: A release onto a public roadway must be reported under 40 CFR
§355.40(a), since the release may result in exposure to persons outside the
boundaries of the facility, (i.e., on the public roadway). A release is
defined as "any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying,
discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the
environment" of designated substances (EPCRA §329(8)). The environment
includes, "water, air and land" (EPCRA §329(2)). Therefore, a release into
the environment, as defined in EPCRA §329, onto a public roadway is
potentially a reportable release.
There is, however, a limited exemption under EPCRA that does not require
reporting of any release which results in exposure to persons solely within
the boundaries of a facility (40 CFR §355.40(a)(2)(i)). The definition of
facility includes "all buildings, equipment, structures, and other stationary
items that are located on a single site or on contiguous or adjacent sites and
which are owned and operated by the same person" (40 CFR §355.20). Since
the public roadway is not owned or operated by the facility that spans it,
the roadway itself is not part of the facility. As a result there is exposure
to persons outside the facility. Therefore, the exemption for the reporting
of releases that result in exposure to persons solely within the boundaries of
a facility does not apply. (June 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
42
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
Key Words:
Extremely Hazardous
Substance (EHS); molten;
TPQ
"Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ) Determination for
Substances in Molten Form"
QUESTION: Facilities are subject to emergency planning and notification
requirements under EPCRA (also known as SARA Title III) when an
extremely hazardous substance (EHS) is present at a facility in an amount
equal to or in excess of its TPQ. For some EHSs that are solids, two TPQs are
given (e.g., 500/10,000 pounds). The lower quantity applies only if the
solid exists in powder form or is handled in solution or molten form (40 CFR
§355.30(e)(2)(i)). Otherwise, the 10,000-pound TPQ applies. The amount
of substance in molten form must be multiplied by 0.3 to determine whether
the lower TPQ is met (40 CFR §355.30(e)(2)(iv)). What is the significance
of multiplying by the fraction 0.3 and how was this fraction chosen?
ANSWER: Emergency planning for EHSs under EPCRA is based on
estimates of the quantity of an EHS released to the air. One of the factors
that affect the quantity that actually becomes airborne is the physical
state of the substance. At molten temperatures, significant amounts of
vapor are not likely to be generated. The Agency examined the fraction of
volatilization expected from the solids on the EHS list and found that the
amount of chemical that actually volatilizes ranges from 0.008 to 0.3
pounds per minute per pound spilled. Since information was not available
for all the solids on the EHS list, the Agency chose to incorporate the more
conservative fraction of 0.3 for TPQ determination. As a result, a facility
that handles an EHS in molten form must multiply the amount of molten
material by 0.3 to determine the weight applied toward the TPQ. (July
1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Emergency planning;
molten; solution
"Description of the Terms 'Molten' and 'In Solution' Under
EPCRA §302"
QUESTION: To assist state and local officials in the development of
emergency response plans, EPA requires the owner or operator of each
facility at which an extremely hazardous substance (EHS) is present in an
amount equal to or exceeding its threshold planning quantity (TPQ) to
notify the State Emergency Response Commission (EPCRA §302). The list
of EHSs (found in 40 CFR Part 355, Appendices A and B) whose presence
may trigger an emergency planning notification indicates each chemical's
threshold planning quantity. EHSs which are in solid form under standard
conditions have two TPQs: a lower threshold, which applies to powders
with a particle size less than 100 microns, certain reactive solids,
chemicals in molten form, and solids in solution; and an upper threshold,
which applies to all other forms of the chemical (40 CFR §355.30(e)).
43
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
"Description of the Terms 'Molten' and 'In Solution' Under
EPCRA §302" (cont'd)
What does EPA mean by the terms "molten" and "in solution" when used to
describe extremely hazardous substances, and how are these forms
quantified for comparison to the appropriate threshold planning quantity?
ANSWER: The term "molten" denotes the liquid form of an EHS which is a
solid at standard temperature and pressure. EPA requires facilities to
account for the potential volatility of molten chemicals by applying the
lower of the two TPQs listed in 40 CFR Part 355, Appendices A and B, to
EHSs present in molten form. Facilities need not, however, compare the
entire weight of a molten chemical to the lower TPQ. The Agency
examined the fraction of volatilization expected for the solids on the list
and found that it ranges from 0.3 to 0.008 pounds/minute per pound spilled.
Since data were not available for all solids and to be conservative, the
Agency chose to incorporate the 0.3 fraction into the reporting requirements
(59 FR 51819; October 12,1994). To determine if the presence of a molten
EHS triggers an emergency planning notification, the facility owner or
operator should therefore multiply the weight in molten form by 0.3 and
compare the resulting figure to the lower TPQ for the chemical in question
(40 CFR §355.30(e)(2)(iv».
A solid EHS is present "in solution" when dissolved in a liquid. When
determining if the presence of a dissolved EHS triggers an emergency
planning notification, the facility owner or operator should compare the
weight of the solid in solution (rather than the entire weight of the
solution) to the lower TPQ for the chemical in question (40 CFR
§355.30(e)(2)(iii)). (December 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
Hazardous
Chemical
Inventory
Reporting
"Medical Exclusion Under EPCRA §§311 and 312 as it Applies
to Doctors' Offices and Pharmacies"
QUESTION: EPCRA §§311 and 312 require facility owners or operators to
file inventory reports detailing the name, amount, and location of
hazardous chemicals present at a facility in excess of the established
threshold quantities. Hazardous chemicals are defined by OSHA's
Hazard Communication Standard, found at 29 CFR §1910.1200(c), which
requires facility owners or operators to maintain material safety data
sheets for all hazardous chemicals present at the facility. EPCRA
§311(e)(4) and 40 CFR §370.2 exclude from the definition of hazardous
Key Words:
Hazardous chemical
reporting; medical
exclusion; technically
qualified individual
44
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
"Medical Exclusion Under EPCRA §§311 and 312 as it Applies
to Doctors' Offices and Pharmacies" (cont'd)
chemical, "any substance to the extent that it is used in a research
laboratory or a hospital or other medical facility under the direct
supervision of a technically qualified individual." The EPCRA program
has adopted the definition of a technically qualified individual from the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations found at 40 CFR
§720.3(ee); the term includes any person who, because of education,
training, or experience is capable of understanding the health and
environmental risks associated with the chemical under the individual's
supervision. Does the EPCRA medical exclusion apply to chemicals stored
and used at doctors' offices and pharmacies?
ANSWER:In order to be excluded from the definition of hazardous
chemical, a substance must be both under the supervision of a technically
qualified individual and present at a medical facility. EPA interprets
technically qualified individual to refer to those persons who are
adequately trained in the research or medical fields, including doctors,
nurses, and pharmacists. Further, both doctors' offices and pharmacies are
considered medical facilities. When a substance is used by a physician or a
pharmacist at either a doctors' office or a pharmacy, it does not meet the
definition of a hazardous chemical and therefore should not be included in
threshold determinations under §§311 and 312. The exclusion also applies
to the storage of chemicals at these facilities prior to their use. The
medical exclusion applies only to the specific substances meeting the above
criteria, and does not exempt the facility from the requirements of §§311
and 312; any hazardous chemicals not meeting an exclusion must be applied
toward the inventory threshold. Other exclusions commonly applicable to
doctors' offices and pharmacies include those found at EPCRA §311(e)(l)
and (3) exempting chemicals which are present in consumer form or which
are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. (February 1994
Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Agricultural exemption;
hazardous chemical
reporting
"Aquaculture Exemption for EPCRA §§311 and 312"
QUESTION: EPCRA §§311 and 312 require facility owners or operators to
submit Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) and annual inventory reports
for any hazardous chemical subject to OSHA's Hazard Communication
Standard (29 CFR §1910.1200(c)) which is present at a facility above a
reportable threshold (40 CFR §370.20(b)). An owner or operator does not
have to count toward threshold determinations the amount of a chemical
exempt from the definition of a hazardous chemical under EPCRA §311(e)
and 40 CFR §370.2. Pursuant to 40 CFR §370.2, any substance used in routine
agricultural operations is exempt from the definition of hazardous
45
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
"Aquaculture Exemption for EPCRA §§311 and 312" (cont'd)
chemical and therefore is not included in threshold determinations for
reporting purposes. Would this agricultural exemption apply to chemicals
used for fish farming (i.e., aquaculture)?
ANSWER: As defined by the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 in 16 U.S.C.
§2802(1), aquaculture involves the propagation and rearing of aquatic
species in controlled or selected environments, including, but not limited to,
ocean ranching. The agricultural exemption under EPCRA §§311 and 312
applies to a wide range of growing operations including livestock
production, nurseries, and other horticultural operations (52 FR 38344,
October 15,1987). Because aquaculture involves livestock and vegetation
production, EPA considers it a type of agriculture, and thus the chemicals
used for growing and breeding fish and aquatic plants in an aquacultural
operation are excluded from EPCRA §§311 and 312 reporting requirements.
(March 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
"MSDS Submission for Leaded and Unleaded Gasoline"
QUESTION: A service station stores both leaded and unleaded gasoline on-
site. For the purpose of EPCRA §311 hazardous chemical inventory
reporting, is the owner/operator of the facility required to submit separate
material safety data sheets (MSDS) for each type of gasoline, or is a single
MSDS sufficient?
ANSWER: Section 311 of EPCRA requires the owner/operator of a facility
to submit a MSDS to the state and local authorities for each hazardous
chemical present at the facility above appropriate thresholds. A
hazardous chemical is defined under Occupational Safety and Health Act
(OSHA) regulations codified at 40 CFR §1910.1200(c) as any chemical
which poses a physical or health hazard. This definition also applies to
EPCRA §§311 and 312. A facility owner or operator is required under
OSHA to prepare and maintain a MSDS for each hazardous chemical
present on-site. The OSHA Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR
§1910.1200(g)(4) specifies, however, that where complex mixtures have
similar hazards and contents, it is sufficient to prepare one MSDS to apply
to all similar mixtures. OSHA interprets this provision to permit the
preparation of a single MSDS to cover all blends of leaded and unleaded
gasoline, provided that hazards associated only with leaded gasoline, or
only with unleaded gasoline, are identified separately on the MSDS.
Consequently, the requirements under EPCRA §311 can be met either by
submitting a separate MSDS for each type of gasoline if available, or by
submitting one MSDS for all gasoline blends at the facility. (April 1994
Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Gasoline; hazardous
chemical reporting;
mixtures; MSDS
46
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
Key Words:
Consumer product
exemption; hazardous
chemical reporting; paint
"Paint Mixing and the Consumer Product Exemption"
QUESTION: A store sells paint in five-gallon cans to the general public.
Customers may purchase the paint as received from the manufacturer, or
they may request a custom shade of paint. To attain the customer's desired
shade, store employees will mix two or more base colors. This process
involves opening the cans, mixing the colors together, and pouring the
custom-made shade into a five-gallon can. EPCRA §§311 and 312 require
facility owners and operators to report all hazardous chemicals as defined
by 29 CFR §1910.1200(c) that exceed the applicable thresholds found in 40
CFR §370.20(b). EPCRA §311(e)(3) excludes from the definition of
hazardous chemical any substance to the extent it is used for personal,
family, or household purposes, or is present in the same form and
concentration as a product packaged for distribution and use by the general
public. For reporting under EPCRA §§311 and 312, will this paint qualify
for the consumer product exemption found in EPCRA §311(e)(3), or must the
store owner or operator report on the custom-mixed paint since it is
processed to achieve the final form purchased by the consumer?
ANSWER: The paint is exempt from the definition of hazardous chemical
under the consumer product exemption in 40 CFR §370.2 regardless of
whether it is mixed on the premises or purchased by the consumer in the
same form the store received it. Any substance that is found in the same
form and concentration as a product packaged for general distribution
qualifies for this exemption (52 FR 38344,38348; October 15,1987). Since
both the manufacturers premixed paint and the store's custom-made
shades are in the same form and concentration as products packaged for
distribution by the general public (indeed, they are in such products), none
of the chemicals found in either type of paint are reportable under EPCRA
§§311 and 312. (June 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Hazardous chemical
reporting; inventory
reporting; local fire
department; MSDS
"Submission of Data to On-Site Fire Departments under EPCRA
§§311 and 312"
QUESTION: EPCRA §§311 and 312 apply to owners or operators of any
facility that is required to have available or prepare a material safety
data sheet (MSDS) for an OSHA-defined hazardous chemical present at
the facility at any one time in amounts equal to or greater than established
thresholds. If a facility meets the criteria, its owners or operators must file
MSDSs and Tier I and II inventory forms with their State Emergency
Response Commission, their Local Emergency Planning Committee, and
their local fire department. May a facility which maintains an on-site fire
department provide the information to that entity in lieu of making it
available to the public fire department?
47
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
"Submission of Data to On-Site Fire Departments under EPCRA
§§311 and 312"
ANSWER: Whichever fire department may have responsibility for the
facility, regardless of its affiliation, should receive the reports. The
purpose of the requirement to provide local fire departments with MSDS
and inventory information is to better enable them to respond to emergency
situations. If the on-site fire department is primarily responsible for
responding to such an incident, it is appropriate that covered facilities
forward the required information to that department. Facility owners or
operators should also forward copies of MSDSs and Tier forms to any other
fire department that might be expected to respond to a chemical emergency
at the facility. (August 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
Toxic Chemical
Release
Inventory
"Recycle/Reuse of Toxic Chemicals In Closed-Loop
Refrigeration Systems under EPCRA §313"
Key Words:
Closed-loop refrigeration;
recycling; toxic chemicals;
TRI
QUESTION: Many facilities maintain recycle/reuse operations such as
closed-loop refrigeration systems. If a facility utilizes 15,000 pounds of
ammonia as a coolant in a closed-loop refrigeration system, this amount of
the toxic chemical is considered otherwise used under EPCRA §313 because
the ammonia is not incorporated into the final product. According to
Directive #7 of Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Questions and Answers.
Revised 1990 Version, only the amount of a toxic chemical added to a
refrigeration system during the reporting year must be included in the
threshold calculation. If the facility replaces its refrigeration system but
uses the same ammonia to maintain the new system, must the transferred
ammonia be considered otherwise used and therefore included in threshold
determinations for EPCRA §313 reporting?
ANSWER: The amount of toxic chemical which must be applied toward
the otherwise use threshold would include any quantity added as a result
of start-up or total replacement of the contents of the recycle/reuse
operation, regardless of whether the toxic chemical previously had been
used on site in a closed-loop system. If a recycle/reuse system is completely
empty and is started up during the year, a facility must base its threshold
determination on the total amount initially needed to charge the system
plus any amount which is subsequently added to the system during the year.
Therefore, if a facility introduces 15,000 pounds of ammonia into a closed-
loop system, regardless of the chemical's origin, the 10,000-pound
threshold is exceeded and the facility would indicate in section 3.3 of the
Form R that the ammonia is otherwise used. (January 1994 Monthly
Hotline Report)
48
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
"Revisions to the Toxic Chemicals List under EPCRA §313"
Key Words:
Calendar year; Section 313;
petitions; toxic chemical list;
TRI
QUESTION: EPCRA §313(d) provides for the addition and deletion of
chemicals to and from the list of toxic chemicals found at 40 CFR §372.65.
According to EPCRA §313(d)(4), any revision to the list made on or after
January 1 and before December 1 of any calendar year will take effect
beginning with the next calendar year. Any revision made on or after
December 1 and before January 1 of the next calendar year will take effect
beginning with the calendar year following the next calendar year. While
all additions to the list are subject to these provisions, the Agency has not
applied the delayed effective dates specified in EPCRA §313(d)(4) for any
rules deleting chemicals from the EPCRA §313 list. To date, the
promulgated final rules delisting chemicals have been effective on the date
of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Moreover, when
EPA has issued the final rule before July 1, the Agency has relieved
facilities of their reporting obligation for the previous calendar year in
addition to obviating future reporting. Given the statutory language, why
has EPA not promulgated a delayed effective date for those actions
deleting substances from the list of toxic chemicals?
ANSWER: Although the statutory language outlines a delayed effective
date provision, EPA interprets EPCRA §313(d)(4) to apply only to actions
which add to the list of toxic chemicals. As explained in the final rule
deleting di-n-octyl phthalate from the EPCRA §313 list, published on
October 5,1993 (58 PR 51785), the Agency believes that it may, in its
discretion, make deletions effective immediately upon the determination
that a chemical does not satisfy the listing criteria found at EPCRA
§313(d)(2). Since a deletion from the list alleviates a regulatory burden,
and 5 U.S.C. §553(d)(l) permits any substantive rule which relieves a
restriction to take effect without delay, EPA is authorized to delete
chemicals from the list effective immediately. The Agency believes that
the purpose of EPCRA §313(d)(4) is to provide facilities with adequate
time to incorporate newly listed chemicals into their data collection
processes. Because facilities can immediately cease reporting on a delisted
chemical, and since the chemical no longer satisfies the listing criteria,
EPA has not specified a delayed effective date for deletions from the list of
toxic chemicals under EPCRA §313. (April 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
49
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
Key Words:
Isomer; toxic chemical list;
toxic release inventory (TRI)
"Isomer Reporting Under EPCRA §313"
QUESTION: Xylene is a chemical that can exist as three different isomers:
ortho-, meta-, and para-xylene. A facility processes two of the three
isomers in separate streams, along with an additional stream containing a
mixture of xylene isomers of unknown concentrations. For the purposes of
reporting under EPCRA §313, how would the facility determine if an
activity threshold has been exceeded? How would the facility report the
xylene on the Form R?
ANSWER: The toxic chemical list at 40 CFR §372.65, contains four xylene
listings (mixed isomers, ortho-, meta-, and para-xylene) which appear
with their own CAS number. The CAS number specified for xylene (mixed
isomers), 1330-20-7, apply to any combination of xylene isomers. The
facility must make separate threshold determinations for each individual
chemical listed in §372.65. If the thresholds are not exceeded for any of the
individual xylene listings at §372.65, then the facility would not have to
report on any releases of xylene at the facility. For example, if the facility
processes, in separate streams, 10,000 pounds of ortho-xylene (CAS number
95-47-6), 10,000 pounds of para-xylene (CAS number 106-42-3), and 10,000
pounds of xylene where the isomers are mixed in unknown concentrations
(CAS number 1330-20-7), a threshold is not exceeded for any of the xylene
listings. Therefore, no reports for xylene would be required. The quantities
of the individual xylene listings processed by the facility should not be
aggregated for the purposes of making threshold determinations.
If the thresholds are exceeded for two or more of the individual isomer
xylene listings, the facility has two choices when filling out the Form R.
According to the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Questions and Answers.
the facility may file separate Form Rs for each isomer or unique isomer
mixture listed in §372.65, or the facility may file one combined report. For
example, the facility processes, in separate streams, 30,000 pounds of ortho-
xylene (CAS number 95-47-6), 30,000 pounds of para-xylene (CAS number
106-42-3), and 30,000 pounds of xylene where the isomers are mixed in
unknown concentrations. Because the activity threshold for each of the
three xylene listings is exceeded independently, the facility can report
releases from each of three listings separately on three different Form Rs
(one for ortho-xylene, one for para-xylene, and one for the mixed isomers) or
the facility can report all xylene releases on one Form R as xylene (mixed
isomers). (May 1994 Monthly Hotline Report)
50
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
"EPCRA §313 Reporting of Ammonia Processed in Cheese
Products"
Key Words:
Distribution in commerce;
process; TRI
QUESTION: According to EPCRA §313, facilities which manufacture,
process, or otherwise use toxic chemicals listed at 40 CFR §372.65 above
threshold amounts are required to report releases, transfers, and source
reduction activities associated with such chemical activity. Ammonia
(CAS No. 7664-41-7), an EPCRA §313 toxic chemical, is used at a
manufacturing facility to adjust pH levels in cheese products. During this
process, the ammonia is converted into a salt which remains with the final
cheese product. The cheese is then distributed in commerce. Is this
considered a covered activity under EPCRA §313 and, if so, how should it be
reported on the Form R?
ANSWER: Ammonia used in this manner is considered processed under
EPCRA §313 and must be applied toward that threshold. The definition of
process found at 40 CFR §372.3 affirms that a toxic chemical prepared for
distribution in commerce is a reportable activity even if it is distributed in
a different form or physical state from that in which it was originally
received. All of the ammonia incorporated into the cheese is processed as a
reactant and should be reported as such on the Form R. (October 1994
Monthly Hotline Report)
51
-------
-------
PART 2: FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARIES
The Federal Register summaries presented in this section include the major changes to
40 CFR regulations implementing RCRA, Superfund, UST, and the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act during 1994. Both proposed and final rules with significant
impact on these programs are included. This is not a complete list of all applicable FR
notices for the year. For a comprehensive review of FR notices, the reader may wish to
obtain FR reference materials or a subscription service. The summaries in this section are
included to provide a convenient and easy-to-use overview.
The Federal Register summaries are grouped by program area and status (proposed, final)
and presented chronologically within each section. Complete citations are provided for
reference.
53
-------
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY
ACT (RCRA)
Proposed
Rules
Citation:
February 10, 1994
(59 £B 6231)
"General Services Acquisition Regulation; Contractor
Identification of Products with Environmental Attributes"
SUMMARY: EPA requested comments on a proposed revision to the General
Services Administration Acquisition Regulation. The proposed revision
requires multiple award schedule contractors to identify supplies
containing recovered materials, and to describe the environmental benefits
associated with them. Comments must be submitted on or before April 11,
1994.
Citation:
March 1, 1994
(59 £B 9808)
"Carbamate Production Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to amend the regulations for hazardous waste
management under RCRA by listing as hazardous six wastes generated
during the production of carbamates. The Agency is also proposing to add
four generic groups and 70 specific chemicals to the list of commercial
chemical products that are hazardous wastes when discarded. These
wastes proposed for listing as hazardous waste are also proposed to be
listed as CERCLA hazardous substances. Comments must be submitted on or
before May 2,1994.
Citation:
April 20, 1994
(59 Ffi18852)
"Comprehensive Guideline for Procurement of Products
Containing Recovered Materials"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed a Comprehensive Procurement Guideline
designating items that are or can be made with recovered materials. This
proposed rule implements RCRA §6002(e). Comments must be submitted on
or before June 20,1994.
Citation:
May 11,1994
(59 £B 24530)
"Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Organobromine
Production Waste"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to amend RCRA regulations by listing as
hazardous waste solids and filter cartridges from the production of 2,4,6-
tribromophenol. The Agency also proposed to add 2,4,6-tribromophenol to
the list of commercial chemical products that are hazardous wastes when
discarded. Comments must be submitted on or before July 11,1994.
55
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Proposed
Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
June 2,1994
(59 £E 28680)
"RCRA Expanded Public Participation and Revisions to
Combustion Permitting Procedures"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to amend RCRA regulations governing the
permitting of hazardous waste management facilities. The proposed rule
expands the opportunities for public involvement by allowing public
participation during more portions of the permitting process than are
currently allowed. The rule also proposes to amend procedures for interim
status combustion facilities. Comments must be submitted on or before
August 1,1994.
Citation:
July 27, 1994
(59 £B 38288)
"Hazardous Waste
Lamps"
Management System; Mercury-Containing
SUMMARY: EPA proposed two alternative approaches for the
management of mercury-containing lamps. First is a proposal to
conditionally exclude mercury lamps from regulation as hazardous waste.
The second approach would add mercury lamps to EPA's Universal Waste
Proposal (February 11,1993; 58 FR 8102). Comments must be submitted on or
before September 26,1994.
Citation:
October 12, 1994
(59 EB 51523)
"Financial Assurance Mechanisms"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to amend the financial assurance regulations
under RCRA in two program areas. With regard to municipal solid waste
landfills under Subtitle D, the Agency proposed to add a financial test for
use by corporate owners and operators, and a guarantee for use by firms that
wish to guarantee the costs for an owner or operator. Second, EPA proposed
to modify the domestic asset component of the corporate financial test for
hazardous waste TSD facilities under Subtitle C.
Citation:
October 18,1994
(59 £B 52498)
"Financial Assurance; Municipal Solid Waste Landfills"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to amend the federal criteria for municipal
solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) under Subtitle D of RCRA by delaying the
effective date of Subpart G, Financial Assurance, until April 9,1996.
Comments must be received by December 19,1994.
56
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Proposed
Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
Novembers, 1994
(59 £B 55778)
"Closed and Closing Hazardous Waste Management Facilities"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to amend the regulations under RCRA in two
areas. First, the Agency proposed to remove the current requirement for
facilities to obtain a post-closure permit and instead to allow the Agency to
use alternative authorities to address facilities with units requiring post-
closure care. Second, EPA proposed to amend the regulations governing
state authorization to require authorized states to adopt, as a component of
an adequate enforcement program, authority to address corrective action at
interim status facilities. This action also solicits comment on issues related
to closure and corrective action at hazardous waste management facilities.
Comments must be received by January 9,1995.
Citation:
December 22, 1994
(59 £B 66072)
"Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Wastes"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to list as hazardous waste under RCRA,
Subtitle C, five wastes generated during the production of dyes and
pigments. The agency declined to list six other wastes from the dye and
pigment industry, and deferred listing of three other wastes. The Agency
also proposed to designate as CERCLA Hazardous Substances the wastes
proposed for listing, without taking action to revise the statutory one-
pound Reportable Quantity. Comments must be received on or before March
22,1995. Comments received after that date will be marked "late" and
may not be considered. Requests for a public hearing on this issue must be
received on or before January 5,1995.
Citation:
December 29, 1994
(59 £B 67256)
"Hazardous Waste Management; Slag Residues Derived from
High Temperature Metal Recovery (HTMR) Treatment of K061,
K062, and F006 Wastes"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to allow materials resulting from the treatment
of certain hazardous wastes to be used as product in road construction and as
anti-skidding or deicing material on road surfaces. These materials are
residues, or slags, generated from the treatment of pollution control dusts
resulting from scrap metal recycling. This action would designate these
treated materials as nonhazardous and allow the above uses, but only if the
toxic metals in the waste are reduced to safe levels by treatment. EPA will
accept public comments on this rule no later than February 13,1995.
57
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
Citation:
Januarys, 1994
(59£B86)
"Illinois; Final Determination of Adequacy of State/Tribal
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit Program"
SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCRA §4005(c)(l)(C), EPA gave notice of a final
determination of full program adequacy for Illinois' municipal solid waste
landfill permit program. The determination of adequacy is effective
January 3,1994.
Citation:
January 4,1994
(59EB458)
"Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Wastes from
Wood Surface Protection"
SUMMARY: EPA issued a final hazardous waste listing determination for
wastes generated from the use of chlorophenolic formulations in wood
surface protection processes. In response to public comments on the proposed
rule of April 27,1993, EPA decided not to list wastes from the use of
chlorophenolic formulations in wood surface protection processes. This
final rule also added sodium and potassium salts of pentachlorophenol and
tetrachlorophenol to 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VIII. This rule is effective
January 4,1994.
Citation:
February 18,1994
(59 £B 8362)
"Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Treatability
Studies Sample Exclusion"
SUMMARY: EPA increased the quantity of contaminated media which are
conditionally exempt from Subtitle C regulation when used in conducting
treatability studies. This rule is effective February 18,1994.
Citation:
March 1,1994
(59 £B 9866)
"Degradable Plastic Ring Rule"
SUMMARY: EPA issued a final rule in response to Public Law 100-556,
"Degradable Plastic Ring Carriers," which provides that EPA shall
require plastic ring carriers be made of degradable material. This rule is
effective September 1,1994.
58
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
March 4,1994
(59 EB 10382)
"Delaware; Final Determination of Adequacy of State/Tribal
Municipal Solid Waste Permit Program"
SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCRA §4005(c)(l)(C), EPA gave notice of a final
determination of full program adequacy for Delaware's municipal solid
waste landfill permit program. The determination of adequacy is effective
March 4,1994.
Citation:
March 4,1994
(59 £B 10550)
"Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Recycled Used
Oil Management Standards"
SUMMARY: EPA clarified and expanded standards for the management of
recycled used oil, which were originally published in the Federal Register
on September 10,1992 (57 FR 41566). The rule is effective April 4,1994.
Citation:
March?, 1994(59
EB 10645)
"Nevada; Final Determination of Adequacy of State/Tribal
Municipal Solid Waste Permit Program"
SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCRA §4005(c)(l)(C), EPA gave notice of a final
determination of full program adequacy for Nevada's municipal solid
waste landfill permit program. The determination of adequacy is effective
March 7,1994.
Citation:
March 24,1994
(59 £B 13891)
"Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs);
Recordkeeping Instructions"
SUMMARY: EPA amended recordkeeping instructions for owners and
operators of hazardous waste TSDFs. The amendment will encourage the
consistent recordkeeping and reporting of information by hazardous waste
TSDFs. This rule is effective March 24,1994.
59
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
April 13, 1994
(59 £B 17526)
"Missouri; Final Determination of Adequacy of State/Tribal
Municipal Solid Waste Permit Program"
SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCRA §4005(c)(l)(C), EPA gave notice of full
program adequacy for Missouri's municipal solid waste landfill permit
program. The determination of adequacy is effective April 13,1994.
Citation:
April 20, 1994
(59 £B 18813)
"Storage Prohibition at Facilities Generating Mixed Radioactive
Hazardous Waste; Enforcement"
SUMMARY: EPA announced an extension of its policy on the civil
enforcement of the storage prohibition in RCRA §3004(j) at facilities which
generate mixed radioactive hazardous waste. This action generally renews
the August 1991 (56 FR 42730), policy for an additional two-year period.
This rule is effective April 20,1994.
Citation:
May 27,1994
(59 £B 27546)
"Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR); Clarification of the Dilution
Prohibition and Combustion of Inorganic Metal-Bearing
Hazardous Wastes"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the availability of a memorandum setting out
EPA's policy on the application of the LDR dilution prohibition to the
combustion of inorganic metal-bearing hazardous wastes. Copies of the
memorandum may be obtained by calling or visiting the RCRA Docket at
EPA Headquarters.
Citation:
June 2, 1994
(59 £B 28523)
"Hawaii, Final Determination of Adequacy of State/Tribal
Municipal Solid Waste Permit Program"
SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCRA §4005(c)(l)(C), EPA gave notice of a final
determination of full program adequacy for Hawaii's municipal solid
waste landfill permit program. The determination of adequacy is effective
June 2,1994.
60
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
June 10, 1994
(59 £B 29958)
"Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities,
Underground Storage Tanks, and Underground Injection
Control Systems; Financial Assurance"
SUMMARY: EPA amended the financial assurance regulations under RCRA
Subtitles C and I. The rule modifies language required to secure a letter of
credit to demonstrate financial assurance. The rule is effective August 9,
1994.
Citation:
June 13, 1994
(59 EB 30353)
"Ohio; Final Determination of Adequacy of State/Tribal
Municipal Solid Waste Permit Program"
SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCRA §4005(c)(l)(C), EPA gave notice of a final
determination of full program adequacy for Ohio's municipal solid waste
landfill permit program. The determination of adequacy is effective June
13,1994.
Citation:
July 11, 1994
(59 EB 35340)
"Florida; Final Determination of Adequacy of State/Tribal
Municipal Solid Waste Permit Program"
SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCRA §4005(c)(l)(C)/ EPA gave notice of final
determination of full program adequacy for Florida's municipal solid waste
landfill permit program. The determination of adequacy is effective
July 11,1994.
Citation:
July 28, 1994
(59 EB 38536)
Citation:
August 16, 1994
(59 FR 42045)
"Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Amendments to
Definition of Solid Waste"
SUMMARY: EPA excluded from the RCRA regulatory definition of solid
waste certain in-process recycled secondary materials utilized by the
petroleum refining industry. This rule is effective July 28,1994.
"Oklahoma; Amended Final Determination of Adequacy of
State/Tribal Municipal Solid Waste Permit Program"
SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCRA §4005(c)(l)(C), EPA gave notice of an
amended final determination of full program adequacy for Oklahoma's
municipal solid waste landfill permit program. The determination of
adequacy is effective August 16,1994.
61
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
August 23, 1994
(59 £B 43290)
"North Carolina; Final Authorization of Revisions to State
Hazardous Waste Management Program"
SUMMARY: EPA responded to public comments regarding, and reaffirmed,
its decision (59 FR 32177; June 23,1994) to approve North Carolina's
hazardous waste program revisions. Final authorization for North
Carolina's program revisions is effective August 22,1994.
Citation:
August 24, 1994
(59 £B 43496)
"Recyclable Materials Used in a Manner Constituting Disposal"
SUMMARY: EPA amended §266.20 so that certain uses of slag residues
produced from the high temperature metal recovery (HTMR) treatment of
electric arc furnace dust (K061), steel finishing pickle liquor (K062), and
electroplating sludges (F006) are not exempt from Subtitle C regulations.
EPA clarifies the definition of non-encapsulated uses of HTMR slags by
specifying these uses to be the anti-skid/deicing uses. This action
effectively prohibits anti-skid/deicing uses of HTMR slags derived from
K061, K062, and F006 as waste-derived products placed on the land. This
rule does not prohibit other uses of these slags that meet §266.20(b)
requirements, nor does it prevent the disposal of HTMR slags in a Subtitle D
unit if the residuals meet the risk-based exclusion levels specified in
§261.3(c)(2).
Citation:
August 26, 1994
(59 EEL 44144)
"Puerto Rico; Final Determination of Adequacy of State/Tribal
Municipal Solid Waste Permit Program"
SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCRA §4005(c)(l)(C), EPA gave notice of a final
determination of full program adequacy for Puerto Rico's municipal solid
waste landfill permit program. The determination of adequacy is effective
August 26,1994.
Citation:
September 6, 1994
(59 £E 45986)
"Minnesota; Incorporation by Reference of Approved State
Hazardous Waste Program"
SUMMARY: EPA intends to approve Minnesota's incorporation by reference
of 40 CFR Part 272 into its authorized state RCRA program. Final
authorization will be effective November 7,1994, unless EPA publishes a
prior action withdrawing this immediate final rule. Comments must be
received on or before October 6,1994.
62
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
September 19,
1994
(59 EB 47980)
"Hazardous Waste Management System; Testing and
Monitoring Activities, Land Disposal Restrictions Correction"
SUMMARY: EPA clarified that the regulations published on August 31,
1993 (58 FR 46060), which amended the RCRA hazardous waste regulations
for testing and monitoring procedures inadvertently removed
subparagraphs 40 CFR 268.7(a)(l)-268.7(l)(10). These regulations remain
in effect and are regarded by EPA to have been in effect continuously in the
form published in the CFR revised as of July 1,1993.
Citation:
September 19,
1994
(59 EB 47982)
"Land Disposal Restrictions Phase II; Universal Treatment
Standards, and Treatment Standards for Organic Toxicity
Characteristic Wastes and Newly Listed Wastes"
SUMMARY: EPA promulgated treatment standards under the LDR
program for the newly identified organic toxicity characteristic (TC)
wastes, except those managed in Clean Water Act systems, CWA-
equivalent systems, or Class I Safe Drinking Water Act injection wells, and
for all newly listed coke by-product and chlorotoluene production wastes.
The Agency also established a single set of consistent treatment standards
for each constituent regulated under the LDR program, referred to as
universal treatment standards. EPA also published clarifying guidance
regarding treatability variances, streamlined the hazardous waste
recycling regulations, and reduced paperwork requirements associated with
the LDR program. The rule is effective on December 19,1994. Amendments
to §266.100 are effective September 19,1994.
Citation:
October 20, 1994
(59 EB 52918)
"Arizona; Incorporation by Reference of Approved State
Hazardous Waste Program"
SUMMARY: EPA intends to approve Arizona's incorporation by reference
of 40 CFR Part 272 into its authorized state RCRA program. Final
authorization will be effective December 19,1994, unless EPA publishes a
prior action withdrawing this immediate final rule. Comments must be
received no later than November 21,1994.
Citation:
November 16, 1994
(59 £B 58789)
"Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria"
SUMMARY: EPA corrected a typographical error in the October 1,1993, (58
FR 51536) final rule delaying the effective date for certain requirements
issued under the authority of RCRA, Subtitle D.
63
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
Decembers, 1994
(59 EB 62896)
"Hazardous Waste TSDFs and Generators; Organic Air Emission
Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and Containers"
SUMMARY: EPA promulgated air standards in order to reduce organic
emissions from hazardous waste management activities. Under the
standards, air emission controls must be used for tanks, surface
impoundments, and containers in which hazardous waste is placed on or
after June 5,1995 except under the certain conditions discussed in the rule.
Air emission control requirements are also added to the RCRA permit terms
and provisions specified for RCRA miscellaneous units. Finally, this action
establishes a new EPA reference test method to determine the organic vapor
pressure of a waste.
Citation:
December 19, 1994
(59 EB 65334)
"Arizona; Final Determination of Full Program Adequacy of
State Municipal Solid Waste Permit Program"
SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCRA §4005(c)(l)(C), EPA gave notice of a final
determination approving the adequacy of Arizona's municipal solid waste
landfill permit program. The effective date of this rule is December 19,
1994.
Citation:
December 23, 1994
(59 £B 66306)
"New Mexico; Final Determination of Full Program Adequacy of
State Municipal Solid Waste Permit Program"
SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCRA §4005(c)(l)(C), EPA gave notice of a final
determination approving the adequacy of New Mexico's municipal solid
waste landfill permit program. The effective date of this rule is
December 23,1994.
64
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
Proposed
Rules
Citation:
June 13, 1994
(59 EB 30448)
Citation:
October 27, 1994
(59 JEB 53955)
"Underground Storage Tanks (USTs); Lender Liability"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to limit the regulatory obligations of persons
maintaining indicia of ownership in a petroleum UST or UST system
primarily to protect a security interest. The Agency proposed conditions
under which certain security interest holders may be exempted from RCRA
Subtitle I corrective action, technical, and financial responsibility
regulatory requirements that apply to a UST owner and operator.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 12,1994.
"Utah; Approval of State Underground Storage Tank (UST)
Program"
SUMMARY: EPA intends to approve Utah's UST program. The State of
Utah's application for final approval is available for public review.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 28,1994. A public
hearing is tentatively scheduled for December 16,1994.
Final Rules
Citation:
February 28, 1994
(59 £R 9604)
"Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) Containing Petroleum;
Financial Responsibility Requirements"
SUMMARY: EPA extended the date by which federally-recognized Indian
tribes need to comply with financial responsibility requirements for
petroleum USTs on Indian lands. The compliance date for these USTs is
December 31,1998.
Citation:
June 6, 1994
(59 £B 29201)
"Kansas; Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank
(UST) Program"
SUMMARY: EPA gave notice that the State of Kansas has received final
approval to operate its underground storage tank program under RCRA
Subtitle I. Final approval will be effective July 6, 1994.
65
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
June 10, 1994
(59 EB 29958)
Citation:
September 27,
1994
(59 £B 49211)
"Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities,
Underground Storage Tanks, and Underground Injection
Control Systems; Financial Assurance"
SUMMARY: EPA amended the financial assurance regulations under RCRA
Subtitle C and I. The rule modifies language required to secure a letter of
credit to demonstrate financial assurance. The rule is effective August 4,
1994.
"Kansas; Codification and Incorporation by Reference of
Approved State Storage Tank Program"
SUMMARY: EPA intends to codify in Part 282 the prior approval of
Kansas' underground storage tank program and incorporate by reference
appropriate provisions of state statutes and regulations. This rule will be
effective November 28,1994, unless EPA publishes a prior action
withdrawing this immediate final rule. Comments must be received on or
before October 27,1994.
66
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Proposed
Rules
Citation:
January 18,1994
(59 £B 2568)
"National Priorities List (NPL); Proposed Rule No. 16"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to add 26 new sites to the NPL, 16 in the
General Superfund Section, and 10 in the Federal Facilities Section. Final
and proposed sites now total 1289. Comments must be submitted on or before
March 21,1994.
Citation:
March 1,1994
(59 £R 9808)
"Carbamate Production Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to amend the regulations for hazardous waste
management under RCRA by listing as hazardous six wastes generated
during the production of carbamates. The Agency is also proposing to add
four generic groups and 70 specific chemicals to the list of commercial
chemical products that are hazardous wastes when discarded. These
wastes proposed for listing as hazardous waste are also proposed to be
listed as CERCLA hazardous substances. Comments must be submitted on or
before May 2,1994.
Citation:
May 4, 1994
(59 EB 23098)
"Natural Resource Damage Assessments"
SUMMARY: DOI proposed revisions of the CERCLA regulations for
assessing natural resource damages resulting from a discharge of a
hazardous substance as well as the Clean Water Act regulations for
assessing natural resource damages resulting from a discharge of oil.
Comments must be received on or before July 7,1994.
Citation:
Augusts, 1994
(59 £B 40319)
"Natural Resource Damage Assessments"
SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior proposed to amend the
regulations for assessing natural resource damages resulting from a
discharge of oil into navigable wasters under the Clean Water Act or a
release of a hazardous substance under CERCLA. Comments must be
received on or before November 7,1994.
67
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Proposed
Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
August 23, 1994
(59 £B 43314)
"National Priorities List (NPL); Additions"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to add 10 new sites to the NPL, 6 sites in the
General Superfund Section and 4 sites in the Federal Facilities Section.
Final and proposed sites now total 1,296. Comments on these additions must
be submitted on or before October 24,1994.
Citation:
October 19, 1994
(59 £B 52749)
"Natural Resource Damage Assessments"
SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior announced the commencement
of a review of regulations for assessing natural resource damages under
CERCLA and the Clean Water Act. The regulations provide procedures
that natural resource trustees may use to obtain compensation from
potentially responsible parties for injuries to natural resources. Comments
on how the process should be revised must be received by January 17,1995.
Final Rules
Citation:
Januarys, 1994
(59EB25)
"CERCLA Administrative Hearing Procedures for Claims
Asserted Against the Superfund"
SUMMARY: EPA promulgated a final rule to implement CERCLA §112,
which outlines procedures for payments of claims authorized pursuant to
CERCLA §111. This final rule is effective February 2,1994.
Citation:
Februarys, 1994
(59 £B 5109)
"National Priorities List; Monroe Township Landfill Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Monroe Township Landfill
Site in Middlesex County, New Jersey, from the National Priorities List.
This action was taken because EPA and the State of New Jersey determined
that no further cleanup under CERCLA was appropriate. This action is
effective February 3, 1994.
68
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
February 23, 1994
(59 £B 8724)
Citation:
March 25, 1994
(59 £B 14262)
"National Priorities List (NPL) for Uncontrolled Hazardous
Waste Sites"
SUMMARY: With this final rule, EPA added one site to the NPL. The
NPL now has 1,191 sites, 1,068 in the general Superfund section and 123 in
the federal facilities section. This rule is effective March 25, 1994.
"Natural Resource Damage Assessments"
SUMMARY: DOI amended regulations for assessing natural resource
damages resulting from a Clean Water Act discharge of oil into navigable
waters, or a CERCLA release. The Department will soon issue a new
proposed rule to address assessment of lost nonuse values of injured resources.
This rule is effective April 25,1994.
Citation:
March 30, 1994
(59 JEB 15020)
"Class II Civil Penalties Under CERCLA and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (FWPCA)"
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard issued final regulations addressing practice
and procedure for cases assessing Class II civil penalties under FWPCA
§311(b) and CERCLA §109. This rule is effective March 30,1994.
Citation:
April 19, 1994
(59 EB 18600)
"Acquisition Regulation Concerning Conflicts of Interest"
SUMMARY: EPA amended acquisition regulation coverage on
organizational conflicts of interest for all EPA contracts. Under this rule,
contracts funded through EPA's Superfund program will contain clauses
requiring confidentiality agreements; requiring contractors to notify EPA
immediately of conflicts of interest; and restricting future contracts. This
rule is effective May 19,1994.
Citation:
May 31,1994
(59 £B 27989)
"National Priorities List (NPL) for Uncontrolled Hazardous
Waste Sites"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the addition of 42 new sites to the NPL, 18 to
the General Superfund Section and 24 to the Federal Facilities Section.
This rule is effective June 30,1994.
69
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
July 1,1994
(59 £B 34070)
"Oil Pollution Prevention; Non-Transportation-Related
Onshore Facilities"
SUMMARY: EPA amended the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation,
promulgated under the Clean Water Act for transportation-related onshore
and offshore facilities. The rule, pursuant to the proposed rule of
February 17,1993, requires certain facility owners and operators to prepare
plans for responding to a worst case discharge of oil. This rule is effective
August 30,1994.
Citation:
July 14, 1994
(59 EB 35852)
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP); Technical Revisions"
SUMMARY: EPA promulgated technical revisions to four sections of the NCP. In
addition, EPA promulgated conforming revisions to two sections of the
administrative requirements for CERCLA-funded Cooperative Agreements and
Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions. This rule is effective
August 15,1994.
Citation:
August 23, 1994
(59 EB 43291)
"National Priorities List; Yakima Plating Company Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Yakima Plating Company
Site in Yakima, Washington, from the National Priorities List. This
action was taken because EPA and the State of Washington determined
that no further cleanup under CERCLA is appropriate and that the selected
remedy has been protective of human health, welfare, and the
environment. The deletion is effective August 23,1994.
Citation:
August 30, 1994
(59 £B 44633)
"National Priorities List; Wide Beach Development Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Wide Beach Development
Site in Brant, New York, from the National Priorities List. EPA and the
State of New York have determined that no further cleanup action under
CERCLA is appropriate and that remedial actions conducted at the site to
date have been protective of human health, welfare, and the environment.
The deletion is effective August 30,1994.
70
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
September 2, 1994
(59 EB 45628)
"National Priorities List; Revere Textile Prints Corporation"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Revere Textile Prints
Corporation Site in Sterling, Connecticut, from the National Priorities List.
EPA and the State of Connecticut determined that no further cleanup under
CERCLA is appropriate and the remedial actions at the site have been
protective of public health, welfare, and the environment. This action is
effective September 2,1994.
Citation:
Septembers, 1994
(59 £B 46354)
"National Priorities List; North U Drive"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the North U Drive Site in
Springfield Missouri, from the National Priorities List. EPA and the State
of Missouri determined that no further cleanup under CERCLA is
appropriate and that remedial actions at the site have been protective of
public health, welfare, and the environment. This action is effective
September 8,1994.
Citation:
September 9, 1994
(59 £B 46569)
"National Priorities List; Bioclinical Laboratories"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Bioclinical Laboratories
Site in Suffolk County, New York, from the National Priorities List. EPA
and the State of New York determined that no further cleanup under
CERCLA is appropriate and that remedial actions at the site have been
protective of public health, welfare, and the environment. This action is
effective October 11,1994.
Citation:
September 15,
1994
(59 EB 47384)
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP)"
SUMMARY: EPA published revisions to the NCP pursuant to the Oil
Pollution Act and Clean Water Act. The revisions are intended to enhance
the current framework, standards, and procedures for oil and hazardous
substance spill response. This rule is effective October 17,1994.
71
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
September 20,
1994
(59 £B 48178)
"National Priorities List; C&J Disposal Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the C&J Site in Eaton, New
York, from the National Priorities List. EPA and the State of New York
determined that no further cleanup under CERCLA is appropriate and that
remedial actions at the site have been protective of public health, welfare,
and the environment. This action is effective September 20,1994.
Citation:
November 2, 1994
(59 £B 54830)
"National Priorities List; Ringwood Mines/Landfill Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Ringwood Mines/Landfill
Site in Ringwood Borough, New Jersey, from the National Priorities List.
The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on December 8,
1993 (58 FR 64539). EPA and the State of New Jersey determined that no
further cleanup under CERCLA is appropriate and that remedial actions at
the site have been protective of public health, welfare, and the
environment. The effective date of this action is November 2,1994.
Citation:
November 14, 1994
(59 £B 56409)
"National Priorities List; Allied Plating Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Allied Plating Site, in
Portland, Oregon, from the National Priorities List. The Agency published
a notice of its intent to delete the site on September 2,1994 (59 FR 45675).
EPA and the State of Oregon determined that no further cleanup under
CERCLA is appropriate and that remedial actions at the site have been
protective of public health, welfare, and the environment. The effective
date Of this action is November 14,1994.
Citation:
December 16, 1994
(59 £B 65206)
"National Priorities List (NPL) for Uncontrolled Hazardous
Waste Sites"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the addition of 18 new sites to the NPL, 14 to
the General Superfund Section and 4 to the Federal Facilities Section. The
entire NPL is printed. This rule is effective January 17,1995.
72
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
Proposed
Rules
Citation:
June 6, 1994
(59 EE 29252)
Citation:
September 30,
1994
(59 EB 49888)
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Copper
Monochlorophthalocyanine Pigment"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to grant a petition to delete Color Index (C.I.)
Pigment Blue 15:1 from the "copper compounds" category of the list of toxic
chemicals subject to reporting under §313. Comments must be submitted on or
before August 5,1994.
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Acetone"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to delete acetone from the list of toxic
chemicals subject to EPCRA §313 reporting requirements. This action is in
response to a petition filed by Eastman Chemical Company and Hoechst
Celanese. EPA is proposing Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) under the
Clean Air Act. Finalization of this proposed rule is contingent upon the
finalization of the proposed rule to exclude acetone from EPA's definition of
a VOC. Comments will be received until November 29,1994.
Citation:
October 12, 1994
(59 EB 51816)
"Extremely Hazardous Substances List; Response to Petitions"
SUMMARY: EPA responded to several citizens petitions to revise the list
of extremely hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 355, Appendices A and B.
The Agency proposed a rule to delete from the list phosphorous pentoxide,
dithlycarbamazine citrate, fenitrothion, and tellurium, and to revise the
threshold planning quantity for isophorone diisocyanate from 100 to 1,000
pounds. EPA denied petitions to delete paraquat and isophorone
diisocyanate from the list as well as to revise the threshold planning
quantities for azinphos-methyl and fenamiphos.
73
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
Final Rules
Citation:
January 31,1994
(59 EB 4478)
"List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental
Release Prevention; Requirements for Petitions"
SUMMARY: EPA promulgated this list of regulated substances and
thresholds pursuant to CAA §112(r). The list contains 3 categories: 77 toxic
substances, 63 flammable substances, and explosive substances as defined by
DOT. Thresholds range from 500 to 20,000 pounds. This rule is effective
March 2,1994.
Citation:
June 28, 1994
(59 £B 33205)
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Barium Sulfate"
SUMMARY: EPA deleted barium sulfate from the category "barium
compounds" on the list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under EPCRA
§313. This rule relieves facilities of their obligation to report releases of
barium sulfate that occurred during 1993, and releases that will occur in the
future. This rule is effective June 28,1994.
Citation:
July5, 1994
(59 £B 34386)
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Glycol Ethers Category"
SUMMARY: EPA redefined the glycol ethers category list of toxic
chemicals subject to reporting under EPCRA §313. The glycol ethers
category now excludes high molecular weight glycol ethers. This rule is
effective June 28,1994, and therefore affects the Form R reporting which is
due July 1,1994.
Citation:
August 22, 1994
(59 £B 43048)
"Trade Secrecy Claims; Change of Address"
SUMMARY: EPA announced a new mailing address to be used by facilities
when submitting trade secrecy claims to EPA, and by petitioners when
submitting petitions requesting disclosure of chemical identities claimed
trade secret under §§303(d)(2) and (d)(3), 311,312, and 313 of EPCRA. The
change is effective August 15,1994.
Citation:
October 12, 1994
(59 £B 51821)
"Extremely Hazardous Substances List and Threshold Planning
Quantities; Correction"
SUMMARY: EPA published corrections to errors found in Appendices A and
B to 40 CFR Part 355.
74
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
November 30, 1994
(59 £B 61432)
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Addition of Certain
Chemicals"
SUMMARY: EPA added 286 chemicals and chemical categories to the list
of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under EPCRA §313 and PPA §6607.
Reporting for the newly listed chemicals and chemical categories will be
required beginning with the 1995 reporting year. The first reports capturing
releases of these chemicals will be due to the appropriate entities by July 1,
1996. The action is effective November 22,1994.
Citation:
November 30, 1994
(59 £B 61488)
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Alternate Threshold for
Facilities with Low Annual Reportable Amounts"
SUMMARY: EPA established an alternate reporting threshold for those
facilities with low annual .reportable amounts of listed toxic chemicals
that would otherwise meet the EPCRA §313 reporting requirements. A
facility that meets the current EPCRA §313 reporting thresholds, but
estimates that the total annual reportable amount of the toxic chemical
does not exceed 500 pounds, can take advantage of an alternate manufacture,
process, or otherwise use threshold of one million pounds per year for that
toxic chemical. Facilities may take advantage of this alternative
beginning with the 1995 reporting year. The rule is effective November 22,
1994, except for 40 CFR §§372.27 and 372.95, which will be effective upon
OMB approval.
75
-------
76
-------
PART 3: INDICES
This section provides three indices to help you select and access the questions and answers
in Part 1 and the Federal Register summaries in Part 2. The first index references the
questions and FR summaries by subject. The questions and FR summaries that address that
topic are listed below each key word. For example, to find information dealing with use
constituting disposal, you would look in the key word index for that phrase and find a
question entitled "Waste Minimization and Recycling Activities That Resemble
Conventional Waste Management Practices" and a Federal Register notice from August 24,
1994, regarding materials used in a manner constituting disposal. The reference provides
the page number for full text and is coded with a capital letter to indicate the relevant
program (i.e., R=RCRA, S=Superfund, U=UST, and E=EPCRA).
The second index organizes the questions and FR summaries by regulatory citation,
beginning with 40 CFR Part 238. This index is useful for identifying questions affecting
specific portions of the regulations. For example, under the heading "40 CFR Part 302 -
Designation, Reportable, Quantities, and Notification" is a question entitled "Reportable
Quantity Adjustments Under CERCLA and the CWA."
Similarly, the third index organizes the questions by statutory citation. For example, the
question entitled "Notification Requirements for an Emergency Release on a Public
Roadway" is referenced under "Section 304 - Emergency Notification."
These three indices allow the reader flexibility in searching for a specific topic or getting
an overview of the scope of the questions by selecting the approach most useful to the
reader.
77
-------
-------
KEY WORD INDEX
Accidental release prevention
59 m 4478; January 31,1994 p. 74 (E)
Accumulation
"Containment Buildings as Generator
Accumulation Units" p. 6 (R)
Acetone
59 FjR 49888; September 30,1994 p. 73 (E)
Acquisition regulation
59 FR18600; April 19,1994 p. 69 (S)
Administrative settlements
"Public Participation Requirements for
Administrative Settlements" p. 32 (S)
Agricultural exemption
"Aquaculture Exemption Under EPCRA §§311/
312" p. 45 (E)
Air emissions
59 FR 62896; December 6,1994 p. 64 (R)
Annual
"Definition of Annual and 'Every Five Years' For
Purposes of Tank Tightness Testing" p. 27 (R)
59 FR 61488; November 30,1994 p. 75 (E)
ARARs
"Satellite Accumulation Standards as ARARs" p. 29
(S)
"Waivers of ARARs and Permits by Private Parties
in CERCLA Response Actions" p. 30 (S)
Ash
"Status of Municipal Waste Combustion (MWC)
Ash" p. 20 (R)
Barium Sulfate
59 FR 33205; June 28,1994 p. 74 (E)
Batteries
"Regeneration Versus Reclamation for Spent Lead-
Acid Batteries" p. 11 (R)
Biennial Report
"Biennial Report for Wastes Treated in Exempt
Units" p. 5 (R)
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (BIF)
"Regulatory Status of Metals Recovery Under
RCRA" p. 10 (R)
Brownfields
"OSWER's Environmental Justice Initiative" p. 33
(All Program Areas)
Burning for Energy Recovery
"Waste Minimization and Recycling Activities that
Resemble Conventional Waste Management
Practices" p. 9 (R)
"Used Oil Storage Tank Bottoms: Hazardous Waste
or Used Oil When Burned for Energy Recovery?"
p. 14 (R)
By-product
"Coincidental Production of Hazardous Chemical
Requires Reporting Under EPCRA §304 p. 41 (E)
Calendar year
"Revision to the TC List Under EPCRA §313" p. 49
(E)
Carbamate production
59 FR 9808; March 1,1994 p. 55 (R)
Carbon filters
"UST Remediation Wastes" p. 27 (U)
CESQGS
"Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
(CESQG) Hazardous Waste Recycling Facilities"
p. 5 (R)
Chlorophenolic compounds
"Unused Formulations ContainingSodium
Pentachlrophentate are F027" p. 20 (R)
Civil penalties
59 FR 15020; March 30,1994 p. 69 (S)
Claims against the Superfund
59 FR 25; January 3,1994 p. 68 (S)
Closed-loop refrigeration
"Recycle/Reuse of Toxic Chemicals in Closed-Loop
Refrigeration Systems Under EPCRA §313" p. 48
(E)
Closure
59 ER 55778; November 8,1994 p. 57 (R)
Coincidental generation
"Coincidental Production of Hazardous Chemicals
Requires Reporting Under EPCRA §304" p. 41 (E)
Combustion
59 FR 28680; June 2,1994 p. 56 (R)
Commercial chemical product
"Off-Specification Paraformaldehyde Meets
Commercial Chemical Product Listing" p. 18 (R)
Conditional exclusion
"Regulatory Status of Metals Recovery Under
RCRA" p. 10 (R)
Conflicts of interest
59 FR 18600; April 19,1994 p. 69 (S)
LEGEND:
(E) = EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R) = RCRA (U) - UST
79
-------
Consent decree
"Consent Decrees: Assurance of Ability to
Compute Work" p. 31 (S)
Construction Quality Assurance Program (CQAP)
"Surface Impoundment Leachate Collection and
Removal Systems" p. 12 (R)
Consumer product exemption
'Paint Mixing and the Consumer Product
Exemption" p. 47 (E)
Containment buildings
"Containment Buildings as Generator
Accumulation Units" p. 6 (R)
Cooperative agreements
59 ER 35852; July 14,1994 p. 70 (S)
Corrective action
"UST Remediation Wastes" p. 27 (R)
Corrosion protection
"The Definition of 'Routinely Contains Product' for
UST Regulation" p. 28 (U)
Corrosive
"Elementary Neutralization Units Generating and
Storing Non-Corrosive Hazardous Wastes" p. 13
(R)
Cost adjustments
"Financial Assurance for Cost Adjustments Under
RCRA"p.3(R)
"GNP v. GDP Cost Adjustments on a Quarterly
Basis" p. 3 (R)
Degradable plastic ring
59 ER 9866; March 1,1994 p. 58 (R)
Deiistlng petitions
"Delisting Petitions for Hazardous Waste From the
Petroleum Industry" p. 22 (R)
De mlnlmls
'Technical Grade Solvent Formulations and the
F003 Listing" p. 18 (R)
Designated facility
"Designating Exempt Recycling Facilities on the
Manifest" p. 9 (R)
Distribution in commerce
"EPCRA §313 Reporting of Ammonia Processed in
Cheese Products" p. 51 (E)
Dyes
59 ER 66072; December 22,1994 p. 57 (R)
Elementary neutralization
"Elementary Neutralization Units Generating and
Storing Non-Corrosive Hazardous Wastes" p. 13
(R)
Emergency notification
"Notification Requirements for an Emergency
Release on a Public Roadway" p. 42 (E)
Emergency Planning
"Description of the Terms 'Molten' and 'In Solution1
Under EPCRA §302" p. 43 (E)
Energy Recovery
"Energy Recovery On-Site Constitutes Reuse for
the Generator Processing Exemption" p. 13 (R)
Environmental Justice
"OSWER's Environmental Justice Initiative" p. 33
(S)
Executive Order 12898
"OSWER's Environmental Justice Initiative" p. 33
(S)
Exported Wastes
"Notification Requirements for Exported Wastes"
p.7(R)
Extremely Hazardous Substance (EHS)
"Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ)
Determination for Substances in Molten Form"
p. 43 (E)
59 FR 51816; October 12,1994 p. 73 (E)
F003
"Technical Grade Solvent Formulation and the
F003 Listing" p. 18 (R)
F006
"Elementary Neutralization Units Generating and
Storing Non-Corrosive Hazardous Wastes" p. 13
(R)
59 FR 67256; December 29,1994 p. 57 (R)
F027
"Unused Formulations Containing Sodium
Pentachlorophenate are F027" p. 20 (R)
F033
59 FR 458; January 4,1994 p. 58 (R)
Facility
"Notification Requirements for an Emergency
Release on a Public Roadway" p. 42 (E)
Financial assurance
"Consent Decree: Assurance of Ability to Complete
Work" p. 31 (S)
"Financial Assurance Cost Adjustments on a
Quarterly Basis" p. 3 (R)
"GNP v. GDP for Cost Adjustments Under RCRA"
p. 3 (R)
59 FR 29958; June 10,1994 p. 61 (R)
59 FR 51523; October 12,1994 p. 56 (R)
59 FR 52498; October 18,1994 p. 56 (R)
LEGEND:
(E) = EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R) = RCRA (U) = UST
80
-------
Financial responsibility
"Occurrence Definition for UST Financial
Responsibility" p. 25 (U)
59 F_R 9604; February 28,1994 p. 65 (U)
Gasoline
"K052: Bottoms From Tanks Storing Leaded
Gasoline at Petroleum Refineries" p. 17 (R)
"MSDS Submission for Leaded and Unleaded
Gasoline" p. 46 (E)
Generators
"Biennial Reporting for Wastes Treated in Exempt
Units" p. 5 (R)
"Satellite Accumulation Standards as ARARs" p. 29
(S)
Glycol ethers
59 FR 34386; July 5,1994 p. 74 (E)
Hazardous chemical reporting
"Aquaculture Exemption Under EPCRA §§311/
312" p. 45 (E)
"Medical Exclusion Under EPCRA §§311/312 as it
Applies to Doctors' Offices and Pharmacies" p. 44
(E)
"MSDS Submission for Leaded and Unleaded
Gasoline" p. 46 (E )
"Paint Mixing and Consumer Product Exemption"
p.47(E)
"Submission of Data to On-Site Fire Departments
Under EPCRA §311" p. 47 (E)
Hazardous substance
"RQ Adjustments Under CERCLA and the CWA"
p.37(S)
"Mineral Spirits and the CERCLA Definition of
Hazardous Substance" p. 36 (S)
Hazardous waste definition
'Technical Grade Solvent Formulations and the
F003 Listing" p. 18 (R)
59 FR 8362; February 18,1994 p. 58 (R)
59 ES 9808; March 1,1994 p. 55 (R)
59 ES 24530 May 11,1994 p. 55 (R)
59 FR 38288; July 27,1994 p. 56 (R)
59 FR 38536; July 28,1994 p. 61 (R)
59 F£ 66072; December 22,1994 p. 57 (R)
59 FR 67256; December 29,1994 p. 57 (R)
Hazardous waste generators
"Satellite Accumulation Standards as ARARs" p. 29
(S)
HRS
"National Priorities List Format" p. 38 (S)
Identification of product
59 FR 6231; February 10,1994 p. 55 (R)
Implicit price deflator
"GNP v. GDP for Cost Adjustments on a
"Quarterly Basis" p. 3 (R)
"Financial Assurance Cost Adjustments Under
RCRA" p. 3 (R)
Inventory reporting
"Submission of Data to On-Site Fire Departments
Under EPCRA §311" p. 47 (E)
Isomer
"Isomer Reporting Under EPCRA §313" p. 50 (E)
K052
"K052: Bottoms From Tanks Storing Leaded
Gasoline at Petroleum Refineries" p. 17 (R)
K061
59 FR 67256; December 29,1994 p. 57 (R)
K062
59 FR 67256; December 29,1994 p. 57 (R)
LDR
59 FR 47980; September 19,1994 p. 63 (R)
59 FR 47982; September 19,1994 p. 63 (R)
Leachate collection and removal system
"Surface Impoundment Leachate Collection and
Removal Systems" p. 12 (R)
Lender liability
59 FR 30448; June 13,1994 p. 65 (U)
Local fire department
"Submission of Data to On^Site Fire Departments
Under EPCRA §311" p. 47 (E)
LUST
"Leaking UST Trust Fund" p. 25 (U)
Manifest
"Designating Exempt Recycling Facilities on the
Manifest" p. 9 (R)
"Notification Requirements for Exported Wastes"
p.7(R)
Medical exclusion
"Medical Exclusion Under EPCRA §§311/312 as it
Applies to Doctors' Offices and Pharmacies" p. 44
(E)
Mercury-containing lamps
59 FR 38288; July 27,1994 p. 56 (R)
LEGEND:
(E) = EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R) = RCRA (U) = UST
81
-------
Metals recovery
"Regulatory Status of Metals Recovery Under
RCRA" p. 10 (R)
Mineral spirits
"Mineral Spirits and the CERCLA Definition of
Hazardous Substance" p. 36 (S)
Minimum technology requirements
"Surface Impoundment Leachate Collection and
Removal Systems" p. 12 (R)
Mixtures
"MSDS Submission for Leaded and Unleaded
Gasoline" p. 46 (E)
Molten
"Description of the Terms 'Molten1 and 'In Solution1
Under EPCRA" p. 43 (E)
"Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ)
Determination for Substances in Molten Form"
p.43(E)
MSDS
"MSDS Submission for Leaded and Unleaded
Gasoline" p. 46 (E)
"Submission of Data to On-Site Fire Department
Under EPCRA §311 p. 47 (E)
Municipal solid waste
"Status of Municipal Waste Combustion (MWC)
Ash" p. 20 (R)
Municipal waste combustion
"Status of Municipal Waste Combustion (MWC)
Ash" p. 20 (R)
Natural resource damage assessment
59 ER14262; March 25,1994 p. 69 (S)
59 ER 23098; May 4,1994 p. 67 (S)
59 ER 40319; August 8,1994 p. 67 (S)
59 ER 52749; October 19,1994 p. 68 (S)
NCP
59 ER 35852; July 14,1994 p. 70 (S)
59 ER 47384; September 15,1994 p. 71 (S)
NPL
"National Priorities List Format" p. 38 (S)
59 ER 2568; January 18,1994 p. 67 (S)
59 ER 5109; February 3,1994 p. 68 (S)
59 ER 8724; February 23,1994 p. 69 (S)
59 ER 27989; May 31,1994 p. 69 (S)
59 ER 43291; August 23,1994 p. 70 (S)
59 ER 43314; August 23,1994 p. 68 (S)
59 ER 44633; August 30,1994 p. 70 (S)
59 ER 45628; September 2,1994 p. 71 (S)
59 ER 46354; September 8,1994 p. 71 (S)
59 ER 46569; September 9,1994 p. 71 (S)
59 ER 48178; September 20,1994 p. 72 (S)
59 FR 54830; November 2,1994 p. 72 (S)
59 ER 56409; November 14,1994 p. 72 (S)
59 FR 65206; December 16,1994 p. 72 (S)
Occurrence
"Occurrence Definition for UST Financial
Responsibility" p. 25 (U)
Oil pollution prevention
59 FR 34070; July 1,1994 p. 70 (S)
On-site
"Energy Recovery On-Site Constitutes Reuse for
the Generator Processing Exemption" p. 13 (R)
Organobromides
59 FR 24530; May 11,1994 p. 55 (R)
Paint
"Paint Mixing and the Consumer Product
Exemption" p. 47 (E) .
Permit renewal
"Permit Application and Renewal" p. 8 (R)
Permit
"Permit Application and Renewal" p. 8 (R)
59 FR 28680; June 2,1994 p. 56 (R)
Permit waivers
"Waivers of ARARs and Permits by Private Parties
in CERCLA Response Actions" p. 30 (S)
Petitions
"Revisions to the Toxic Chemicals List Under
EPCRA §313" p. 49 (E)
Petroleum contaminated media and debris
"UST Remediation Wastes" p. 27 (U)
Petroleum derivatives
"Mineral Spirits and the CERCLA Definition of
Hazardous Substance" p. 36 (S)
Petroleum refinery wastes
"Delisting Petitions for Hazardous Wastes from the
Petroleum Industry" p. 22 (R)
"K052: Bottoms from Tanks Storing Leaded
Gasoline at Petroleum Refineries" p. 17 (R)
Pigments
59 FR 66072; December 22,1994 p. 57 (R)
Private party responses
"Waivers of ARARs and Permits by Private Parties
in CERCLA Response Actions" p. 30 (S)
Process
"EPCRA §313 Reporting of Ammonia Processed in
Cheese Products" p. 51 (E)
Processing
"Energy Recovery On-Site Constitutes Reuse for
the Generator Processing Exemption" p. 13 (R)
LEGEND:
(E)^ EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R) - RCRA (U) = UST
82
-------
Procurement
59 FR18852; April 20,1994 p. 55 (R)
Produce
"Coincidental Production of Hazardous Chemicals
Requires Reporting Under EPCRA §304" p. 41 (E)
PRP
"Consent Decree: Assurance of Ability to Complete
Work" p. 31 (S)
"Public Participation Requirements for
Administrative Settlements" p. 32 (S)
Public participation
"Public Participation Requirements for
Administrative Settlements" p. 32 (S)
Quantity determination
"Biennial Reporting for Wastes Treated in Exempt
Units" p. 5 (R)
Recordkeeping
59 FR 13891; March 24,1994 p. 59 (R)
Recycling
"Recycle/Reuse of Toxic Chemicals in Closed Loop
Refrigeration Systems Under EPCRA §313" p. 48
(E)
"Regeneration Versus Reclamation for Spent Lead-
Acid Batteries" p. 11 (R)
"Waste Minimization and Recycling Activities That
Resemble Conventional Waste Management
Practices" p. 9 (R)
59 FR 43496; August 24,1994 p. 62 (R)
Recycling facilities
"CESQG Hazardous Waste Recycling Facilities"
p. 5 (R)
"Designating Exempt Recycling Facilities on the
Manifest" p. 9 (R)
Regeneration
"Regeneration Versus Reclamation for Spent Lead-
Acid Batteries" p. 11 (R)
Release
"Coincidental Production of Hazardous Chemicals
Requires Reporting Under EPCRA §304" p. 41 (E)
"Notification Requirements for an Emergency
Release on a Public Roadway" p. 42 (E)
"Reportable Quantity Adjustments Under CERC1A
and the CWA" p. 37 (S)
59 ER 43496; August 24,1994 p. 62 (R)
Release detection
'The Definition of 'Routinely Contains Product' for
UST Regulation" p. 28 (U)
Remedial action
"Satellite Accumulation Standards as ARARs" p. 29
(S)
Remedial design/remedial response (RD/RA)
"Consent Decrees: Assurance of Ability to
Complete Work" p. 31 (S)
Reportable quantity
"RQ Adjustments Under CERCLA and the CWA"
p.37(S)
Response process
"National Priorities List Format" p. 38 (S)
Retesting
"Definition of Annual and 'Every 5 Years' for
Purposes of Tank Tightness Testing" p. 27 (U)
Routinely contains product
"The Definition of 'Routinely Contains Product' for
UST Regulation" p. 28 (U)
Satellite accumulation
"Satellite Accumulation Standards as ARARs" p. 29
(S)
Section 313
"Revisions to the Toxic Chemicals List Under
EPCRA §313" p. 49 (E)
Skinner list
"Delisting Petitions for Hazardous Wastes from the
Petroleum Industry" p. 22 (R)
Small quantity generator
"Containment Buildings as Generator
Accumulation Units" p. 6 (R)
Solid waste disposal facilities/MSWLF
59 FR 44144; August 26,1994 p. 62 (R)
59 FR 52498; October 18,1994 p. 56 (R)
59 FR 58789; November 16,1994 p. 63 (R)
59 FR 65334; December 19,1994 p. 64 (R)
59 FR 66306; December 23,1994 p. 64 (R)
Solution
"Description of the Terms 'Molten' and 'In Solution'
Under EPCRA §302" p. 43 (E)
Spent solvents
"Technical Grade Solvent Formulation and the
F003 Listing" p. 18 (R)
State program
59 FR 43290; August 23,1994 p. 62 (R)
59 FR 44144; August 26,1994 p. 62 (R)
59 F_E 45986; September 6,1994 p. 62 (R)
59 FR 52918; October 20,1994 p. 63 (R)
59 FR 53955; October 27,1994 p. 65 (U)
59 ER 65334; December 19,1994 p. 64 (R)
59 FR 66306; December 23,1994 p. 64 (R)
LEGEND:
(E) = EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R) = RCRA (U) = UST
83
-------
Super-fund state contracts
59 ER 35852; July 14,1994 p. 70 (S)
Surface Impoundment
"Surface Impoundment Leachate Collection and
Removal Systems" p. 12 (R)
Tank tightness testing
"Definition of Annual and 'Every Five Years' for
Purposes of Tank Tightness Testing" p. 27 (U)
TCLP
"Use of Total Waste Analysis in Toxicity
Characteristic Determinations" p. 15 (R)
Technically qualified individual
"Medical Exclusion Under EPCRA §§311/312 as it
Applies to Doctors' Offices and Pharmacies" p. 44
(E)
Test methods
"Use of Total Waste Analysis in Toxicity
Characteristic Determination" p. 15 (R)
Threshold planning quantities
59 ER 51821; October 12,1994 p. 74 (E)
Toxic chemical list
"Isomer Reporting Under EPCRA §313" p. 50 (E)
"Revisions to the Toxic Chemicals List Under
EPCRA §313" p. 49 (E)
Toxic chemicals
"Recycle/Reuse of Toxic Chemicals In Closed-Loop
Refrigeration Systems Under EPCRA §313" p. 48
(E)
Toxicity characteristic
"Use of Total Waste Analysis In Toxicity
Characteristic Determinations" p. 15 (R)
Toxic release Inventory (TRI)
"EPCRA §313 Reporting of Ammonia Processed in
Cheese Products" p. 51 (E)
"Isomer Reporting Under EPCRA §313" p. 50 (E)
"Recycle/Reuse of Toxic Chemicals In Closed-Loop
Refrigeration Systems Under EPCRA §313" p. 48
(E)
"Revisions to the Toxic Chemical List Under
EPCRA §313" p. 49 (E)
59 ER 29252; June 6,1994 p. 73 (E)
59 Eg 33205; June 28,1994 p. 74 (E)
59 ER 34386; July 5,1994 p. 74 (E)
59 ER 49888; September 30,1994 p. 73 (E)
59 ER 61432; November 30,2994 p. 75 (E)
59 ER 61488; November 30,1994 p. 75 (E)
LEGEND:
(E) = EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R) = RCRA (U) = UST
TPQ
"Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ)
Determination for Substances in Molten Form"
p.43(E)
Trade secrecy
59 FR 43048; August 22,1994 p. 74 (E)
Trust fund
"Leaking UST Trust Fund" p. 25 (U)
TSDF
59 FR 13891; March 24,1994 p. 59 (R)
59 FR 29958; June 10,1994 p. 61 (R)
59 FR 51523; October 12,1994 p. 56 (R)
59 FR 55778; November 8,1994 p. 57 (R)
59 FR 62896; December 6,1994 p. 64 (R)
U122
"Off-Specification Paraformaldehyde Meets the
Commercial Chemical Product Listing" p. 18 (R)
Unused formulations
"Unused Formulations Containing Sodium
Pentachlorophenate are F027" p. 20 (R)
Use constituting disposal
"Waste Minimization and Recycling Activities That
Resemble Conventional Waste Management
Practices" p. 9 (R)
59 FR 43496; August 24,1994 p. 62 (R)
Used oil
"Energy Recovery On-Site Constitutes Reuse for
the Generator Processing Exemption" p. 13 (R)
"Used Oil Storage Tank Bottoms: Hazardous Waste
or Used Oil When Burned for Energy Recovery?"
p. 14 (R)
59 FR 10550; March 4,1994 p. 59 (R)
Used oil storage tank bottoms
"Used Oil Storage Tank Bottoms: Hazardous Waste
or Used Oil When Burned for Energy Recovery?"
p. 14 (R)
UST
"Definition of Annual and 'Every Five Years' For
Purposes of Tank Tightness Testing" p. 27 (U)
"Leaking UST Trust Fund" p. 25 (U)
"Occurrence Definition for UST Financial
Responsibility" p. 25 (U)
'The Definition of 'Routinely Contains Product' for
UST Regulation" p. 28 (U)
59 FR 9604; February 28,1994 p. 65 (U)
59 FR 30448; June 13,1994 p. 65 (U)
59 FR 53955; October 27,1994 p. 65 (U)
Waste minimization
"Waste Minimization and Recycling Activities That
Resemble Conventional Waste Mangement
Practices" p. 9 (R)
Xylene
"Isomer Reporting Under EPCRA §313" p. 50 (E)
84
-------
REGULATORY CITATION INDEX
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
40 CFR Part 238 - Degradable Plastic Ring Carriers
59 FR 9866; March 1,1994 p. 58
40 CFR Part 247 - Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for Products Containing
Recovered Materials
59 FR 6231; February 10,1994 p. 55
59 FR 18852; April 20,1994 p. 55
40 CFR Part 258 - Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
59 FR 86; January 3,1994 p. 58
59 FR 10382; March 4,1994 p. 59
59 FR 10645; March 7,1994 p. 59
59 FR 17526; April 13,1994 p. 60
59 FR 28523; June 2,1994 p. 60
59 FR 30353; June 13,1994 p. 61
59 FR 35340; July 11,1994 p. 61
59 FR 42045; August 16,1994 p. 61
59 FR 44144; August 26,1994 p. 62
59 FR 51523; October 12,1994 p. 56
59 FR 52498; October 18,1994 p. 56
59 FR 58789; November 16,1994 p. 63
59 FR 65334; December 19,1994 p. 64
59 FR 66306; December 23,1994 p. 64
40 CFR Part 260 - Hazardous Waste Management System: General
"Delisting Petitions for Hazardous Wastes from the Petroleum Industry" p. 22
"Designating Exempt Recycling Facilities on the Manifest" p. 9
40 CFR Part 261 - Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste
"Biennial Reporting for Wastes Treated in Exempt Units" p. 5
"Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) Hazardous Waste Recycling
Facilities" p. 5
"K052: Bottoms from Tanks Storing Leaded Gasoline at Petroleum Refineries" p. 17
"Off-Specification Paraformaldehyde Meets Commercial Chemical Product Listing" p. 18
"Regeneration Versus Reclamation for Spent Lead-Acid Batteries" p. 11
"Status of Municipal Waste Combustion (MWC) Ash" p. 20
85
-------
"Technical Grade Solvent Formulations and the F003 Listing" p. 18
"Unused Formulations Containing Sodium Pentachlorophenate are F027" p. 20
"Use of Total Waste Analysis in Toxicity Characteristic Determinations" p. 15
"UST Remediation Wastes" p. 27
"Waste Minimization and Recycling Activities That Resemble Conventional Waste Management
Practices" p. 9
59 FR 458; January 4,1994 p. 58
59 FR 8362; February 18,1994 p. 58
59 JFR 9808; March 1,1994 p. 55
59 ER10550; March 4,1994 p. 59
59 FR 24530; May 11,1994 p. 55
59 FR 38288; July 27,1994 p. 56
59 FR 38536; July 28,1994 p. 61
59 FR 43496; August 24,1994 p. 62
59 FR 66072; December 22,1994 p. 57
59 FR 67256; December 29,1994 p. 57
40 CFR Part 262 - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste
"Biennial Reporting for Wastes Treated in Exempt Units" p. 5
"Containment Buildings as Generator Accumulation Units" p. 6
"Designating Exempt Recycling Facilities on the Manifest" p. 9
"Notification Requirements for Exported Wastes" p. 7
"Satellite Accumulation Standards as ARARs" p. 29
"Status of Municipal Waste Combustion (MWC) Ash" p. 20
"Waste Minimization and Recycling Activities That Resemble Conventional Waste Management
Practices" p. 9
40 CFR Parts 264/5 - Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)
"Elementary Neutralization Units Generating and Storing Non-Corrosive Hazardous Wastes"
p. 13
"Financial Assurance Cost Adjustments on a Quarterly Basis" p. 3
"GNP v. GDP for Cost Adjustments Under RCRA" p. 3
"Status of Municipal Waste Combustion (MWC) Ash" p. 20
"Surface Impoundment Leachate Collection and Removal Systems" p. 12
59 FR 13891; March 24,1994 p. 59
59 FR 28680; June 2,1994 p. 56
59 FR 29958; June 10,1994 p. 61
59 FR 51523; October 12,1994 p. 56
59 FR. 55778; November 8,1994 p. 57
59 FR 62896; December 6,1994 p. 64
40 CFR Part 266 - Standards for the Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and
Specific Types of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
"Regeneration Versus Reclamation for Spent Lead-Acid Batteries" p. 11
"Regulatory Status of Metals Recovery Under RCRA" p. 10
59 FR 43496; August 24,1994 p. 62
86
-------
40 CFR Part 268 - Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
59 FR 18813; April 20,1994 p. 60
59 FR 27546; May 27,1994 p. 60
59 FR 47980; September 19,1994 p. 63
59 FR 47982; September 19,1994 p. 63
40 CFR Part 270 - EPA Administered Permit Programs: The Hazardous Waste Permit
Program
"Permit Application and Renewal" p. 8
59 FR 28680; June 2,1994 p. 56
59 FR 62896 December 6,1994 p. 64
40 CFR Part 271 - Requirements for Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Programs
"59 FR 43290; August 23,1994 p. 62
"59 FR 45986; September 6,1994 p. 62
"59 FR 52918; October 20,1994 p. 63
40 CFR Part 273 - Standards for Special Collection System Wastes
59 FR 38288; July 27,1994 p. 56
40 CFR Part 279 - Standards for the Management of Used Oil
"Energy Recovery On-Site Constitutes Reuse for the Generator Processing Exemption" p. 13
"Used Oil Storage Tank Bottoms: Hazardous Waste or Used Oil When Burned for Energy
Recovery?" p. 14
59 FR 10550; March 4,1994 p. 59
87
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
40 CFR Part 280 - Underground Storage Tanks
"Definition of Annual and 'Every Five Years' for Purposes of Tank Tightness Testing" p. 27
"The Definition of 'Routinely Contains Product' for UST Regulation" p. 28
"Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund" p. 25
"Occurrence Definition for Underground Storage Tank (UST) Financial Responsibility" p. 25
"UST Remediation Wastes" p. 27
59 FR 9604; February 28,1994 p. 65
59 FR 29958; June 10,1994 p. 66
59 FR 30448; June 13,1994 p. 65
40 CFR Part 281 - Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Programs
59 FR 29201; June 6,1994 p. 65
59 FR 53955; October 27,1994 p. 65
40 CFR Part 282 - Approved Underground Storage Tank Programs
59 FR 49211; September 27,1994 p. 66
SUPERFUND (SF)
40 CFR Part 300 - National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan
"Consent Decrees: Assurance of Ability to Complete Work" p. 31
"Mineral Spirits and the CERCLA Definition of Hazardous Substance" p. 36
"National Priorities List Format" p. 38
"Public Participation Requirements for Administrative Settlements" p. 32
"Satellite Accumulation Standards as ARARs" p. 29
"Waiver of ARARs and Permits by Private Parties in CERCLA Response Actions" p. 30
88
-------
59 FR 25; January 3,1994 p. 68
59 FR 2568; January 18,1994 p. 67
59 FR 5109; February 3,1994 p. 68
59 FR 8724; February 23,1994 p. 69
59 FR 14262; March 25,1994 p. 69
59 FR 18600; April 19,1994 p. 69
59 FR 23098; May 4,1994 p. 67
59 FR 27989; May 31,1994 p. 69
59 FR 34070; July 1,1994 p. 70
59 FR 35852; July 14,1994 p. 70
59 FR 40319; August 8,1994 p. 67
59 FR 43291; August 23,1994 p. 70
59 FR 43314; August 23,1994 p. 68
59 FR 44633; August 30,1994 p. 70
59 FR 45628; September 2,1994 p. 71
59 FR 46254; September 8,1994 p. 71
59 FR 46569; September 9,1994 p. 71
59 FR 47384; September 15,1994 p. 71
59 FR 48178; September 20,1994 p. 72
59 FR 52749; October 19,1994 p. 68
59 FR 54830; November 2,1994 p. 72
59 FR 56409; November 14,1994 p. 72
59 FR 62506; December 16,1994 p. 72
40 CFR Part 302 - Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification
"Reportable Quantity Adjustments Under CERCLA and the CWA" p. 37
59 FR 9808; March 1,1994 p. 67
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
40 CFR Part 350 - Trade Secrecy Claims for Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Information: And Trade Secret Disclosures to Health
Professionals
59 FR 43048; August 22,1994 p. 74
40 CFR Part 355 - Emergency Planning and Notification
"Coincidental Production of Hazardous Chemicals Requires Reporting Under EPCRA §304" p. 41
"Description of the Terms 'Molten' and 'In Solution1 Under EPCRA §302" p. 43
"Notification Requirements for an Emergency Release on a Public Roadway" p. 42
"Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ) Determination for Substances in Molten Form" p. 43
89
-------
59 FR 51816; October 12,1994 p. 73
59 FR 51821; October 12,1994 p. 74
40 CFR Part 370 - Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Community Right-to-Know
"Aquaculture Exemption for EPCRA §§311 and 312" p. 45
"Medical Exclusion Under EPCRA §§311 and 312 as it Applies to Doctors' Offices and Pharmacies"
p.44
"MSDS Submission for Leaded and Unleaded Gasoline" p. 46
Taint Mixing and the Consumer Product Exemption" p. 47
"Submission of Data to On-Site Fire Departments Under EPCRA §§311 and 312" p. 47
40 CFR Part 372 - Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Community Right-to-Know
Section 372.3
"EPCRA §313 Reporting of Ammonia Processed in Cheese Products" p. 51
Section 372.65
"Isomer Reporting Under EPCRA §313" p. 50
"Revisions to the Toxic Chemical List Under EPCRA §313" p. 49
59 FR 29252; June 6,1994 p. 73
59 FR 33205; June 28,1994 p. 74
59 ER 34386; July 5,1994 p. 74
59 FR 49888; September 30,1994 p. 73
59 FR 61432; November 30,1994 p. 75
59 FR 61488; November 30,1994 p. 75
90
-------
STATUTORY CITATION INDEX
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Subtitle A - General Provisions
Section 1004 - Definitions
"Regeneration Versus Reclamation for Spent Lead-Acid Batteries" p. 11
59 FR 43496; August 24,1994 p. 62
Subtitle B - Office of Solid Waste; Authorities of the Administrator and
Interagency Coordinating Committee
Section 2004 - Grants for discarded tire disposal
59 FR 9866; March 1,1994 p. 58
Subtitle C - Hazardous Waste Management
Section 3001 - Identification and listing of hazardous waste
"Delisting Petitions for Hazardous Wastes From the Petroleum Industry" p. 22
"Designating Exempt Recycling Facilities on the Manifest" p. 9
"K052: Bottoms from Tanks Storing Leaded Gasoline at Petroleum Refineries" p. 17
"Off-Specification Paraformaldehyde Meets Commercial Chemical Product Listing" p. 18
"Status of Municipal Waste Combustion (MWC) Ash" p. 20
"Technical Grade Solvent Formulations and the F003 Listing" p. 18
"Unused Formulations Containing Sodium Pentachlorophenate are F027" p. 20
"Use of Total Waste Analysis in Toxicity Characteristic Determinations" p. 15
"UST Remediation Wastes" p. 27
59 FR 458; January 4,1994 p. 58
59 FR 8362; February 18,1994 p. 56
59 FR 9808; March 1,1994 p. 55
59 FR 10550; March 4,1994 p. 59
59 FR 24530; May 11,1994 p. 55
59 FR 38288; July 27,1994 p. 56
59 FR 38536; July 28,1994 p. 61
59 FR 66072; December 22,1994 p. 57
59 FR 67256; December 29,1994 p. 57
91
-------
Section 3002 - Standards applicable to generators of hazardous waste
"Biennial Reporting for Wastes Treated in Exempt Units" p. 5
"Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQG) Hazardous Waste Recycling
Facilities" p. 5
"Containment Buildings as Generator Accumulation Units" p. 6
"Designating Exempt Recycling Facilities on the Manifest" p. 9
"Notification Requirements for Exported Wastes" p. 7
"Status of Municipal Waste Combustion (MWC) Ash" p. 20
"Waste Minimization and Recycling Activities That Resemble Conventional Waste
Management Practices" p. 9
Section 3004 - Standards applicable to owners and operators of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
"Elementary Neutralization Units Generating and Storing Non-Corrosive Hazardous
Wastes" p. 13
"Financial Assurance Cost Adjustments on a Quarterly Basis" p. 3
"GNP v. GDP for Cost Adjustments Under RCRA" p. 3
"Regulatory Status of Metals Recovery Under RCRA" p. 10
"Status of Municipal Waste Combustion (MWC) Ash" p. 20
"Surface Impoundment Leachate Collection and Removal Systems" p. 12
59 FR13891; March 24,1994 p. 59
59 FR 18813; April 20,1994 p. 60
59 ER 27546; May 27,1994 p. 60
59 FR 28680; June 2,1994 p. 56
59 FR 29958; June 10,1994 p. 61
59 FR 47980; September 19,1994 p. 63
59 FR 47982; September 19,1994 p. 63
59 FR 51523; October 12,1994 p. 56
59 FR 55778; November 8,1994 p. 57
Section 3005 - Permits for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste
"Permit Application and Renewal" p. 8
"Surface Impoundment Leachate Collection and Removal Systems" p. 12
"Waste Minimization and Recycling Activities That Resemble Conventional Waste
Management Practices" p. 9
59 Eg 28680; June 2,1994 p. 56
Section 3006 - Authorized state hazardous waste programs
59 FR 43290; August 23,1994 p. 62
59 FR 45986; September 6,1994 p. 62
59 FR 52918; October 20,1994 p. 63
92
-------
Section 3014 - Restrictions on recycled oil
"Energy Recovery On-Site Constitutes Reuse for the Generator Processing Exemption" p. 13
"Used Oil Storage Tank Bottoms: Hazardous Waste or Used Oil When Burned for Energy
Recovery?" p. 14
59 FR 10550; March 4,1994 p. 59
Subtitle D - State or Regional Solid Waste Plans
59 FR 86; January 3,1994 p. 58
59 FR 10382; March 4,1994 p. 59
59 FR 10645; March 7,1994 p. 59
59 FR 17526; April 13,1994 p. 60
59 FR 28523; June 2,1994 p. 60
59 FR 30353; June 13,1994 p. 61
59 FR 35340; July 11,1994 p. 61
59 FR 42045; August 16,1994 p. 61
59 FR 44144; August 26,1994 p. 62
59 FR 51523; October 12,1994 p. 56
59 FR 52498; October 18,1994 p. 56
59 FR 58789; November 16,1994 p. 63
59 FR 65334; December 19,1994 p. 64
59 FR 66306; December 23,1994 p. 64
Subtitle F - Federal Responsibilities
Section 6002 - Federal procurement
59 FR 18852; April 20,1994 p. 55
93
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
SUBTITLE I, RCRA
Section 9003 - Release detection, prevention, and correction regulations
"Definition of Annual and 'Every Five Years' for Purposes of Tank Tightness Testing" p. 27
"The Definition of 'Routinely Contains Product' for UST Regulation" p. 28
"Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund" p. 25
"Occurrence Definition for Underground Storage Tank (UST) Financial Responsibility" p. 25
"UST Remediation Wastes" p. 27
59 FR 9604; February 28,1994 p. 65
59 FR. 29958; June 10,1994 p. 66
59 £R 30448; June 13,1994 p. 65
Section 9004 - Approval of State programs
59 FR 29201; June 6,1994 p. 65
59 FR 49211; September 27,1994 p. 66
59 FR 53955; October 27,1994 p. 65
SUPERFUND (SF)
Section 101 - Definitions
"Mineral Spirits and the CERCLA Definition of Hazardous Substance" p. 36
59 FR 9808; March 1,1994 p. 67
Section 102 - Reportable quantities and additional designations
"Reportable Quantity Adjustments Under CERCLA and the CWA" p. 37
94
-------
Section 104 - Response authorities
"Consent Decrees: Assurance of Ability to Complete Work" p. 31
Section 105 - National contingency plan
"National Priorities List Format" p. 38
59 FR 2568; January 18,1994 p. 67
59 FR 5109; February 3,1994 p. 68
59 FR 8724; February 23,1994 p. 69
59 FR 18600; April 19,1994 p. 69
59 FR 27989; May 31,1994 p. 69
59 FR 34070; July 1,1994 p. 70
59 FR 35852; July 14,1994 p. 70
59 FR 43291; August 23,1994 p. 70
59 FR 43314; August 23,1994 p. 68
59 FR 44633; August 30,1994 p. 70
59 FR 45628; September 2,1994 p. 71
59 FR 46254; September 8,1994 p. 71
59 FR 46569; September 9,1994 p. 71
59 FR 47384; September 15,1994 p. 71
59 FR 48178; September 20,1994 p. 71
59 FR 54830; November 2,1994 p. 72
59 FR 56409; November 14,1994 p. 72
59 FR 65206; December 16,1994 p. 72
Section 107 - Liability
59 FR 14262; March 25,1994 p. 69
59 FR 23098; May 4,1994 p. 67
59 FR 40319; August 8,1994 p. 67
59 FR 52749; October 19,1994 p. 68
Section 109 - Civil penalties and awards
59 FR 15020; March 30,1994 p. 69
Section 111 - Use of Fund
59 FR 25; January 3,1994 p. 68
Section 112 - Claims procedure
59 FR 25; January 3,1994 p. 68
Section 117 - Public participation
"Public Participation Requirements for Administrative Settlements" p. 32
95
-------
Section 121 - Cleanup standards
"Waivers of ARARs and Permits by Private Parties in CERCLA Response Actions" p. 30
Section 122 - Settlements
"Consent Decrees: Assurance of Ability to Complete Work" p. 31
"Public Participation Requirements for Administrative Settlements" p. 32
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
Section 301 - Establishment of state commissions, planning districts, and local
communities
"OSWER's Environmental Justice Initiative" p. 33
Section 302 - Substances and facilities covered and notification
"Description of the Terms 'Molten1 and 'In Solution' Under EPRA §302" p. 43
"Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ) Determination for Substances in Molten Form" p. 43
59 FR 51816; October 12,1994 p. 73
59 FR 51821; October 12,1994 p. 74
Section 303 - Comprehensive emergency response plans
59 FR 43048; August 22,1994 p. 74
Section 304 - Emergency notification
"Coincidental Production of Hazardous Chemicals Requires Reporting Under EPCRA §304"
p. 41
"Notification Requirements for an Emergency Release on a Public Roadway" p. 42
59 FR 51816; October 12,1994 p. 73
59 FR 51821; October 12,1994 p. 74
96
-------
Sections 311/312 - Material safety data sheets/emergency and hazardous
chemical inventory forms
"Aquaculture Exemption for EPCRA §§311 and 312" p. 45
"Medical Exclusion Under EPCRA §§311 and 312 as it Applies to Doctors' Offices and
Pharmacies" p. 44
"MSDS Submission for Leaded and Unleaded Gasoline" p. 46
"Paint Mixing and the Consumer Product Exemption" p. 47
"Submission of Data to On-Site Fire Departments Under EPCRA §§311 and 312" p. 47
59 FR 43048; August 22,1994 p. 74
Section 313 - Toxic chemical release forms (Form R)
"EPCRA §313 Reporting of Ammonia Processed in Cheese Products" p. 51
"Isomer Reporting Under EPCRA §313" p. 50
"Recycle/Reuse of Toxic Chemicals in Closed-Loop Refrigeration Systems Under EPCRA §313"
p. 48
"Revisions to the Toxic Chemical List Under EPCRA §313" p. 49
59 FR 29252;
59 FR 33205;
59 FR 34386;
59 FR 43048;
59 FR 49888;
59 FR 61432;
59 FR 61488;
June 6,1994 p. 73
June 28,1994 p. 74
July 5,1994 p. 74
August 22,1994 p. 74
September 30,1994 p. 73
November 30,1994 p. 75
November 30,1994 p. 75
Section 329 - Definitions
"Notification Requirements for an Emergency Release on a Public Roadway" p. 42
Clean Air Act
59 FR 4478; January 31,1994 p. 74
97
-------
-------
-------
------- |